It's not necessarily the case though. As seen in that article, they have no problem lying. Also, BTC wasn't decentralized, until it was.
My stance on climate change is that even if the models and the measurements are not flawed, and we can ascertain that human industrialization has caused a climatic shift, I'm 100% certain that State-planned central management can NEVER under any circumstance be successful at palliating it.
Not only because science can diagnose the problem but not necessarily have the right solutions, but because central planning simply is incompetent and immoral by definition.
In fact, the more the Corporatist State embroils itself in it, the worse the result will be.
On the other hand, as a libertarian, I think Henry George got it exactly right, and people should pay rent on their usage and the deterioration they cause with their economic activity of non-produced non-renewable resources, like land and the atmosphere.
Not on any form of economic and productive activity they carry out, only on their exclusive appropriation and consumption of resources that they did not originate.
I also think that unlike with "global climate" events, science can be a lot more accurate and trustworthy when it comes to local events and resources as georgist policies would demand.
To simplify: tell me you want non-emission vehicles because they save my town from pulmonary disease and stunted infantile growth. Not because the ocean levels in whatever buttfuck country on the other side of the world.
In the first case, we can campaign together until we convince people to walk and cycle more and stop burning so much diesel. In the second case, I know for a fact you're being sneaky with me and probably have ulterior hidden motives, and I will adamantly fight against you.
They seem to do though, every time they cheer on and repeat the same arguments they get from a corrupt, lying bureaucracy who works for the advancement of the Corporatist State and its cronies.
BTC going to $1 M rapidly during 2024-2025 due to the confluence of halvening, ETF, POTUS election (=money printing) and, I add, the BIS directive allowing central banks to put 2% of their reserves in BTC... Be careful what you wish for. I think it would be catastrophic.
These are the people "maxis" want me to side with? Yeah, no thanks.
And I'm just seeing now that after that first direct access via URL, I can click on other videos normally. So I don't really know exactly if they just can't figure out how to achieve what they want, if it's just not feasible, or if they're just not putting a lot of effort into it for now.
It's very inconsistent though. Instead of accessing the video clicking on the thumbnail, which seems to cause the block to trigger, you can simply paste the video address directly to the browser URL bar, press enter, and voila. Annoying of course, but doable.
Youtube is at it again blocking Firefox with uBlock Origin.
For me, the number one bullish event is in January 2025, when central banks will be officially allowed by the BIS to put up to 2% of their reserves in BTC -- and likely ETH and maybe other "crypto", but nothing comes even close to BTC as a reserve answer store of value, so no BTC should capture most if not all of the $4-5 Trillion that 2% represents. nostr:note1mt29eumrtuurcxazpkpaz540nn5ra4mhwy2rp4k2dgtuu8m5wr7smgar7w
When this happens, there's $6 Trillion that will rush out of bonds and into something else.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/traders-bet-fed-will-hold-rates-steady-start-cuts-may-2023-11-30/
I own my BTC because if you take the BTC from me, that prevents me from having it. And because barring the use of force, you can only access it if I grant you access to it. That why you would be stealing, which is an act of aggression.
None of that applies to a piece of imagined "intellectual" property.
Make me pay you then. If you owned the code, you would be able.
And still, people keep complaining while they keep releasing free stuff...
You make a common mistake reducing "compensation" to money, probably because of a personal situation and immediate needs of yours, although that's absolutely none of my business of course.
Simple observation shows how that idea is wrong, when you apply it universally.
In the end, the market provides and the market sorts out. If there's demand, there will be offer and there will be paid compensation. The problem is that you are trying to get compensation for something that cannot be traded in a market because, once again, you do not own it for the reasons I already explained.
So, like fiat money? Is fiat money good and moral then?
The idiocy would be grabbing your house broom, going out downtown to your local Main Street, sweeping it clean, and getting all angry because people refuse to pay you, or pay you just whatever they feel like which is leas that you think you deserve "for the work".
Doesn't that give you a hint of how "copyrights" and "intellectual property" State-enforced laws are simply a lobby-based racket?
You are simply trying to rationalize something that you would like to be as you say, but it just isn't. If your definition of "property" applies, then I could claim that you owe me money for using the alphabet, or for using hemoglobin, or for any other ridiculous thing.
You're mixing up a hypothetical need to credit and recognize authorship, and a hypothetical right to make money out of something you do not effectively own. The first is debatable. The second not even that.
If you want to be paid for your work, make it non-replicable or at the very least figure out a way to ensure that people can only access it after they pay you. Otherwise, don't complain if people pay the economically rational price for an infinitely reproducible and freely accessible -- zero.
My friend insist on using it when we occasionally play board games online instead of in person as we usually do, and I fuckin despise it. And you are right, every single time I open it, it "updates" who knows what.
You didn't "make" the code because it's not physical, and you don't have that right that you argue you have, because you can't own the code.
You absolutely have a say on what anybody can or cannot do with a specific piece of hardware that allows the reproduction of that code, e.g., a CD containing the code, while you lend it to them.
Not because you wrote the code, but because you own the CD and some else taking it from you would prevent you from possessing it.