Because this strategy seems to be in line with what we've been reading ("buffet amassing cash") for the last 5 years at least?
Because this strategy seems to be in line with what we've been reading ("buffet amassing cash") for the last 5 years at least?
Is creating a ~$1T (and that's just BTC) asset class which went from obscure mailing lists to ETFs not innovation? Of this asset class, only 21M (divisible) units will ever exist[0] and to this date the original asset (again, BTC) has had no compromising (security) incidents deviating from its original mission (P2P ledger).
This doomsaying "doesn't deserve to survive" just seems mean-spirited without any actual arguments as to why it's not deserved for an asset class to exist which is truly deflationary (as in money supply) and shoving everything under "crypto" hoping for some outright ban because it's not regulated. It being unregulatable is a feature, not a bug.
[0] even with forks, the original whitepaper-protocol as we know it today will probably always be "BTC"
>there is no cookie banner law
There definitely is. The article explicitly states this:
>you need my consent when you want to track me
"tracking" here means storing data:
>store information in a visitor's browser is only allowed if the user is provided with "clear and comprehensive information", in accordance with the Data Protection Directive, about the purposes of the storage of, or access to, that information; and has given their consent (wikipedia)
The actual directive also explicitly states this
>consent may be given by any appropriate method enabling a freely given specific and informed indication of the user's wishes, including by ticking a box when visiting an Internet website (32002L0058.17)
You keep shifting your arguments around.
"Save the Children"
So it's no longer about political prisoners (I assume you think Assange is one), but about children?
"we happily send billions of dollars to a country"
Who is we? You have sent billions of dollars to the US? I haven't.
I thought the article was about Russia, why exactly are we talking about the US prison system now? What is the goal? Making the Russian Gulag look good? Improving the US prison system?
I've campaigned against the US prison system with AI. Did you? If you didn't, it's simply Whataboutism.
Whataboutism has one goal, and one goal alone: Deflect criticism.
"I'm not pro-Russia"
You're words tell a different story.
"morally superior."
Straw man argument.
I or you don't have to prove any alliance here. I could be burning a Russian flag in front of your eyes and you would probably still find a reason why I cannot have criticism on one side doing exactly the same injustices and (criminal) acts as the regime of the flag I just burned. Let me be clear that Navalny should not have been treated and died the way he did and in a fair justice system people would be held accountable.
That doesn't mean I cannot state an opinion that it is repulsive things like this happen everywhere yet somehow one side doing it is worse than the other and claims the moral high ground. They are both bad.
Enabling mass-production of Ghibli style without permission or monetary compensation is theft.