Yes. I suppose it would also have a sort of utility if it was mass adopted and therefore practically spendable for the average person, but I would argue that there is no inherent utility to Bitcoin.

BTC is solely a mode of investment, it offers no real benefits over fiat except decentralization. At least XMR is as or even more anonymous than cash, whereas Bitcoin has zero utility.

When they lose that money they are going to create a very big political problem for the rest of us.

And this will not happen 💀

And this feature was implemented into an OS you have to pay for. 💀💀💀

Although I have no use for storing chat history, SimpleX Chat has an (encrypted) database export feature that should, as far as I know, let you keep your chat history forever so long as you back it up.

This is an incorrect, unrealistic way to view this. By using the Tor network normally (you argument certainly applies to doing overly traffic intensive tasks like torrenting over Tor) you are normalizing its use, protecting those who really rely on it. If the only people using Tor were criminals and people who needed the protection, listening on Wifi networks for connections to Tor could lead to immediate prosecution (look what the UK is trying to do with encrpytion, and that French case where all of the evidence against a suspect was use of open source technology like Tor.) By default, Tor does not hide the fact its being used from your network (thats what a bridge is for), so the more people use Tor, the safer everyone is.

If you really want to help those that need Tor’s protection, run Snowflake on your desktop or Orbot’s ‘kindness’ on Android. This allows users to use your device as a bridge, bypassing censorship in other countries / networks.

I dont think this article is suggesting everyone use Tor Browser as their main browser (and if they are, thats obtuse), but that people use Tor / Tor Browser at all, even for just sensitive searches or websites that dont require a login.

Well exactly, I see no way that all the self driving source code will be FOSS (I don’t think corporations would ever willingly sign onto this). So the responsible party in the case of a malfunction should therefore be the company, because in a full self driving setup the occupant is not controlling the vehicle, and has no reasonable way to ensure the safety of the code.

I disagree, I feel no matter how good the technology becomes, the odd one-in-a-million glitch that kills someone is not preferable to me over the accidents caused by humans. (Even if we assume the self driving cars crash at a lesser rate than human drivers).

The less augmentation past lane assist and automated braking the better IMO. I definitely disagree with a capped speed limit built into the vehicle, that should never be limited less than what could melt engine components or something (and even that would be take time to turn on). The detriments that system would cause when it malfunctions far outweigh the benefits it would bring to safety.

I see it the same way, but an incredible amount of people I’ve discussed this with say that its stupid to hold back technological innovation “like self-driving cars”. Its an unnecessary piece of technology.

I also just think the whole ethical complication is fucked. The way we have it now, every driver is responsible for their actions and no driver ever glitches out on the freeway (and if they do, they bear the consequences). Imagine a man’s wife and kids getting killed by a drunk driver vs a self-driving car. In one scenario you can clearly place blame, and take action in a much more meaningful way than just suing a car manufacturer.

Bill the manufacturer 100%, IMO. Thats why I think self driving cars beg an unanswerable legal question, as when the car drives for you, why would you be at fault? How will businesses survive if they have to take full accountability for accidents caused by self-driving cars?

I think its almost always pointless to hold back innovation, but in this case I think a full ban on self driving cars would be a great move.

If I want to microblog, I will use Mastodon.

Totally agree. Facebook should have been absolutely crippled financially after influencing an election, but they get off scot free.

My idea is this:

Instead of a maximum fine being applied, you take a violation, lets say influencing an election, and you calculate how much of the corporations revenue came from that source. (i.e. Facebook messenger revenue would not count for election manipulation). Then, take a huge portion of that revenue (60%, 70%? [Depending on the violation]) and take that from their revenue. Who gives a shit if Facebook literally has to close down one of their services from lack of finances, thats what they get.

Ah, that seems awesome! Im assuming that is unavailable in the States?

What do you mean by ‘USB TAN generator’? I don’t think I’m familiar.

The UK is really trying to ban math LMAO. The human race is fucking doomed if this nothing-burger legislation keeps getting focused on by politicians.

Ugliness just simply doesnt matter, if it has improved functionality, it would be sought after from outside the EU.

Is this the program where they only allow repair shops to stock parts 1:1 with placed orders? If so, completely useless.

I’m pretty sure within the last decade France made it illegal to wear head coverings (with no exception for religious articles like hijabs) in school buildings. I could be mistaken, but I remember thinking that was extreme to the point of racist policy.

And even if a lemmy community bans self promotion, just create a spinoff community for people to show off their content!