Yes, my eyes don't hurt anymore, my vision has improved, and I sleep better. I won't go back. Reading condescending insults and "reasons" (in dark mode...) that flatly contradict direct experience won't change that.
Attempting to invoke the thankfully largely-discarded concept of "whataboutism" is actually just a kind of backhanded ad hominem used to avoid making a real argument and instead try to make people "look the other way".
Criticism of the existing financial system in the context of discussing a proposed replacement for it is about as related a discussion as possible.
Simply stating that all crypto is bad/criminal adds nothing of value to the discussion.
The truth is that there are (as there generally is with new technologies), useful and practical purposes to which they are applied. Indeed, the majority instances so far of "crypto" having caused harm has actually been the result of an ordinary centralised trust-based fraud donning the label "crypto" to draw in victims to loot.
The #1 mantra of crypto has always been "not your keys, not your coins". Had it been followed, instead of perverted into its opposite and mislabelled "crypto", the most heinous of these scams would not have been enabled.
The thing most actively facilitating crime and fraud in "crypto" lately is the profoundly misguided belief that giving your money to someone you've never met you saw on TV is safer than keeping it in your own wallet.
Crypto is not to blame for that belief, it was invented to provide an alternative.
>Attempting to invoke the thankfully largely-discarded concept of "whataboutism" is actually just a kind of backhanded ad hominem used to avoid making a real argument and instead try to make people "look the other way".
Moments of clarity like this are one of the main reasons I keep coming back to this place. :D
What about the fact that I have no idea what credentials he has with regard to analyzing the banking system vs crypto? Please don't disregard my perfectly valid question as an ad hominem attack
Accusing someone of deliberately derailing a conversation when they're doing no such thing is obviously going to be taken as an insult.
You can question the relevance of a comparison without questioning the integrity of the person bringing it up: say it's off-topic and explain why.
More often than not, accusations of "whataboutery" are used to avoid having to explain why something isn't relevant
and thus avoid addressing whatever point is being made. I'd go as far as to say it's why the word even exists.
REPL transcripts (i.e. bash sessions, python REPL, etc) tend to be pretty good demonstrations of "working up to a conclusion". And, not coincidentally, putting GPT in a REPL environment yields better results.
Other good examples narratives that include a lot of internal monologue. Thing a book written in the form:
> The sphinx asked him, "A ham sandwich costs $1.10. The ham costs $1 more than the bread. How much does the bread cost?"
> He thought carefully. He knew the sphinx asked tricky problems. If the ham costs a dollar more than the bread, the bread couldn't possibly be more than 10 cents. But if the bread was 10 cents, the ham would be $1.10 and the total would be $1.20. That can't be. We need to lose 10 cents, and it has to be divided evenly among the ham and bread to maintain the dollar offset. So the ham must be $1.05 and the bread must be $0.05. He answered the sphinx confidentally "The bread is $0.05!".
It's a pity because we should be seeking solutions for both problems, money system allowing negative rates and private transactions. They should not exclude each other because both are important for different reasons.
all fiat currencies have number-go-down technology. look at a graph of purchasing power vs time for any fiat currency. It always trends towards zero.
start using a currency with number-go-up technology. look at a graph of bitcoin. instead of going down, the number goes up. you should adopt this type of currency.
I am aware this sounds stupid. I am also 100% convinced that it is true.
There are 1+ million migrant workers in Qatar. Roughly, the average human mortality rate is about 1% per year. In a given population of 1 million, you could expect about 27 to die, on average each day. (0.01x1000000)/365 = 27
Sure, more elderly people make up the 1%, and if accounting for the workers ages maybe you'll have half that figure. Or a quarter. The point is, in context, one worker dying out of a million on any given day is unfortunately expected.
It doesn't mean it's not sad, or that the persons life was worthless, or that the death should not be investigated to determine the cause. It does mean that out of 1 million, thousands will ordinarily die during any given year.
How many times per day would it take for an authority to issue a statement like the above before such statements begin to seem trite and meaningless?
> the average human mortality rate is about 1% per year
Are you talking about death from any reason? Because I don't think anyone expect the Qatar authorities to comment on someone dying from a water-skiing accident or from old age. Given migrant worker have to be healthy enough to travel and work, one would assume their mortality was significantly lower than average.
The question, of course, is work-accidents. Does migrant workers in Qatar have the same rate of work accidents as workers in other rich countries?
> How many times per day would it take for an authority to issue a statement like the above before such statements begin to seem trite and meaningless?
Nobody asks them to issue a statement every time a worker was killed. This was what he said when was asked specifically about the incident. Still think it's trite and meaningless?
Where is the line? One could equally then argue use the number working on only the one construction site. Eventually a point can be reached where 1 death may "seem" improbable. A wider view reveals a context people seem to have missed.
The line is whatever level is being overseen by the official. If someone gets burned at a Dunkin’ Donuts, first would be the manager of that Dunkin’, then the regional manager, and then eventually the CMO. Maybe the CMO deals with reports of burns in a spreadsheet, because they see so many. For this case, you’ve misaligned a World Cup employee with the purview of the leader of the country. The number of migrant worker deaths in Qatar is not their concern, but the number of deaths of migrants working on the World Cup is.
