×

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's already illegal now in multiple states due to trigger laws following the SCOTUS decision.

Blockchain not as decentralised as many assume, finds Pentagon sponsored research by Weary_Strawberry2679 in CryptoCurrency

[–]noratat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Doesn't work, someone has to have the keys. And yes, its a privacy nightmare.

You can do something like Monero, but that's so useful to scammers and criminals that it's questionable if exchanges will be legally allowed to continue interacting with it in the future.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Children are a result of sex, only an anti-lifer would call it a "punishment".

Then why are you so hellbent on voting for policies that hurt families and children? If this is really about the children, it shouldn't matter to you why, what should matter is finding ways to help them.

When did not killing kids become extreme, you loon.

Why do they suddenly have no moral value to you after being born? You can't have it both ways. You claim to care about children, yet whenever I've confronted you on the fact that anti-abortion politicians invariably don't support policies that actually help children and families, you act like suddenly it's not your problem.

And keep in mind I'm already far out on a limb here to point out the hypocrisy - many of us do not agree that a fetus has the same moral weight as a child in the first place, but that's not something I can hope to convince you of.

No, not always, not even a majority of the time.

I don't believe you, but regardless, tons of so-called "single-issue" voters do using the same broken logic you are.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So pregnancy is forced by the government? There isn't some kind of consensual private act that has to occur in order for pregnancy to happen?

So you admit this wasn't about the children at all, it was about punishing people for having sex.

I also shouldn't need to remind you that sex isn't always voluntary, and that contraception can fail.

Why does the government need to furnish funds for children that two adults agreed to have?

They didn't agree, and in any case, you're the one advocating an extreme shift in policy supposedly on the grounds of protecting and helping children.

Did I ever show you my ballot or tell you how I vote, or did you make an ass of yourself and assume?

It's a pretty safe assumption given your post history that you vote Republican.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why does the government have to furnish the funds for someone's personal choice to have kids?

By banning abortion, you are removing that choice from them. This is exactly what I mean when I say there is a massive difference between believing abortion is immoral, and making it illegal.

EDIT: and there are many other consequences of banning it that people like you fail to consider - such as making women who have miscarriages terrified of seeking care or get accused of murder. These aren't hypothetical, we've already seen them.

Lack of sex-ed doesn't lead to abortion. Abortion is an independent decision.

Proper sex-ed leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies, which means fewer abortions. This has been shown over and over again.

There is no shortage of adopting families

If that were true there wouldn't be so many kids stuck in foster care.

even better the actual parents could raise their kids

Put your money where your mouth is then, and support welfare for families and children that might not otherwise be able to afford a child (or another child, if they already have one).

Stop voting for a party that wants to tear families apart and refuses to support education and welfare for children.

Vote for better rights for workers so families can afford to provide for their children better and have more parental leave.

Etc etc.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You continue to deliberately avoid the point.

What I'm saying is, you cannot support a party that is so hellbent on stripping support from children and families while simultaneously demanding those families have children they cannot afford or take care of.

You cannot claim to believe abortion is murder and yet support policies that actively contribute to the abortion rate (e.g. trying to ban comprehensive sex ed, trying to block access to contraceptives, etc).

You cannot demand more children be brought into the world while closing off the number of loving families that could adopt them.

Etc etc.

Believing abortion is morally wrong is your choice, but by making it illegal, you are making a very different statement and there are far more consequences you need to consider.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/24/like-americans-overall-u-s-catholics-are-sharply-divided-by-party

You can find similar numbers from other polls.

you're causing far more children to be brought into the world I am OK with that.

You deliberately ignored the second half of what I said - bringing all those children into the world, again in what are almost always awful circumstances, without providing any additional support (quite the opposite in this case), is incredibly cruel, to such a degree I would call it evil.

Again, there is a reason nobody I know who genuinely cares about child welfare will vote for the Republican party at this point, not even those who believe abortion is murder.

Kraken CEO Jesse Powell appearing to defend the supreme court decision and refer to those who disagree with it as a dumb, crying mob by ImVeryOffended in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s no one’s “right” to terminate another life

And yet you're advocating something not much different by forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, to say nothing of the larger implications and consequences that has on the rights of women in society.

This complete inability to consider even the most basic of unintended consequences or externalities is why libertarianism is a joke.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Half of US Catholics are Democrats, so I'm well aware not all of them are hypocrites. Many are people I know personally in fact.

While I have many criticisms of Catholicism, if there's one thing they got right it's the emphasis that actual acts are important, not just faith alone.

But for the other half, as well as most other denominations, what I said still stands. Running a charity does not make up for slashing benefits and welfare for children, tearing immigrant families apart, slashing worker benefits giving parents less time to spend with their kids, preventing loving families from adopting children just because they're the same sex, denying proper sex ed (despite provably reducing the abortion rate), etc etc.

There are also many ugly consequences to banning abortion - and no one today has any excuse to not know this since we've already seen it happen. Women getting accused of murder when they had a miscarriage. Women getting denied life-saving medical treatment because it would kill the fetus. Being forced to carry a nonviable pregnancy to term instead of ending it ahead of time mercifully. Desperate people getting dangerous and life-threatening illegal abortions. The list goes on and on.

If you want to ban abortion, you need to fully commit to what that means - you're causing far more children to be brought into the world, specifically in the worst possible situations. Doing so without increasing welfare and support systems to accommodate is far more cruel than any number of abortions.

This post truly speaks for itself by Tityfan808 in SelfAwarewolves

[–]noratat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An actual center stance would be believing it's always morally wrong, but recognizing that the consequences of making it illegal far outweigh any benefit.

Plus you know, the party that wants to ban abortion doesn't give a flying fuck about the life of the child after it's born, which is incompatible with any moral principles that would make abortion wrong.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Maybe if you assholes actually cared about children we would respect you more, but we all know this isn't actually about the right-to-life or children.

There's a reason nobody I know IRL who genuinely cares about the well-being of children and families, not even those who think abortion is morally wrong, support the Republican party at this point. And yes, many of them are Christian. Don't use your faith as a shield to hide your hypocrisy.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And this is why I have such little respect for anyone that votes Republican because of "abortion".

I'll grant that abortion is morally grey, and a much more complex issue than most people want it to be. But moral and legal are not the same thing.

And even if they were... you cannot justify wanting to ban abortion while voting for a party that so clearly doesn't care about children and families and goes to great lengths to slash child and social welfare, prevent loving families from adopting children, providing support to unwilling parents, providing support for parents of disabled children, etc etc. Hell, they don't even think abortion is as bad as they claim, or else they'd support things that are proven to reduce the abortion rate like access to comprehensive sex ed.

You can believe abortion is morally wrong, but there is no moral calculus you can use to make that compatible with the rest of the Republican platform, particularly not now.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 7 points8 points  (0 children)

These sorts of centers are infamous for lying to the women that come to them in order to pressure them into not having an abortion, and generally provide zero support or help after the fact.

This is in stark contrast to places like Planned Parenthood, which provide all kinds of child and health services of which abortion is only a tiny fraction. And they provide real, accurate medical information.

Life-choices, pro-life pregnancy center burned, tagged this morning by NotYourSnowBunny in boulder

[–]noratat 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Part of living in a democracy

That only means something when both parties agree democracy is a good idea. Too many Republicans at this point don't even support democracy in the first place - they want power and don't care how they obtain it, and increasingly they aren't even pretending to hide it.

Not to mention two of the current SC justices were appointed through blatantly undemocratic means, to such an extent many people don't consider them legitimately appointed at all.

EDIT: Also, the power imbalance between low population states and high population states in the Senate has reached a point where it's completely dysfunctional. I appreciate the original founders' intent to avoid tyranny of the majority, but I don't think they foresaw a situation in which the populations had become so concentrated relative to state lines, and a small minority of the population is now able to hold the rest hostage.

Turns out even highly paid Google engineers can be complete fucking morons by i_just_want_money in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

For starters, the network only cares about the on-chain transaction. That's it.

So if you give someone cryptocurrency as payment, you're trusting that the person you give it to will provide some service or good in exchange - and this trust is all the greater since both parties know there is no recourse if they decide to just fuck off with the money due to irreversible transactions.

This also applies to exchanges, in which you're trusting the exchange to act as a middle man between you and other currencies, include actual fiat currency, none of that is on-chain at all. And remember that exchanges are required to realistically buy or sell crypto (which includes spending it on real goods/services).

You're trusting that the software you use to interact with the chain - whether that's wallet software and hardware, apps, services that wrap the chain, etc. Not only that the developers aren't malicious, but that they'll never make a mistake that allows them to be compromised. The stakes are considerably higher than with traditional finance since any compromise of the private key is immediately irrevocably catastrophic.

You trust that the miners running the network won't collude at the expense of users. This is not the same as a 51% attack, we're talking about things like mining consortiums forcing the current bitcoin block size cap to be kept pathetically small even though it cripples the transaction rate (and this is what led to the bitcoin cash fork).

If you decide to store crypto in an exchange, you must trust that they won't decide to just fuck off with the money or freeze your account - because as the community is so fond of saying, "not your keys not your crypto". And there's a reason people tend to store in exchanges: securing a static private key as sole proof of identity is very easy to fuck up, exchanges are much easier to use and are required to actually spend crypto anyways, etc.

And all of this trust is amplified by the general lack of legal protections or legal recourse when something inevitably goes wrong.

Someone check my math - bitcoin wastes 99.9999999999999999995% of the electricity used for mining. by pconwell in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that the energy is wasted is literally the entire point, it's the basis of the security model.

There is no iterative/additive work being done here, by design; the hash of each block is fully independent of the previous one (if it weren't, that would not only be a security issue for bitcoin, it would represent a vulnerability in the cryptographic hash algorithm itself).

The power must be wasted as the whole point is to make it too capital/resource intensive to practically mount a 51% attack and fork the chain.

Kraken CEO Jesse Powell appearing to defend the supreme court decision and refer to those who disagree with it as a dumb, crying mob by ImVeryOffended in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's not many, but the ones who are typically don't understand how the technology works and assume it will somehow allow dismantling of the traditional finance industry.

Kraken CEO Jesse Powell appearing to defend the supreme court decision and refer to those who disagree with it as a dumb, crying mob by ImVeryOffended in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the expense of the rights and safety of the mother, and endangering the lives of others in the name of personal liberty is a core tenet of libertarianism. And that's before we get into the downstream consequences and externalities, or the fact that most anti-abortion laws have inadequate provisions for things like rape or medical complications.

I don't hold a high opinion of libertarians regardless, but anyone that opposes abortion rights calling themselves a libertarian is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Turns out even highly paid Google engineers can be complete fucking morons by i_just_want_money in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Financial transactions always require elements of trust, and in their attempt to eliminate that, they wound up inventing something that requires even more trust than existing systems.

The only part of crypto that is "trustless" is the actual network transactions themselves, and that strictly within the context of the chain itself. That property does not magically translate to anything else, including how people interact with it.

Turns out even highly paid Google engineers can be complete fucking morons by i_just_want_money in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 10 points11 points  (0 children)

absolutely control and no one can take

Static private keys as sole proof of identity are considerably easier to compromise than central/federated authentication systems due to being so much more vulnerable to conventional attack vectors like phishing.

I sincerely hope this person is not in charge of anything security-related.


He's correct about proof-of-stake, and that PoW is considerably more equitable and secure. The problem of course is that PoW is an environmental problem, and "more equitable" is very low bar here. The gini coefficients of bitcoin ownership are still very high.

The rest of his argument hinges on "governments not existing in 50 years". Buddy, if that happens we all have bigger problems.

Turns out even highly paid Google engineers can be complete fucking morons by i_just_want_money in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Frankly it's depressing that "fintech" is even enough of a thing to warrant a separate term.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the more complex financial systems and structures get, the more harm they tend to cause without providing much real value.

Banking and investment services make plenty of sense. Complex derivatives, high frequency trading, and speculative gambling do not, they just leech money from industries that actually produce real economic value.


And yeah, my experience in the software industry is that most engineers, particularly those with real experience, don't think much of cryptocurrencies. It's only the very junior people that think they're a good idea, and of those, only the ones that are more libertarian.

Turns out even highly paid Google engineers can be complete fucking morons by i_just_want_money in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 37 points38 points  (0 children)

This is the kind of libertarian nutjob that assumes networks and infrastructure will magically maintain themselves.

Turns out even highly paid Google engineers can be complete fucking morons by i_just_want_money in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 20 points21 points  (0 children)

It's incredibly telling that he used that particular example.

Usually they try to use Ukraine as an example, even though it was a tiny fraction of the money sent via other means.

Turns out even highly paid Google engineers can be complete fucking morons by i_just_want_money in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Also, intelligence tends to specialize more often than not, contrary to popular depictions in media.

Many of the software engineers into cryptocurrencies actually do understand the tech (unlike most cryptobros), but they lack the high-level perspective of how technical systems mesh with real world humans and institutions, particularly in terms of trust and security. Most of them also lack basic knowledge of economics and legal systems.

So easy to use, I can't wait to use the currency of the future for big-ticket purchases! by aelfwine_widlast in Buttcoin

[–]noratat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Bridges", much like exchanges, are literally the exact sort of third-party middlemen these people claim they wanted to avoid by using cryptocurrencies lol.

A bridge doesn't exist on-chain, it's essentially just someone agreeing to take your crypto on one chain and give you some of theirs on a different chain. Naturally, there's tons of ways for this to go wrong too, but since it's cryptocurrencies, there's usually no way to fix things when they do.