derek

Fiat currency is just as silly. As is all money, really.

"I trade numbers for food. The numbers are accessible via a magnetic strip on some plastic in my pocket." or "I trade paper for clothing but the number of papers isn't as important as the number printed ON the papers." Both of these realities are absurd. :)

As a store of value representing labor rendered: neither of those are terrible systems and most people don't understand either of them anyway. Fiat seems "normal" because we grew up with it. That said: I'm no apologist. Popular crypto currencies offer little novelty for the layperson, no true improvement on the concept of currency generally, and cost orders of magnitude more to maintain their required infrastructure. I fail to see the appeal.

There are some projects which focus on the practical utility of decentralized currency (I remember thinking Nano (wikipedia.com) was cool back in the day) but they don't get the same kind of attention as meme coins because they can't be abused as easily. I've heard stories of these kinds of tools facilitating commerce in places where the local currency collapsed. Neat as that may be it isn't revolutionary... Still more convenient than bartering via cigarette though.

I'd like to tack on that this point can be used to highlight why this is so. It's a deep concept that can be explained simply and produces a lasting positive impact.

Everyone has fantasies. Sometimes we want them to be realized. Most often: we don't. Many people carry internal shame because of their fantasies and some of those people have difficulty with intimacy because of it.

Good sex with other people requires our investment in their comfort and pleasure. This can be emotionally complex and fulfilling to navigate. Masturbation is free of those complications but we often make up the difference via fantasy. This is normal and there's no need to confuse one space for the other. Masturbation and sex may fulfill similar basic needs on the surface but, in practice, they are very different exercises. It's normal for one's preferences to be different for each and for those preferences to shift over time.

Don't worry about "normal". Focus on having a healthy, honest, and emotionally aware sex life instead.

Signal.

Wired had an interview with Signal's President last year that I found enlightening and provided an entry point for me to self educate further. Here's an archive.org snapshot of it: https://web.archive.org/web/20240828100224/https://www.wired.com/story/meredith-whittaker-signal/

For the click-averse here's an excerpt I find compelling:

Going back to your sense of Signal’s new phase: What is going to be different at this point in its life? Are you focused on truly bringing it to a billion people, the way that most Silicon Valley firms are?

I mean, I … Yes. But not for the same reasons. For almost opposite reasons.

Yeah. I don’t think anyone else at Signal has ever tried, at least so vocally, to emphasize this definition of Signal as the opposite of everything else in the tech industry, the only major communications platform that is not a for-profit business.

Yeah, I mean, we don’t have a party line at Signal. But I think we should be proud of who we are and let people know that there are clear differences that matter to them. It’s not for nothing that WhatsApp is spending millions of dollars on billboards calling itself private, with the load-bearing privacy infrastructure having been created by the Signal protocol that WhatsApp uses.

Now, we’re happy that WhatsApp integrated that, but let’s be real. It’s not by accident that WhatsApp and Apple are spending billions of dollars defining themselves as private. Because privacy is incredibly valuable. And who’s the gold standard for privacy? It’s Signal.

I think people need to reframe their understanding of the tech industry, understanding how surveillance is so critical to its business model. And then understand how Signal stands apart, and recognize that we need to expand the space for that model to grow. Because having 70 percent of the global market for cloud in the hands of three companies globally is simply not safe. It’s Microsoft and CrowdStrike taking down half of the critical infrastructure in the world, because CrowdStrike cut corners on QA for a fucking kernel update. Are you kidding me? That’s totally insane, if you think about it, in terms of actually stewarding these infrastructures.

Lootboxes.

Players have a random chance of getting crate while playing the game. Each crate is a pool of item cosmetics with various levels of rarity. To acquire one of them the player must purchase a one-use key with real money. Expending the key on a crate initiates a die roll that determines which cosmetic is unlocked.

That's the gambling they're responsible for. What gambling players may of afterward is not the same conversation.

Near as I understand it: years ago some dumb engineering decisions were made, acknowledged, and corrected. Is there some recent scandal I'm out of the loop on?

Sure! That's an SMTP Relay. A lot of folks jumped on the poopoo wagon. It's common wisdom in IT that you don't do your own email. There are good reasons for that, and you should know why that sentiment exists, however; if you're interested in running your own email: try it! Just don't put all of your eggs in one basket. Keep your third party service until you're quite sure you want to move it all in-house (after due diligence is satisfied and you've successfully completed at least a few months of testing and smtp reputation warming).

Email isn't complex. It's tough to get right at scale, a pain in the ass if it breaks, and not running afoul of spam filtering can be a challenge. It rarely makes sense for even a small business to roll their own email solution. For an individual approaching this investigatively it can make sense so long as you're (a.) interested in learning about it, (b.) find the benefits outweigh the risks, and (c.) that the result is worth the ongoing investment (time and labor to set up, secure, update, maintain, etc).

What'll get you in trouble regardless is being dependent on that in-house email but not making your solution robust enough to always fill its role. Say you host at home and your house burns down. How inconvenient is it that your self-hosted services burned with it? Can you recover quickly enough, while dealing with tragedy, that the loss of common utility doesn't make navigating your new reality much more difficult?

That's why it rarely makes sense for businesses. Email has become an essential gateway to other tooling and processes. It facilitates an incredible amount of our professional interactions. How many of your bills and bank statements and other important communication are delivered primarily by email? An unreliable email service is intolerable.

If you're going to do it make sure you're doing it right, respecting your future self's reliance on what present-you builds, and taking it slow while you learn (and document!) how all the pieces fit together. If you can check all of those boxes with a smile then good luck and godspeed says I.

Stolen shamelessly from someone else who posted it further up the thread.

You've fundamentally misunderstood this. Upholding Constitutional law cannot undermine the democratic process which it establishes.

If I win a game by breaking its rules I am de-facto disqualified from that victory. Yes, all law is written by people, can be unmade by people, and is only in effect so long as we collectively agree to enforce it, however; if the law is not unmade and if we collectively sigh in apathy at its violation then we are no longer playing the game the rules have defined.

This is the immense danger of the current Constitutional crisis. If there is no enforcement of the rules set forth in a government's founding document then it can no longer be recognized as the body which that document defines.

I do. Thanks. You're still focused on the wrong thing here.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not require any specific test which defines "insurrection". The impeachment is a useful anchor for establishing an agreement that an insurrection did occur and that Trump was, at the very least, an active participant in that insurrection.

The Insurrection Bar to Office: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (crsreports.congress.gov) provides an well crafted and neutral review of this. Its closing sentence is particularly relevant to our back and forth:

Congress has previously viewed Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as establishing an enumerated constitutional qualification for holding office and, consequently, a grounds for possible exclusion.

Republican strategy has long revolved around the targeted devolution of norms. They hide in the cracks between definitions which assume good faith participation in the labor of mutually consensual governance and shield themselves in perpetual faux-victimhood. If Congress does not pursue the execution of Section 3 it is nothing less than an abdication of their duty to their Oath of Office.

Your last paragraph is a result of misunderstandings and assumptions on your part.

I take issue with your assertion that the document on which all other US law depends and from which all US public offices are granted their authority does not matter. It must. We ought to insist it does. Especially while it is being violated.

Neither of those facts preclude the application of the 14th. The barrier is whether or not someone holding public office, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, breaks that oath via insurrection against the same. It does not matter that Trump was not punished. The acquittal does not erase the reality of the past: it is a dismissal of immediate consequences. Nothing more.

The fact that Congress acknowledged the reality of January 6th is more than enough for the 14th to apply.