Taking issue with any word with the word "man" in it is pretty dumb. Specifically "mankind" they suggest using the word "humankind". So if everyone starts using this word eventually slang will shorten it to "mankind" which means the same exact thing anyway...
This article is disgusting regardless of 'truth'. We are to the point now where we call a political assassination "successful" and spread the assassins' story as if there is/was just cause...
What really is the point of the article anyway? Abe wasn't perfect so he deserves to be murdered? The assassin had a good point? Really?
Maybe we should start seeing articles about the OKC bombing next.
Craigslist is likely in the best position it has been in years... They rolled out charging for service/job listing posts a few years ago and I am sure they make a ton of money.
Lots of people use craigslist regardless of Facebook marketplace or whatever else..
Because I am pretty sure it isn't true. I am one of the few people who used bitcoin on steam during this time and I don't remember it ever being instant. I would like to see clarification to the top point because I don't think it is true...
In my opinion when he says "fraudulent" he is probably talking about how people would use it to avoid bans. Steam would track banned users that remake accounts by checking their CC. They would also verify the people by making sure the address on the CC was close or the same to the address on the account.
With Bitcoin you could avoid any tracking from remaking an account which leads to more 'bad actors' using Bitcoin. For reference you needed to spend something like $5 - $10 to enable trading on the platform. From their people would phish, scam, and break the TOS on the account.
I used bitcoin all the time on steam and there was a time when they were using 1 conf but the majority of the time they used 0 conf with bitpay. Couldn't find anything official with a quick goog but here is a reddit comment from 5years ago corroborating 0 confs on steam: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6arpvq/comment/dhg...
It is possible I am incorrect then. I remember it always taking 5 - 10 minutes before any funds hit my account. I never actually counted the confirmations so it is very possible I am just wrong and they were doing 0 conf. At the same time I am surprised BitPay would have been structured this way and not experience a major attack...
Is that a rabbit hole you really want to jump down. Data can be biased and lead to incorrect conclusions. Best for you to not look at any statistics concerning race which leads to absolute false narratives.
Science is ever changing and evolving. We are becoming more clever with recognizing biases and separating correlation from causation. But it's never perfect
Every "booster" vaccination going into the arm of a low risk population is a vaccination that is being withheld from a vulnerable population in a less "privileged" country.
The WHO specifically recommended to hold off on boosters because developing nations still have not vaccinated their vulnerable populations yet.
This article (and argument) is the equivelant of saying "teenagers and senior citizens both cause more fatal accidents than any other age group. Obviously we need to ban them from the road because they are putting others at risk"
I know you're trying to make a reduction ad absurdum, but these are arguments that are actually made. For one, this is exactly the reason why we don't allow young people below a certain age to drive on public roads.
Furthermore, if I remember correctly, at least some jurisdictions have laws on the books that old drivers can have their licenses taken away if they are not able to operate a car safely anymore. I'm not sure if any jurisdictions require old drivers to actively demonstrate their competency in an exam or such, but I have definitely seen people argue for that idea.
I'm not opposed to it either, and in fact I would not age-gate it. If train drivers or airplane pilots are required to prove their competency on a regular basis, why should we not require car drivers to do the same, maybe every 5 or 10 years?
No. It's not. It would be similar, if you had a "potion", that people could drink to magically enhance their driving skill. This potion would have some possible rare negative side-effects. And then there is a question: should people be required to drink this potion while getting the driving pass?
Even today, very bad drivers are forbidden to drive the cars? Is it an attack on their freedom?
I mean you probably could run a study of caffeinated vs un-caffeinated drivers. Or Modafinil vs Un-Modafinil drivers and I imagine the results would be: the ones with the drug perform better than the ones without.
Expanding on this: I am sure more fatal accidents occur late at night than during the day. Do we bar night driving because of the risk?
Bigger cars cause more fatal accidents than smaller cars. Bar bigger cars from the road?
You can imagine the drug would help, sure. But that's it – your imagination. But yeah, if we assumed the Modafinil was indeed a proven "cure" against sleeping while driving, and it was given free, then the situation would have a similar structure as the one analyzed by the author. Obviously, they still differ significantly:
a) you would have probably to take Modafinil before each drive – vaccines have a more permanent effect
b) it is easier to track vaccinations than taking a drug, it's much more manageable.
This is not only a risk management game – your simplified "absurd" examples are of the kind: "author wants to bar risky situations, why not bar big cars, they're risky". One has also to weight various social factors/costs. If barring bigger cars from the road would be beneficial for society, then yeah, let's do it, but I wouldn't bet on that. The vaccinations have some added costs (production, distribution) and risks (side-effects), but the question is whether the cost/risk of the longer pandemic isn't even bigger (AFAIR it is). I don't say, that OP is right that people should be forced to be vaccinated, but I don't find it absurd given that we've already sacrificed many other freedoms for the society. It's like @mayewsky writes, we already bar some drivers (because of age/health state/previous offenses against the law) from driving. It's nothing new and it's not controversial AFAIK.
