What?

No, it’s because we have something called “Civil Asset Forfeiture” which basically means that American cops can just stop you for no reason, file a lawsuit against your cash and just take it out of your wallet. If you want it back, you have to declare yourself to be a criminal defendant, and then be found not guilty of the criminal charges against you. If you don’t, they get to keep your money to put in their pension fund.

That’s not from math. That’s from lack of practice. Nobody has used cash in 10 years.

Pretty sure the nuclear plant will provide significantly more heat. I mean, those giant cooling towers are specifically designed to unload heat into the atmosphere.

That’s what I’m asking: what would that law look like? Securities fraud?

Could current anti-trust laws be applied? This could be construed as anti-competitive practices.

What laws are going to attack circular funding?

Asymptomatic. Correct. You just agreed with the doctor that she was not displaying symptoms of Hantavirus.

Like the other 95% of asymptomatic people on board, she was already under quarantine. Like all of them, she was already being treated as an asymptomatic carrier.

That’s a very, very good point, but not the one you think it is.

Of the ~240 people aboard the vessel, 100% are experiencing symptoms of “anxiety”, while about 5% have been identified as also experiencing “Hantavirus”.

Everyone aboard is quarantined, and regularly being interviewed by medical personnel to determine if they are symptomatic. Did she initially report virus symptoms along with the anxiety affecting everyone? Or did the virus symptoms appear later?

“Ma’am, even though you have reported no symptoms indicating you have contracted the virus, we’re going to go ahead and say you have it.”

^ much more problematic diagnosis.

What were the specific symptoms she reported to the doctors?

If I go to the doctor and I report “I’m feeling generally nervous and a little scared”, I would expect the doctor to respond “That sounds like anxiety”.

If I report “I’m having a worsening cough, and body aches”, I’d expect “That sounds like a viral infection”.

If I were to report “I had a cough several days ago, but it has disappeared. I’m feeling generally nervous and a little scared”, should the doctor listen to what I am saying and conclude “anxiety”? Or should they focus solely on the symptom I reported in decline and conclude “virus”?

40? The oldest millenials are turning 45 this year.

Invasion of privacy can be a good teaching moment.

Don’t wait until they’ve embarrassed themselves: take them through their browser history before they’ve even thought about porn. Show them router logs before they include pornhub entries. Show them their tracking history while they were far away from you, out with grandma. Explain that you don’t look at these things, but that this sort of information is available. That if they use their school’s wifi it’s available to their teachers. If they use their friend’s wifi, it’s available to their friend’s dad.

Do it while the information isn’t embarrassing, and they will learn to protect themselves, rather than be upset about your “invasion”.

Access to the Internet is not something that the parents are actually capable of restricting. As soon as one kid in the has a phone, their entire peer group is exposed.

The question isn’t about restriction. It’s about who will be teaching these kids about the Internet. The first kid learns from their parents; every other kid learns (mostly) from other kids.

If your kid is the last in their class to have a phone, everything they know about the Internet they will have learned from their peers. They sure as hell aren’t going to tell you they already know about all the things you’ve been trying to hide from them.

Shit.

Economic.

Where it takes a young couple 80 hours of paid labor per week just to maintain a lower-middle class lifestyle, kids become an unaffordable luxury in a traditional family. When 40 hours of paid labor can comfortably support a family, that couple starts having kids.

UBI corrects the problem in multiple ways. It meets the basic needs of the family, so that their own income is immediately gainful.

UBI removes “starvation” as a motivation for labor. A drowning man will drag his wife, kids, and even his rescuers underwater with him, just for one more breath of air in his lungs. The desperate laborer will accept whatever pittance he is offered for his time, because that pittance is better than foregoing medical coverage, or the roof over his head, or enough food. In accepting that pittance, this desperate worker establishes the market value of labor, and drags down the compensation of everyone around him. A UBI relieves the majority of his desperation, and frees him to walk away from exploitative employers. That skinflint employer is forced to either offer a reasonable wage, or go out of business.

A UBI is a “Citizenship Dividend” - a payment for the use of Democratically-derived political powers. It is payment for the individual’s (compulsory) investment in his or her government, allowing that government to provide services to and collect taxes and fees from non-person, corporate entities on our behalf.

In a socialized economy, unemployment should be a goal. If a worker can be replaced with AI, the employer’s taxes should increase, and UBI should increase.

The economy that demands humans perform work better performed by machines is deeply perverted.

Losing or having your wallet stolen should not disenfranchise a voter.

There is no indication that they can actually acquire the clear text of an E2EE communicatiom. without one of the ends being complicit in the process. There is no evidence of the fraud you refer to.

That doesn’t mean they are telling the truth, merely that they haven’t been proven to have lied. They could release their source code tomorrow. That code could prove you are correct and they are liars. That code could prove that they are correct, and you were wrong.

We don’t have to resort to unfounded claims to justify criticism here. Proving their claims to be unverifiable is more damning than failing to prove they are committing fraud.

Technically true.

However, doing so would be perpetrating a fraud. If they denied the capability you’re talking about in response to a warrant or subpoena, someone would be in contempt.

I don’t know if any corpo actually cares about such things, but I know that if you or I were to do this, we’d quickly find ourselves broke and possibly in prison.

That means there’s a software switch that dumps a plaintext copy of a supposedly encrypted message when flipped.

Kinda, sorta, but no, not really. What’s happening is that the recipient is decrypting the message. When you report the message, you include a cleartext copy with your report.

The “switch” you are talking about is in the same app that is doing the decryption. For the bad actor to toggle that “switch”, they would have to control the app.

That’s a little disingenuous…

1. You receive an encrypted message.
2. You decrypt the message.
3. You report the message.
4. You forward the decrypted message.

When you send a message, no E2EE scheme can prevent your recipient from forwarding the decrypted message to a third party.

Laptop is probably on a VPN, which will bypass your local DNS.