Replace "teller" with "bank" because we are talking about legal ownership, not physical control.

They don’t have anything but a responsibility to care for it

While they absolutely "have a responsibility" to you, they also benefit from holding it, so your "anything but" rhetoric is incorrect. Brokers and banks alike earn money by lending the assets the have, despite their corresponding liabilities.

Do you think there isn’t a “clear record” without direct registration (from your other comment)

Correct. Legally, you have a "security entitlement". Per UCC 8-503, the property interest you have a result of this entitlement is merely "a pro rata property interest in all interests in that financial asset held by the securities intermediary", i.e. what your broker actually has, which is (a) opaque to you as a customer, and (b) is fundamentally difficult even for them to pin down - as it is composed primarily of their DTC account balance, ideally but they undoubtedly have many derivatives, transactions to settle (which can extend beyond 2 days because FTDs are common), shares lent out that are due to them, etc. So while the number of security entitlements in your account has a clear record, your property interest in the issuer does not have a clear record.

Would users authenticate through lemmy? Any chance you could stand up a sandbox/staging canvas ahead of time to test that out? Or is it just a totally separate authentication?

And doesn’t challenge the person in the room

You keep repeating this as if that will make it true. But you literally linked to a video where he leads by clarifying that the crisis is real in response to Peterson's rhetoric.

And yet RFK doesn’t think the most important one is actually the most important.

You're just making this up to try to put words in his mouth. This is harmful for actually finding solutions. Again, he has described it as an "existential" problem. RFK Jr is trying to address concerns, because that's necessary when people have concerns, but you'd rather pretend other concerns don't exist as if that were a way to achieve anything.

The real crisis is the possible end of humanity due to climate change, caused by humanity.

Obviously. But you are aware that there can be multiple crises at once, and that some people may be more aware of / concerned about one than the other?

No pushback? The video you linked shows him leading with the fact that global warming is real and significant. And in other videos he has expanded more on that, clearly stating that it is an existential risk.

But in this video, he said that this (real) crisis could/would be used to further totalitarian controls. That's not denial, that's "yes and".

As I mentioned, it's rational to defend personal individual rights while still directing the power of government to clean up the environment.

Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

While I usually live in NC, I am visiting family. In this particular brand of suburbia, every single day the streets are alive with the sound of gas powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers. While I watch the news drone on about petty celebrity drama, the graph breaking upward trend of ocean temperatures elicits barely a word from any news source, and people carry on paying to burn gasoline to make already short grass shorter and move the cuttings around.