I'm sorry, did you just in one breathe say we need payment processors to enforce an arbitrary morality and then in the next breathe criticize laissez-faire morality?
And what if, tomorrow, the payment processors capitulate with a new morality? They decide women politicians shouldn't be allowed to take donations, for instance?
Sex workers should be better supported and the markets cleansed via strict regulation of the labor and how it's treated, and strong unions.
Payment processors making a shady porn underground using backdoor finances, even more than it already is, will do nothing but make this problem worse.
Shameful that I respect women as equal adults who have a right to have autonomy, and desire strict laws to guarantee their safety alongside an organization of their own labor dedicated to their fair compensation and safe, respectable treatment?
Truly, the horror!
Is infantilizing women as incapable of making their own choices better? Should we also take away their credit cards because they just can't be trusted? Yes, reductio ad absurdum, but I hope you can see the point I'm making.
You rate limit loans to mitigate harm potential, you don't ban them outright.
Most manual labor takes a toll on the body, so we make OSHA and do our best to make sure employers are minimizing how bad it gets. You don't ban manual labor.
Sex, and porn, are normal affairs. Protect the people involved and elevate the working class. Don't drive them into an even shadier, less controlled market.
Unfortunately, I'm fully aware I can't convince you.
Really? Most blue collar labor essentially involves selling your body in much worse ways, taking many good years off one’s life in a lot of cases, especially compared to selling sex videos on OnlyFans, or engaging in legal, regulated, protected prostitution. It is essentially commodifying human bodies, do you have a moral issue with this as well?
I advocate for a moral system in which each individual has total ownership of their body and can do with it and put into it what they want, for the most part. There are always edge cases, and I of course cannot account for them all, so it is more of a rule of thumb. If someone is doing something that is not hurting me or anyone else, it’s not my fucking business.
You advocate for taking ownership over women’s bodies, because clearly you know best apparently?
You advocate for the total atomization of society down to lone individuals whose sole moral precept is not to harm each other during free economic exchanges.
The game theory of this social theory is badly flawed. People who adhere to it will always serve those who form groups and enforce in-out distinctions.
Maybe even today an LLM is better than hearing about what the bill contains from social media reposts. The more the actual text is accessible the better (and accessible is not just technically accessible, but also understandable to the reader).
Without landlords we wouldn’t have a chunk of the housing supply held captive as investment, driving costs out of reach for most of the non-HN-reading audience.
> Without landlords we wouldn’t have a chunk of the housing supply held captive as investment, driving costs out of reach for most of the non-HN-reading audience.
That isn't caused by landlords, it's caused by zoning boards.
Suppose you have a city with a growing population. Then you need someone to pay construction companies to build more housing. When the new residents can afford a down payment, they pay the construction company themselves by taking out a mortgage. When they can't, a landlord does it, or else who? The tenant doesn't have a down payment and needs somewhere to live. The somewhere to live doesn't exist unless someone pays the construction company.
The problem only comes when the zoning board stops the construction company from increasing the housing supply. Then a landlord who wants to invest in property has to buy existing property instead of causing more to be created. This is the actual problem.
It doesn't matter if landlords want to fund the creation of lots of new housing by supplying capital to pay for it. That's even good. It's only when the creation of new housing is inhibited that things go sour.
I worked at the lab. “Modernist” was chosen from what I remember because he didn’t like “molecular gastronomy”, which is what everyone was calling texture manipulations and laboratory techniques applied to food at the time, and to differentiate it from “classical” cooking - the Escoffier through Marco Pierre White era basically.
We cooked a lot of dishes from the book for special events, but it was often the same lot of dishes over and over. Writing the recipes was an absolute pain in the ass (I was a cook, I was not used to documenting things in a lab manual), and I absolutely believe lots of hidden variables got lost - again, while there were lab-trained chefs there - Chris I believe had a background in biology or something - us grunts were line cooks beforehand.
How is this proof of anything except using guano as a fertilizer is maybe not a good idea? The “cannabis” portion is completely irrelevant and is there for clicks.
Unpasturised milk does not contain (sufficient) lactase needed to break down lactose. You are welcome to cite any credible research that says otherwise.
