I'm super tired of people conflating civil rights + first amendment protections with the idea that speech anywhere, by anyone, on any platform, deserves to be protected.
The goal of the first amendment is to protect the citizens of America from laws created by congress / government in limiting speech. That is nowhere near what we are talking about when we're talking about _any_ speech conducted on a private platform.
In fact, it's interesting to me that the argument has recently been spun around such that some politicians are claiming that social platforms are violating their first amendment rights by blocking or banning. This has nothing to do with the intent or language of the first amendment.
In my mind, you can be the most fervent civil rights advocate and still believe that Twitter/Facebook/etc can ban anyone they want for any reason. Even more so if you believe in free enterprise and the rights of a business to act in the way that they best see fit.
I understand that platform bans have more implications and repercussions than I'm outlining here in simple terms but still the conflation is frustrating to me.
This isn't a case of who's right or wrong. The success of Bitcoin is entirely based on belief, which doesn't have a right or wrong answer, particularly this early in its history.
Bitcoin is successful if enough people agree to believe that it is valuable. And that's the period we're still in now: trying to determine if this thing is valuable and by how much (hence the price volatility).
I mean, that's a poor man's excuse because you can say that about anything. USD is only worth something because enough people believe it is, same with gold, same about anything worth value.
Thank you DOOM for your unique and creative views on life and your perseverance through unforeseeable tragedy. Listening to Black Bastards and then Operation Doomsday is like watching a person's sanity snap in a moment before your eyes - but from the ashes emerged the Metal Faced master. We all wear our masks, some are just shiner than others.
Vaudeville Villain is possibly my favourite work by him and i didn't like it on release. It was very much an album ahead of it's time and has grown on me massively with time.
The extremely distinctive MARTA train sample in 'Lickupon' actually makes me cri evrytiem as a native Georgian who misses Atlanta a lot https://youtu.be/gupcleKD5dw?t=144
Huh, I always thought that sample was from the BART in the Bay Area. The two sound really familiar. Thanks for sharing, that’s my favorite track of his.
It's a guide, and once it's been used a few times the language can be adapted to sound more like your nature voice but still conveying the same information.
There is absolutely 'growth' without consuming resources. Economic growth also includes improvements in efficiency, which typically reduce the amount of physical resources used.
Also, look at the transition in our lives from physical media to digital media. Digital channels have brought massive growth while reducing the need for paper, CDs, DVDs, etc.
That kind of growth requires constant inventions, rather than occasional inventions to use in existing factories. Also I think efficiency improvements offer diminishing returns (sorry I can't prove it). But there's only so much value you can get from a handful of matter, especially if it has to be cost-effective. At some point you bump into limits of physical properties.
A silly tale I read in an old popular science book: Aliens arrive at the Earth. They make peaceful contact with humans and want to exchange knowledge. They get every single human book ever printed, they drop them on a pile, then... one of them takes a metal rod out of his pocket, and makes a scratch on it somewhere in the middle. THERE, it's archived. All they need is to measure the exact spot where the scratch is made and calculate the ratio of rod below the scratch to the rod above the scratch. The decimal representation of that irrational number encodes entire human knowledge.
Hmm, reducing the need for long lasting and easily recyclable paper by replacing it with mostly-plastic stuff (including packaging) that becomes obsolete in less than a decade?
The goal of the first amendment is to protect the citizens of America from laws created by congress / government in limiting speech. That is nowhere near what we are talking about when we're talking about _any_ speech conducted on a private platform.
In fact, it's interesting to me that the argument has recently been spun around such that some politicians are claiming that social platforms are violating their first amendment rights by blocking or banning. This has nothing to do with the intent or language of the first amendment.
In my mind, you can be the most fervent civil rights advocate and still believe that Twitter/Facebook/etc can ban anyone they want for any reason. Even more so if you believe in free enterprise and the rights of a business to act in the way that they best see fit.
I understand that platform bans have more implications and repercussions than I'm outlining here in simple terms but still the conflation is frustrating to me.