I'd love to see drug trials funded by tax dollars, ideally informed by a legal prediction market on which trials are likely to succeed or fail. The people betting on pharma stocks would likely prefer betting directly on trials, since stock prices move for all kinds of unrelated reasons -- it'd be a new asset class. I'm skeptical about single payer healthcare though :p
The price of rent roughly tracks the price of a mortgage, and apartments are only about 20% of all homes. If this legislation passes, and home prices go down, then rental prices for homes will go down, and apartment rental prices will need to match those price reductions to attract renters.
They are somewhat opposite: rents go down when everyone wants to (and can) buy, they go up when people don’t want to (or cannot) buy. This is just a short term effect, long term rents should track home values.
I see this bill as a no-op: Wall Street will continue to invest in multi-family rental buildings, as it always has, and SFH purchases were always somewhat of a side show.
If animals do it in nature, and humans do it with dangerous methods when denied access to safe methods, it's going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law.
Let's face it, this is just another drug war. An opportunity for Republicans to deny Americans personal autonomy and liberty. A justification for state aggression against your neighbors and friends. Wake up.
Monkeys also engage in cannibalism, sometimes even of their own dead young, and lions regularly commit infanticide. Appeals to nature are not compelling in the slightest when it comes to morality.
My inference from nature supported a non-moral point, namely "[abortion is] going to be with us until the end of time, regardless of law."
As for my moral argument, I invite you to read about the history of abortion, the history of abolition, and/or the history of America's war on drugs. I expect you will find abolition the easiest example to grok, since it's no longer a political issue. Note the moral arguments for abolition still stand, and yet it's no longer law.
I encourage you to look at orchid.com (or, better yet, the README file in the git repository) for information about Orchid instead of torproject.org ;P. Orchid is most often described as "a decentralized bandwidth marketplace", and now (apparently) as "a new model of VPN". I do not believe that the word "anonymity" is generally used to describe the effect of using Orchid (though I'm sure the term has probably been used in one or two places over the years inadvertently, as there is some overlap between it and the word "private", which better describes what Orchid is accomplishing; if you go back to like, early 2020 on archive.org, you can see orchid.com was nigh unto littered with the word "private"--calling it a "privacy network" for "private browsing"--but not "anonym(ity|ous)").
As for Onion Browser (which is notably a third-party app), I will clarify (as I'd assumed the points were taken together): Tor does not have "a working iOS port" capable of VPN-like service (what Tor sometimes calls "transparent proxy"), such as to use apps like Facebook, WhatsApp, or Instagram over Tor (as in, something useful to accomplish the goals of a user on mobile, as the world--and to be clear: this sucks--is no longer truly accessible via the web). This would require a Network Extension on iOS, which has very weird and somewhat frustrating resource limitations... and here I will note that I know well the developer of iCepa (mentioned in that blog post), and, due to life circumstances, he had to abandon that work many years ago (before it was able to be finished).
FWIW, I entirely appreciate that Tor isn't really designed to support "VPN-like service" (and, in fact, goes so far as to discourage the usage of their "transparent proxy" functionality): they do not consider that to be an appropriate way to implement "anonymity online"... which maybe helps make the difference between the projects clear? Brian (Fox!) had had a great explanation (this isn't an exact quote... I believe he worded it much better): Tor attempts to make you "anonymous" online (which really requires a browser); Orchid, in stark contrast, can help to make your communication "private", helping prevent third-parties (whether ISPs or governments) from interfering with your communication (which may or may not be "anonymous": that's kind of out of Orchid's control).
> our users mostly buy in using "in-app purchases", which has led to use implementing various restrictions on spending them.
Browsing through the code, it looks like Orchid's xdai contract is https://blockscout.com/xdai/mainnet/address/0x6dB8381b2B41b7... -- which shows in-app purchases of bandwidth being a bit less than $75,000 total for the last two years. Is that right, or am I missing something?
> I think most projects that have "roadmaps" in this space are using it to cause people in the ecosystem to speculatively purchase large quantities of what should really be a "utility token".
"Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don't have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it's true. If you hire somebody without integrity, you really want them to be dumb and lazy."
Great quote. But I wonder if things are so dark at some of these companies that, for some positions, they actually need to find people who lack integrity.
He spent a decade of nights-and-weekends effort on making kids better at math and science, taking what I understand to be startup level risks in the beginning. How much do you think he should make? Mr. Rogers was paid more than $800k/year if you adjust for inflation[1][2].
If he thinks other people should donate a whole bunch of money, shouldn't he donate a whole bunch of money if he has it? Maybe he already does this, I don't know. If he took a lower salary he would effectively be doing this -- in a publicly verifiable way. It's a matter of "skin in the game".
