141–150 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting that the both replies under this comment are saying exact same thing, with the exact same term ("raison d'etre"... how often do you hear two random people think of this phrase at the same time?). It might be nothing, but it'd be funny if karma farming bots are doing some 'reply frontrunning' over the internet.
I don't think that two 13 and 14 years old accounts with not that many comment per week are bots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why are publicly traded companies special? The speculation is not on securities. You're not participating in a "market" (even though they call it that), you're purely gambling and speculating. People have been doing this since currency was a thing. Even gambling laws don't apply in my opinion. If I told you the government will publish evidence of aliens existing tomorrow, and we make a bet on it, that's not really ga…
It’s literally gambling what are you talking about
Maybe it can fall under gambling laws, but not under securities laws.
I don't agree with any gambling laws whatsoever, so I can't say I'm the right person to comment on the subject of how to classify this sort of betting. The entire concept of individual liberty is a farce if you can't gamble without restriction. People have been betting on who would kill the prey or gather the most fruits since their hunter & gatherer days. Gambling and freely sharing what you posses (copyright is illegitimate) are fundamental human rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a false analogy. You have two parties who want to enter into a contract and a third party unrelated to the contract that doesn’t for whatever reason. Just based on contract law and common sense the unrelated party shouldn’t have standing. Now if there’s externalities to the contract that impact that unrelated party sure, but only insofar as to get those externalities addressed. This is not the same as a robber…
Yeah, IME, if the guests of the rental acted exactly like locals, and the units were not removed from the local housing supply (not sure how that could be), or the local housing supply was in excess to the needs of the population (not sure where that is), it would be fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your taxi crashes because the driver skipped brake maintenance and his insurance doesn't reimburse you for your hospital costs because commercial transportation isn't covered. Sure would be nice to have some minimum requirements for taxis.
If maintenance schedules and insurance regulations are “moral” issues, what isn’t?
Much in the same way tobacco companies knew for a long time how addictive and harmful smoking was.
And how Facebook knows they let their advertisers scam their users, and the way social media was pushing teen suicides higher. They knew and kept pushing policies which made the problem worse. All so they could collect bigger compensation packages.
I would understand a low salaried person doing this, but not someone from a really high paying org
Openai employees already get crazy salaries. What motivates someone to do this? I would understand a low salaried person doing this, but not someone from a really high paying org
Given what OpenAI does, what kind of person, and with what moral character, do you think works there?
EDIT: AI in general seems to attract bad actors, for whatever reason. Remember Anthony Levandowski or Marvin Minsky?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh but you can. You can swap out the seed and generate any new addresses using that. Yes, the old addresses will be compromised. That's fine. The point is that nobody can tell that you aren't actually using the same keys to generate new addresses anymore.
This is no different on the outside from making a new account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m struggling to understand the moral character of taxi service regulatory capture and monopolization.
Your taxi crashes because the driver skipped brake maintenance and his insurance doesn't reimburse you for your hospital costs because commercial transportation isn't covered. Sure would be nice to have some minimum requirements for taxis.
Lead in gasoline is bad, but in general I think individuals are perfectly capable of determining whether they are willing to risk a taxi ride.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A stock is ownership in a business, same as ownership in a house. It is an asset that you own. When you bet on blackjack or the superbowl, you own nothing and are simply wagering on the outcome of an event. Gambling and equity ownership are not the same.
There's more to stock trading than just "buy and hold". Not all investing has gambling motivations but it is absolutely used as gambling tool by many