How does the Canadian government know the wallet addresses?
My assumption is that they are actively searching the financials of donors who transferred money to those addresses?
However, on the bitcoin side, what stops you from transferring your balance to a new address that isn't on the list? So this is about as effective as an ashtray on a motorcycle?
>How does the Canadian government know the wallet addresses?
These so-called 'wallets' are cryptocurrency addresses for receiving donations. Therefore they had to be made public knowledge so that people can donate to them.
>what stops you from transferring your balance to a new address that isn't on the list?
Probably nothing. Anyone who has the private key can do that, and possibly has plausible deniability. The money can no longer be moved through any Canadian exchange though, because the exchange will freeze it, according to this government order.
If you're dumb enough to just transfer from a sanctioned wallet to an unsanctioned one, then use that, you will likely be found guilty of contempt of court and sanctions evasion. Since the BTC Blockchain is public this is very obvious to anyone with an internet connection.
You could use a laundry to try and "sneak" out. But that is difficult unless you pay a lot (50%?).
Trudeau declared an emergency and invoked an act that allows him to sanction these accounts and do other things without a court order at all, contempt of court is unlikely. If they had evidence to seize the money that would pass a court it would have already been in front of one. Trudeau has declared this a war-level emergency and he needs to suspend civil rights to maintain the sovereignty of the country. It would be laughable if it wasn't such a drastic infringement and suspension of rights in the face of a protest.
Trying to work around sanctions tends to lead to you violating a variety of laws around the world, anything from money laundering to bank fraud.
Why bank fraud? No bank will want funds originating from Canadian-sanctioned bitcoins, people holding these funds will almost inevitably have to defraud someone in order to cash them out.
> I'm not sure what I'm missing.
Regular bank transfers can work around sanctions too, governments have to do a lot of work to track the activities of those trying to work around sanctions.
Sanctions are a tool you use against your adversaries who are usually located in unfriendly countries, they are expected to be difficult to enforce.
In this case the people holding the private keys to the sanctioned addresses are probably located in the US, the DOJ will not look kindly on them.
Bullshit. Third world banks still care about where your money comes from, they have more than just their own government to answer to. If you lie to the bank about the origins of the money, you’re almost certainly violating the law.
Sure, you can probably get physical cash in some third world country. Good luck financing protests in Canada with that.
> Third world banks still care about where your money comes from
They care even less than banks used by mobs owning half of Piccadilly, and those are not third world banks, but first world's most biggest, and most powerful ones.
> you’re almost certainly violating the law.
At least in Russia, you aren't. No provable damages = no charge. And even if it is, only "aggravated, and particularly large fraud" carries a criminal sentence.
> Good luck financing protests in Canada with that.
If you haven't been reading news as of last half a decade, "money in bags" worked spectacularly well for KGB financing political opposition in the West.
> They care even less than banks used by mobs owning half of Piccadilly, and those are not third world banks, but first world's most biggest, and most powrful ones
Apples and oranges. Truck protestors are nothing like the ”mobs” you speak of.
> At least in Russia, you aren't. No provable damages = no charge. And even if it is, only "aggravated, and particularly large fraud" carries a criminal sentence.
Even if that’s the whole story, you still haven’t solved the problem of getting the money out of Russia.
> If you haven't been reading news as of last half a decade, "money in bags" worked spectacularly well for KGB financing political opposition in the West.
The KGB has not even existed for multiple decades.
When I was growing up here in the US, to me the Royal Canadian Mounted Police always had an aura of honor. Those days are gone. Civil disobedience in Canada today means you may have your money removed from your account by law enforcement unless you cave and fall in line.
It's always been the case that banks had the ability to seize funds, what is new with this Emergency Order is that banks can now seize personal funds without evidence, based purely on suspicion and without legal liability if this power is abused. Those whose assets are frozen also have no recourse through the courts or due process of any kind. The implications are chilling and are very likely to result in Canadian banks losing business and reputation/credibility.
>When I was growing up here in the US, to me the Royal Canadian Mounted Police always had an aura of honor. Those days are gone. Civil disobedience in Canada today means you may have your money removed from your account by law enforcement unless you cave and fall in line.
The protesters have been quite public about how well the police have treated them. The police have at least to date done nothing wrong. So I would not go to the extent to say the RCMP's honour has been harmed at all. Those days aren't gone.
However, this is the problem. Since the police have not been able to end the protest because of charter rights. This forced Trudeau's hand to declare martial law, but any and all peaceful protesters whose rights are infringed will be receiving compensation as per the emergency act.
>The police have at least to date done nothing wrong.
The complaint this time isn't about the police using unnecessary force to brutalize the public. Our complaint is that they haven't upheld the law, and are acting like 'buddies' with the people that they are supposed to be ticketing/incarcerating.
>The complaint this time isn't about the police using unnecessary force to brutalize the public. Our complaint is that they haven't upheld the law, and are acting like 'buddies' with the people that they are supposed to be ticketing/incarcerating.
What law have they not upheld? Some microscopic municipal bylaws? Can a municipal government create bylaws to criminalize peaceful assembly? I guess I have my answer, the Ottawa police says no.
>What law have they not upheld? Some microscopic municipal bylaws?
After googling it for 1 second:
Ontario Highway Traffic Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 at section 132
132 (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven on a highway at such a slow rate of speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic thereon except when the slow rate of speed is necessary for safe operation having regard to all the circumstances.
There are more violations that apply to the truck drivers then general public too.
>This forced Trudeau's hand to declare martial law, but any and all peaceful protesters whose rights are infringed will be receiving compensation as per the emergency act.
He wasn't forced to do anything, it was his choice, against the wishes of many premiers.
Trudeau should have done what he did with the 2020 train blockade protests. Met with the protestors, had a dialogue about the issues (mandates) and come to a compromise conclusion.
>Trudeau should have done what he did with the 2020 train blockade protests. Met with the protestors, had a dialogue about the issues (mandates) and come to a compromise conclusion.
I totally agree with you there. What happened to the Trudeau who would talk to anyone at town halls.
That's exactly what Melissa Lantsman asked right before Trudeau called her a nazi.
RCMP? They have nothing to do with enforcement in the City of Ottawa (local cops), the brief protest at Quebec City (also local cops), two brief weekend protests in Vancouver (local cops), or the multi-day border closure at Windsor (local cops).
The RCMP do have enforcement duties at the Alberta border crossing and BC border crossing, both now open.
Judging RCMP for the inactions of a useless Ottawa city police force is inaccurate and misleading.
>Interesting. This is the first I've heard of that.
Gotta remember, Trudeau's father declared martial law during the october crisis. There were literally bombs going off, people dying, and I will say there was an emergency then. However, after that because of human rights abuses during that martial law. They scrapped it and replaced it with the emergency act which explicitly requires the government to maintain human rights.
Moreover, in the act, anything the government seizes must be returned to the people. The government doesn't get to just take your things.
The politicians writing the emergency act knew that future governments exercising the emergency act will infringe upon rights. So compensation is to be expected.
Now you have a problem. Any peaceful protesters can stick around and when they get arrested and removed from the area. They get nice retirement fund boosts from the government. So why would you even consider leaving if you want to leave?
The phrase "declare martial law" is 100% misinformation and I wish Americans and/or other interested worldwide observers that do not understand our Emergencies Act that was invoked would stop treating it like so.
>The phrase "declare martial law" is 100% misinformation and I wish Americans and/or other interested worldwide observers that do not understand our Emergencies Act that was invoked would stop treating it like so.
>You are clearly biased and there's no possible way we can have a discussion. Enjoy your day.
Sorry you feel that way. Thanks, you enjoy your day as well.
Oh before you go, if you read the link I provided(section 46). The emergency act specifically disallows charter rights to be violated. So the accounts they have seized already? Under Section 6 of the Charter of unreasonable search and seizure? Ya the government will now be paying them compensation for violating their rights.
I should have said "agenda" rather than biased, sorry.
I'm very aware of our Charter, thank you very much. I recommend reading section 1 of the charter and understanding what reasonable means in the context of section 8 (not 6 as in your comment) from the Canadian legal perspective.
>I'm very aware of our Charter, thank you very much. I recommend reading section 1 of the charter and understanding what reasonable means in the context of section 8 (not 6 as in your comment) from the Canadian legal perspective.
You're right, section 8.
There is to date no section 1 limitations or exemptions to peaceful assembly nor search and seizure.
Something that has been quite interesting is how many lawyers are frothing at the mouth right now. The emergencies act is going from academic to case law. Never before and there's clear charter right violations at the same time as the act being misused.
>I should have said "agenda" rather than biased, sorry.
I am very biased. I believe in charter rights that have been enshrined and defined by international treaty.
The reality that after years of covid restrictions impacting our rights. It's time, like the rest of the world, to return our rights. This protest was inevitable at the reasonable end of the pandemic.
Trudeau should have taken advice from his own party and not vilified the protest quite wrongly. Spoke with them, provided a roadmap to the exit. Instead here we are with charter right abuses and martial law
Banks pretty well everywhere have long had the ability to freeze funds for a variety of offenses without due process.
It's usually sold as a benefit to the consumer (it protects against fraud is the usual claim) but this isn't new. All kinds of transactions can trip automated detection systems leading to account freezes.
I agree that without a court order it's shady but it's not as though this is really that new. The primary change in the legislation is pushing banks to freeze and report the accounts to the agency responsible for dealing with money laundering.
Do I agree with it? Not entirely. However it's not a new thing and exists in widespread use in most of the world in one form or other.
They're probably just referring to the (historically decreasing) variance in time between blocks, nominally 10 minutes. Not an outage by any stretch but occasionally annoying. It's smoother in higher frequency blockchains.
>The only reason this story exists is a bunch of conspiracy theories.
Unprecedented times being under martial law and the government saying they'll seize political opponent bank accounts. Conspiracy theories aren't even needed when it's publicly showed on the media's frontpage.
>If it happened any other time (and it does) it would be a normal network failure.
No other outage can be connected here. So we can't blame an AWS outage.
Can you to show ANY other time when Canadian banks went down together like this.
You seem to be under the impression this 1) is a vast coordinated operation, 2) is somehow reliable info and 3) unaware of how often Canadian banks go down.
Users do the bulk of the flagging, your comment was almost certainly flagged by other users for, among other things, the obvious use of one of the oldest categorized bits of messageboard flame-baiting:
>Users do the bulk of the flagging, your comment was almost certainly flagged by other users for, among other things, the obvious use of one of the oldest categorized bits of messageboard flame-baiting:
Well, I remain punished. While a very hot subject, not being able to discuss shocking and extreme issues based on 'flamebait' will only prevent needed discussion.
Here's the thing. I dont think Trudeau is hitler. My post does not call him hitler. If anything, we got to the point where both sides of politics are calling each other hitler. What an absolute disaster.
"I didn't call him Hitler, I just brought up a bunch of other people calling him Hitler" is still plainly a baity Godwining (via the rule of goats, if you will) and people sensibly nuked your comment. You can talk about hot subjects, just not like that.
Godot has me so excited. Finally a good open source python(like) engine with all the bells and whistles.
I have only done the tutorials for godot. Not even trying to start my own project. The real caveat for me on video game programming. The programming isn't the problem. It has everything to do with 3d modeling, texturing, etc.
I kind of dream about starting my own video game project up using godot, stream on twitch/youtube making it so I could get some revenue going. Kind of what star citizen wanted to be, starfield will likely be, with my own take. Kind of a skyrim meets han solo meets the martian meets chess meets piano meets metasploit.
But I really hold back because family to feed, diapers to buy, mortgage to pay. Boring game dev streaming like that won't be paying those bills.
Just get a cheap/free 3d asset pack from itch.io and go nuts. It helps to know some concepts about 3d like UVs, normal/AO/specular etc maps, triplanar mapping, vertex colouring etc. but other than learning a bunch of new words it's not that difficult. But making 3d assets yourself is super time consuming.
There's also a lot you can do with 2d pixel art assets in 3d if you like a retro style. Godot has (Animated)Sprite3D which makes it very easy.
Though it may be fun, setting up a whole streaming platform and engaging an audience is a whole shitload of extra work on top of the actual gamedev, so if you have limited time best to really truly treat it as a hobby and squeeze in an hour or two on certain evenings or something.
>Just get a cheap/free 3d asset pack from itch.io and go nuts. It helps to know some concepts about 3d like UVs, normal/AO/specular etc maps, triplanar mapping, vertex colouring etc. but other than learning a bunch of new words it's not that difficult. But making 3d assets yourself is super time consuming.
Oh for sure. I've been 3d modeling for years. I'm big into cad and 3d printing, I used to know blender decently until they moved everything on me in a recently big release. Really should have taught myself shortcuts lol.
>Though it may be fun, setting up a whole streaming platform and engaging an audience is a whole shitload of extra work on top of the actual gamedev, so if you have limited time best to really truly treat it as a hobby and squeeze in an hour or two on certain evenings or something.
Gotta pay the bills. Without those options, where does one make enough money?
My big feature I would be supporting 100000% is BCI. Being able to play without keyboard/mouse/pad just your brain.
The game wouldn't be super serious. Kind of TF2 style where it's more casual. Robot's would pick between 'binary and non-binary' for their gender lol, tongue in cheek joking obviously.
I think there would be a factor of trying to build teams as well. Han Solo isn't Han Solo without Chewbacca. So obviously at least co-op to start.
But alas, as I said. On hold until a million $ lands in my backyard.
>A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing.
Perhaps we need to discuss new terminology. Let's not discuss the point of view where immunocompromised people mean a vaccine doesn't work.
>The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history
I will concede this. I never said this in the post you replied to, but it is something I have said previously. I will admit I was misinformed or brainbroken.
I think the point stands however. IF there's a class of vaccines which prevent infection. These are different from a vaccine which basically does nothing more than tylenol.
So what should we do? Leave vaccine as a pretty weak word that includes prophylactic vaccines or do we redefine prophylactic vaccines to be something else?
It's only half revisionism. They really did "change the definition" in some sources, but we had all accepted antigen vaccines that only prevent symptoms already. No one was saying "according to the dictionary, the tetanus shot technically isn't a vaccine!", as far as I know.
I mean, the CDC literally did change their definition. From the Miami Herald: “Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”
I think the issue is that before COVID we didn’t bother with vaccines unless they provided immunity. Immunity is what the vaccines largely provided until Delta came along, and now with Omicron that aspect is even worse.
The flu vaccine was always a gamble but it hoped to provide immunity - other than that I can’t think of many. The shingles vaccines, I guess?
I honestly think the vaccine developers should be getting grilled for their decision not to try and make a Delta vaccine. Their decision process is pretty clear - they’d get to sell more doses of their vaccine without any R&D costs. Maybe they figured the next variant would come along before it mattered, but they had no way of knowing if that was going to be a variant of the Delta strain anyways.
The medical definition of "immunity" is a scale rather than a switch. You can have immunity and still have some form of the disease. I think they genuinely edited that to not confuse people.
These vaccines are not sterilizing though, which is what's required to stop infection. They 100% lied about that. Cue: The Biden administration saying "if you get vaccinated you will not get Covid".
I'm honestly surprised I'm just finding this out now, the combination of lies and legitimate updates got me confused as fuck.
I can see where people are coming from with that CDC wording change, but I don’t really think “protection” vs “immunity” is inconsistent with the idea of vaccines sometimes just reducing the effects of an infection.
On the delta specific vaccine, I thought they did develop a tailored shot and go through trials? I’m not sure it really mattered, the early research on omicron specific boosters seems to be finding that they’re not any better than the original formulation: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00003-y
It sounds like we’re maybe running in to the problem of original antigenic sin? I wonder if variant vaccines that target something other than the spike protein would work better in those already vaccinated for that reason.
The flu vaccine (and other vaccines) only stimulate an IgG reaction (the immune cells that protect most of your body excluding your upper respiratory tract).
Getting the flu or any other disease your vaccinated against in your upper respiratory tract has always been a risk, but IgA cells usually knock this out of your upper respiratory tract in 1 to 3 days for viral infections, and you avoid getting an infection in the lungs which could cause pneumonia.
There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
EDIT: I'm wrong. I would have been right for the wrong reasons in 2018, but now vaccines are "any substance that generates antibodies that produce immunity to disease".
I knew I would be when I posted. I accept the consequences of my post.
>There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
I have 2 shots, I believe in these shots, but misrepresenting them as something they are not has been dangerous. No doubt it casts shadow upon their value.
It's problematic to be pedantic about something that isn't true. A vaccine causes an immunity response. A therapeutic cancer vaccine is a vaccine because it relies on an immunity response, not because it prevents the spread of cancer. Vaccinations are often the best method of preventing a infectious disease but not all vaccines prevent contagion.
Sorry, I think you're right. A vaccine, legally, only has to prevent disease. That doesn't mean it has to cause your body to sterilize/kill the virus. That, and immunity is not an on/off thing but a scale in how much of a disease your body can prevent.
But then I'm confused because couldn't we then consider, for example, vitamin D a vaccine? It's more commonly understood as a prophylactic - but then what's the difference between a vaccine and a prophylactic?
Just that vaccines are traditionally meant to be made from dead viral agents?
>It's problematic to be pedantic about something that isn't true. A vaccine causes an immunity response. A therapeutic cancer vaccine is a vaccine because it relies on an immunity response, not because it prevents the spread of cancer. Vaccinations are often the best method of preventing a infectious disease but not all vaccines prevent contagion.
I am asking these other people what we should do. It seems your in the camp that it's fine to keep calling the covid shot a vaccine. This is fine with me. We simply now need a new term for the vaccines which do prevent contagion.
I will then say, the covid shot is NOT that $newterm. That I recommend everyone get the $newterm shots, but since the covid shot isn't $newterm... well...
After reading all the definitions and articles about the meaning of vaccine and immunity, I think it's legit to call them vaccines.
The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
>After reading all the definitions and articles about the meaning of vaccine and immunity, I think it's legit to call them vaccines.
This is a fair point but going forward perhaps we need a new term or at least requirement to differentiate the clear 2 different categories.
>The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
Oh absolutely. You can find countless examples of mainstream media saying that the covid shot would prevent infection and then you never have to worry about it again and we can then reopen.
So what do you think we should do to prevent this borderline fraud?
"Sterilizing vaccine" is as good a term as any, IMO. Not that anyone will start making that differentiation, considering the politics of this.
My takeaway is that the government and media (thesis and antithesis) has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and they both need to be avoided to keep a clear head. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point, and I'm pissed that I've been wrong about this particular "vaccine definition" point for so long.
Sorry, can't reply to your other post again. Getting frustrated with HN today.
>There is some signal that it does affect reproduction, though not properly confirmed and definitely not to that degree. Anyway I agree, many people could take it to mean it sterilizes you.
I haven't seen anything that would suggest there is any possible symptom of fertility. Doctors should certainly be providing such risks as part of informed consent if true.
Wikipedia very clearly defines it as misinformation. I don't know.
>To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
I think the main problem is that things changed over time. That we came upon times where we didn't have any treatment for a disease and those producing the first shot that can help may have pushed things a little over the line.
Here we are at a point where it seems clear to me that we need to separate the terms. If I am wrong and vaccine will now include these, we need a new word for vaccines that do prevent infection.
Sorry, I lost even my reply button for your reply to my reply. I can reply here.
>"Sterilizing vaccine" is as good a term as any, IMO.
>Maybe the takeaway is that the government and media has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and to not trust a single thing anyone on the internet says. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point.
I understand your point. But I think we come up against a new problem with that terminology.
There is covid misinformation which suggests the shot is sterilizing your fertility. After the shot you can no longer have babies is the allegation. Obviously utterly false.
There is some signal that it can affect reproduction, though not properly confirmed and definitely not to that degree. Anyway I agree, many people could take it to mean it sterilizes you.
Maybe: "inoculating vaccine".
To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
There's no ambiguity or uncertainty here – the statement is just factually not correct. A vaccine does not need to "prevent infection", and stating that it does is wrong.
It's particularly galling when this kind of statement is made in a way that says or contributes nothing except a literal falsehood.
I've been reading the definitions of vaccine, and now I'm confused because it seems to technically have the same meaning as prophylactic - if not, then what's the difference between the two?
So, what happened was that in 2018 they changed the definition of vaccine from "innoculated bacterium/viral agent" to "any substance" (probably to make space for mRNA vaccines), and then changed the result from "that prevents disease" to "that generates antibodies".
>And that idiotic CNN chyron was clipped to be troll bait for the credulous. If you honestly believe that's how the protests were covered, you should spend some time reflecting on where you get your news and who you trust.
This was in the context of my post explaining how non-violence similar to MLKjr and Ghandi is an absolute rule. That saying 'peaceful protest' while standing in front of cars on fire is a violation of the rule.
I interpreted your comment to mean "I flagged this submission," which would be breaking the site guideline "If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."
Now that I've looked more closely, I realize that you actually originally posted a totally different comment and then effectively deleted it (by overwriting it with "Flagged"). Normally we ask people not to do that—you can use the 'delete' link as long as the comment has no replies.
In this case, your comment got one reply but the replier subsequently deleted it. This is a corner case. It might even be a bug in our software if the 'delete' link didn't reappear.
Edit: I checked the code and I don't see that bug, so I believe there would have been a 'delete' link at the time you edited your comment.
>I interpreted your comment to mean "I flagged this submission," which would be breaking the site guideline "If you flag, please don't also comment that you did."
I don't have buttons to delete, edit, or flag, never did on my previous account neither. My understanding was that I do not have these as part of upvote threshold like being unable to downvote. Maybe it's my fault and some sort of addon doing something?
>Now that I've looked more closely, I realize that you actually originally posted a totally different comment and then effectively deleted it (by overwriting it with "Flagged"). Normally we ask people not to do that—you can use the 'delete' link as long as the comment has no replies.
I personally did not do this.
>In this case, your comment got one reply but the replier subsequently deleted it. This is a corner case. It might even be a bug in our software if the 'delete' link didn't reappear.
Well no, there was also another comment insulting me mostly. I dont recall the username. I wasn't planning to reply to that one. It was obvious that they were triggered by my comments about the democratic party. I didn't really intend to cause a fight over those comments.
I guess that Mikeouse has the right of the person who replied to me.
Every post to HN has a 'delete' link for a certain amount of time after the post is made, as long as the post doesn't have replies. (We try not to delete posts that got replies, because doing so would be unfair to the other commenters in the thread.) This doesn't depend on karma.
Are we talking about the same 'this"? The logs say that you edited https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30361111 to replace the text with "Flagged" a few minutes after you originally posted it.
I'm definitely not meaning to be critical and I don't want you to go away feeling unfairly treated, so I'd prefer to get this clear. Especially if I'm mistaken about something.
>Are we talking about the same 'this"? The logs say that you edited https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30361111 to replace the text with "Flagged" a few minutes after you originally posted it.
Wasnt me, I assumed I cannot edit my posts in relation to the downvote karma threshold thing. Like so I needed to prove my worth or something. I stand by my posts even if I was wrong. Just like I just was with my recent post about the definition of vaccine. I am wrong in my post. My brain definition of vaccine certainly included 'prevents infection' factor.
It's probably a problem on my end. I was missing the reply link when trying to reply to prohobo but now see it there. I cannot explain.
This post however was indeed fairly charged/hot post about social movements, the requirement to stay nonviolent, comments over the democratic party, trump, etc. I expected to take heat. I provided a link criticizing the democrats over their inaction of resolving an obvious problem in the USA. My post did take heat quite rapidly in that one.
I dont personally believe my comments were flamebait or trolling. I cannot see my original post any longer, maybe I did go over the line. So be it. Not to get religious, but:
“The past is already gone, the future is not yet here. There's only one moment for you to live, and that is the present moment” ― Buddha
Let's not waste on further time on the past. Doing so will solve nothing.
My previous account had people following me to downvote me and the occasional threats. This has much more to do with topics that you're not allowed to criticize. They would even follow to unrelated subjects. Got flagged constantly for no valid reason.
Created new account, no problem anymore.
>2. If yes[2], how big of an "echo chamber" you think HN has become (or is becoming)?
I thought so, but it would seem it's really just 1 main topic. this one side considers this an extinction event and therefore anyone who criticizes their movement is literally killing them.
>How wide-spread is this issue? Is it limited to certain topics only? If yes, what are those topics?
New one seems to have been created basically a day ago. Canada declared martial law in order to end peaceful protests. The far left commie antifa folks were even shocked and freaked out. Obviously right-wing disagree as well.
The problem is that Trudeau and the propaganda media have been smearing the protests as Nazis, Racists, Sexists, etc. It's to the point that Bill Maher started comparing Trudeau to Hitler. Then days after Bill Maher said this, he misuses the martial law emergency act. Worse yet, the wording in his speech mirrored Hitler's speech in 1933.
I dont think Trudeau is planning to be Hitler, I think he's only consuming the propaganda that his own 'government accredited media' is putting out.
The problem is... so is so many other people falling for this propaganda. Those people are calling on the police to break up the peaceful protests. Here we are though, first time during my life time ever being under martial law.
I have never invested in crypto before but sure as shit am now.
My assumption is that they are actively searching the financials of donors who transferred money to those addresses?
However, on the bitcoin side, what stops you from transferring your balance to a new address that isn't on the list? So this is about as effective as an ashtray on a motorcycle?