That's hardly an argument against it.

"Lots of people can't all be wrong."

Edit: might as well go back to Reddit. It is more popular after all. They can't all be wrong. No?

I mean, just because you don't follow gaming news doesn't mean nothing happens in the gaming industry. And if you somehow didn't hear about this game that folks have been talking about for months as an extremely anticipated game, you clearly don't follow gaming news that closely.

This is an ignorant take. It can be correct in some cases, but oversimplifying and making assumptions like that is entirely devoid of rational thinking.

I don't know about "decentralized" as centralization is a driving influence in cost of marketing. Amazon is efficient because of every step of the way is centralized, from store front to the warehousing to the shipping. Sure there are some products that don't ship by Amazon, but they're usually at a cost disadvantage unless they're unique. Plus payment processing is centralized and allows for consumer protections which wouldn't be possible with something like crypto.

Amazon could be dethroned, but it would require very specific circumstances and unlikely wouldn't be by a privacy minded entity.

Amazon is cheap because personal data subsidizes a lot. If they couldn't sell targeted sponsor ads to you, they'd make that revenue up elsewhere.

Are you suggesting since the US did that, they should institute unconstitutional laws in the US as well? Your argument is seriously that they did some bad things so let's do worse?

The US government didn't really say anything. A government funded non-profit that is supervised by an independent US agency said it. It has the same freedom of press as NPR would theoretically. Authorities in the EU is worried as well. Basically, without heroin, they think everyone will use fentanyl instead which is far worse. This is what occurred the last time there was a heroin shortage. So, ultimately, this will backfire greatly. And moreover, the ban was announced two years ago. When announced, it was believed it would actually be completed at a time that would have caused immense hardship on Afghans that were growing it, hence the claims the Taliban was turning a blind eye. Because they effectively were.

This is an extremely biased article against the US for some reason. There's a difference when drug production was essentially being done out in the open and then suddenly stopped. Satellites can easily find where the poppy fields were. You can't do this with marijuana, nor do I think you should. And on top of that, the drug problem the US has is importation or small scale manufacture. Its an entirely different problem. And again, the war on drugs was never meant to do what this article seems to imply.

I'm surprised at this article and it's conclusions. They're extremely deceptive, biased, and not entirely accurate.

That's if you watch porn and don't have education or proper parenting along side it. If porn is used as the educative tool for the child learning about relationships and sex, sure. It's a problem. But if it's just used like it's meant to be used, I don't think it's clear cut. It's only a problem if a kid is sheltered from learning proper sex education and gender.

Not sure where stating that means there's any difficulty in understanding anything. That's such a naive perspective to take. No one is claiming a Texas state senator that is a Democrat is the same as a Democrat in a deep blue state. It's all relative and only fools or liars would claim otherwise.

I'm afraid to ask and be totally disappointed, but where do you live that is a supposed socialist utopia? Cause I don't know if any that exist in this world so I'm afraid I'm just going to be disappointed by exaggerated rhetoric. Especially since I've never known any socialist concept to be hostile to personal economic development. Especially since it kind of requires success on a personal level to even be possible. But I'm hopeful you might know of some utopia I'm unaware of.

Git is not blockchain. Git is a distributed ledger. You can rewind a git commit if you know what you're doing. If fit were a blockchain, removing the last commit would corrupt the entire chain. Every transaction is part of building that trust.

Your conclusion of uses of blockchain is spot on though. I also feel it's extremely expensive and complicated when there are much cheaper and more efficient ways outside of it.

When did this become a thing where people started calling git a blockchain? Git is much older than blockchain. I don't see anyone giving Torvalds credit for inventing blockchain. Because he didn't. And git isn't blockchain. It's sort of useful as an illustration of how blockchain almost works, except it's much more efficient because it doesn't do all the things that blockchain requires.

Many people don't consider Git to be a blockchain because it lacks more than just proof of work. No argument against merkle tree, but a blockchain is more than a merkle tree, otherwise it would just be called a merkle tree. Part of the issue is I don't think there's any real accepted definition for just a simple blockchain.

For example, you can absolutely undo a commit (it's messy, yes). This is counter to how blockchain operates. Each commit does not rewrite every previous commit.

So git is sort of a precursor to blockchain. Distributed ledger, sure. Blockchain, no.

A blockchain is extremely difficult (virtually impossible) to intentionally tamper with. Git is not. Well, relatively speaking.

Wait, your friend is still dating them? Wtf?