241–250 of 321 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What in this article warrants a comment like this?
It's not even clear to me what the quote means out of context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creating a token does not consume any additional energy. Transaction volume does _not_ scale with mining so it's a really bad comparison. The energy is spent to secure the network regardless of how many transactions are processed (in practice, transaction volume is pretty much fixed in terms of "bytes of transactions")
Bitcoin alone currently pollutes about the same as half the global airline industry. If cryptos really are the future, I weep for the planet.
My understanding is that these are depreciating assets; what’s their long-term outlook?
‘What the fuck is this long term shit you are talking about?’.
Yolo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I kind of agree with parent. While I don’t have a problem with symbolic use of adoption, I do have a problem with “multiple adoption”. When I think of a donor “adopting” a case, I have a model of “this donation sufficed for lifetime care of that case”. If one donation isn’t sufficient, then maybe a group of donations would collectively be the adoption. You shouldn’t have a scenario where there are more adoptions than…
I guess in my mind, the point of the adoption is that the "adopter" has a point of personal connection with the funding they are providing, and they can hang a picture on the wall to remind themselves why they are supporting this cause. Given that almost none of these "adopters" will ever see the gorilla in question in real life, it seems unreasonably jealous to insist that this organization should forgo funding so t…
I never suggested or hinted at that, just that it was misleading to call it adoption, if they're not granted a kind of "owning" of that relationship, in the sense of that donor is "the" supporter of that gorilla [pair]. If they want to call it "supporting", I wouldn't consider that misleading.
Generic question: I see a lot of news articles stating that WSB has "10 million members". Does being a 'member' go beyond clicking the 'join' button on that subreddit? If so it's more like a 'follow this channel', isn't it?
If you don’t have a certain number of karma points you cannot even post there, I guess the largest part there is only lurking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a momma gorilla and a papa gorilla love each other very much... (and significant resources are dedicated to keeping them safe, content and ready to procreate, which is what I'm assuming Reddit has achieved.)
Okay, I laughed at this, but unfortunately gorilla mating is quite a bit more brutal than this, more like an aspiring young alpha discovers the last alpha has grown old and weak, murders him, then murders all of the children as well, enslaves the gorilla women, and periodically rapes them. All he really offers in return is he'll keep other up and comers from murdering their new babies until he also grows too old and…
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3431b8twU-U
[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19399838/
[2]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19722225/
[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOtDSysn2kA
[4]https://qz.com/1484989/male-gorillas-who-care-for-infants-ha...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"adoption" is the terminology used by the foundation, and symbolic adoption is a known quantity in this type of operation so I don't have a problem with it. However referring to wallstreet bets users as "investors" does seem like a bit of a misnomer...
"Adoption" is fine on the foundation website with context. Here my first thought was that this is some crazy Tiger King scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a specialized version of the question, is it really evil to kill evil people? But it's also a bit off-topic; the more important one is, are only evil people getting killed by drone strikes executed by people who (claim to) try to kill only evil people? The answer to that is a resounding no. We can debate the specifics of this, but it wasn't my point. My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making pe…
>My point was, the concept of layers of indirection making perpetrating evil/immoral acts easier is a well-recognized one It seems that you are again assuming that drone strikes are evil immoral acts. Most people view civilian casualties in war as a trolley car problem, (e.g. a necessary evil in an overall moral action)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if the evil side can exploit this phenomenon to great success (e.g. drone strikes allowing to kill people halfway across the world, and making it feel like playing a video game from 1990s), why can't the good side? We can despair about the nature of man all we want, but if in the meantime, we can get rich people here to spend a lot of money on helping people far away, that's still a huge net benefit for the wor…
Is it really evil to use drones to kill evil people?
For every person that is labelled "evil" by the US, I'm sure there are thousands who would consider them "good". I would hazard to guess that there are more people who considered Osa Bin Laden "good" than consider you "good" and could make a case that you are "evil". Does that means that they have a right to kill you? Or does the US government only get the right to designate people Good or Evil?