Except we don’t have any widespread evidence for cocaine being taken outside of highly specific medicinal cases being helpful to the health and wellbeing of the individual.

When it comes to gender affirming care, we have substantial evidence that proves it is safe and effective, as even a cursory glance at medical research on the topic will show:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(23)00118-7/fulltext

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1115753

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2789423

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/trgh.2015.0008

I mean, there are definitely people in the government working on it, but those often require much more substantial reforms and systemic changes before the changes could functionally work. (i.e. banning data brokers would kill off most free services, or banning targeted ads would kill most ad-funded news networks)

If you haven’t already, I recommend using the EFF’s Action Center to let your representatives know about specific changes you would and would not want made to our laws to protect privacy, free speech, and digital innovation, according to what they’ve found to be the most pressing issues at the moment.

“1 in 10 people believe they are not at risk when using illicit sources to watch TV, film or sports.”

ONE in ten? Man, they’re even bad at cherry picking statistics 😂

They even cite a study with only 1,000 participants for their statistic that “32% OF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF FRAUD”

In the title, at least. The body of that claim’s card says that it’s the people, or someone they know that have been victims of fraud.

Gosh, I hate dishonest scare marketing campaigns.

Just because an LLM sounds smart and human-like doesn’t mean it will magically solve climate change after being directly implicated in resource consumption we know from actual scientists, today, will make the problem worse.

They don’t believe it.

They just think their investors will.

The problem is that welfare systems, such as those that provide housing, that distinguish who is eligible by how much they can afford it, to a certain degree, inevitably depress higher levels of economic activity, and good saving behavior, through the very nature by which they’re operated.

If we say that someone is no longer eligible for free housing if they earn, say, $2,000+ a month, and housing would otherwise cost $500 a month, then if they’re currently earning $1,500 a month (the same they’d effectively have if they had to pay $500 a month for housing on a $2,000 a month salary) they have a direct incentive to not make over $2,000, unless they can guarantee they’ll make at least that much plus $500 more to compensate for the difference. If they earned $1,800 a month, they’d be making $300 more than someone making $2,000, but paying $500 a month for housing after hitting the cutoff.

This isn’t just a hypothetical either. While this 2021 study does mention some benefits of means testing, such as more targeted expenditure, it ultimately shows that…

“An asset means-test incentivizes low-income households to hold few financial assets making them vulnerable to predictable and unpredictable income changes.”

…and sees that, in the end, while it can marginally increase the cost of these social programs to the taxpayer, it ultimately does more to benefit the individuals receiving the assistance.

Or how about this research done by the Cleveland branch of the Federal Reserve that states:

“the elimination of testing limits, such as in policies similar to a UBI, could present a welfare-improving alternative to the current system, though not without large economic trade-offs.” (They effectively mean worse targeting of funds, but better overall results)

Means-testing directly reduces the incentives that lead to higher overall household wealth, and quality of life.

Not having means-testing increases total income, which also means increased tax revenue. That same tax revenue can then go to funding the housing system as a whole, but it won’t directly, substantively punish people for an increase in income past an arbitrary threshold.

Not to mention the increased administrative cost of performing means testing, as opposed to doing unconditional support, which could reduce the amount of money actually going to funding housing, in favor of funding jobs for people that audit income levels of housing applicants.

Anything we humans need for fundamental existence in today’s society should be free to the individual, and be a cost we all pay as a society to respect the existence of other human beings. Anything above that is up to the individual to either provide for themselves, or receive as a result of the value they contribute to society through labor.

That’s my broader belief system, and thus, housing falls under that for me. The better we meet individual’s needs, the easier it becomes for them to contribute back to society, and experience upward class mobility.

I believe that if we are to make housing a right, we can’t even just say it’s a right “unless you have no job,” or “unless you’re unable to fork over $500 a month,” because employment is ultimately up to the discretion of employers, who, even today, don’t even consider most unhoused people for jobs, because they don’t have stable housing, but to get stable housing, those people need jobs. (this even applies to many shelters, which will require unhoused people to either be employed, or be constantly seeking employment)

We know that adding hoops to jump through to get welfare assistance only harms those who need to depend on it the most, without providing any significant socioeconomic benefit, so why should we apply that same logic to housing, if we determine that it should be a right of all human beings?

I’m not saying the housing has to be great. It doesn’t need to be spacious, have all the amenities, or even have things like good quality lighting or good soundproofing from adjacent housing units, but at a bare minimum, everyone deserves somewhere to live.

It’s mildly effective in the sense that it will decimate click-through rates, but if enough people did it, they would start filtering by IP, and you’d need to change how many ads it clicks on so it looks more human.

It also still gives advertisers your data, since it still has to load the ads on your system to click them, so it’s not as privacy-preserving as a full-on adblocker that outright blocks every advertisement and tracker related network request in the first place.

Your daily reminder that basic housing should be absolutely zero fucking dollars because housing should be a human right, and anything above 0% should be criminal.

Better than completely allowing capital to do whatever it wants without even attempting to push back.

As Cory Doctorow put it, “An app is just a web-page wrapped in enough IP to make it a felony to add an ad-blocker to it.”

It’s a bit more nuanced than that, because a human can still develop artistic skills by observing non-artistic creations beforehand.

For instance, the world’s very first artist probably didn’t have any paintings or sculptures to build off.

I’m not saying I necessarily agree that the person isn’t an artist because they rely on external training data, but generative AI models most certainly need to observe other works to ‘learn’ how to make art, whereas humans don’t necessarily have to. (Although if someone were to make a reinforcement learning model based on user feedback as a way to entirely generate better and better images starting from random variation, that would make the original training data point moot)

At least from my past experience observing the media sphere and demographics regarding crypto, it tends to just be newbies that are investing primarily due to the seeking of gains, but not for any sort of ideological reason, as opposed to the people who initially invested in crypto for its other freedom-preserving qualities.

For instance, I had originally mined some Bitcoin years and years ago when I initially just thought the concept of a stateless, distributed-control monetary unit was an interesting concept. I held that bitcoin in a non-custodial (i.e. not on an exchange/company) wallet, because I believed in the actual values prescribed to Bitcoin at the time.

Later, when my father wanted to try investing in crypto because he also thought it was interesting, he invested through an exchange, but refused to withdraw his money because he wasn’t that interested. It was just general intrigue, but not enough to overcome his apathy.

In the Mt Gox days, it was just so early, and Bitcoin was generally so new as a concept, that people didn’t understand the point of self-custody as much. With FTX, it was the masses who downloaded their app simply because they saw it during the Super Bowl and wanted to give it a shot as an investment vehicle, but not because they had any clue what the original values were underpinning the technology.

The people putting their money in the hands of these companies never cared about the ideological reasons for holding crypto (which I believe have now been totally overtaken by greed and wealthy VC firms), they just wanted to see if they could be the next person to get rich.

In my eyes, that’s an ideology problem, not a problem with the technology, but I do see how we could very well disagree on this.

About time.

For reference, visa charges about 1.5%-3.5% on everything.

Oh, plus ten cents for every transaction, because fuck you, that’s why.

Corporations like Mt Gox and FTX are not blockchains, they are companies that use blockchains.

People keeping their money with them were willingly giving up ownership over their crypto, deliberately sacrificing the benefits they would have gotten by keeping it on-chain

I get criticizing crypto, but I get a bit miffed when I see people directly conflating blockchains as a technology and private corporations that use said technology, and use one’s actions to criticize the non-failings of the other.

Which is why both sides have the right to protest, criticize, and argue over their respective viewpoints.

If we attempt to ban certain forms of speech that don’t, say, immediately incite violence, then what we end up doing is allowing the intolerant people to force society to become intolerant by censoring opposing viewpoints, as long as they’re given any degree of control over the legislative process around what speech is allowed.

We have freedom of speech, but not mandated respect for the beliefs you say with that speech. While they’re free to say it, everyone is free to say anything they wish against it, to not listen to it, and to drown it out.

Society can already be intolerant of the intolerance without opening the door to legislation that could mandate intolerance of tolerant speech. We don’t have to legislate intolerant speech away to counter its usage.

deleted by creator

Always demand a human support representative until it gives you the option to, then the actual human will usually manually process your refund if you complain about how the initial refund never happened.

Bonus chance of success if you’re a Prime member and say you’re thinking about cancelling.

Hey, I actually missed that part. (I assumed it was deaths relating to the pregnancy itself, not including additional procedures like abortions)

Still, 17.4 - 0.45 = 16.95, which is still substantially higher than the case fatality rate of abortion-related fatalities alone.

This is kind of just a bad argument.

Nobody is arguing that an abortion can save a woman from all consequences.

Nobody is arguing that death is impossible as a result of abortion.

But when somebody dies because something prevented them from getting a procedure that would have been highly likely to save them, that doesn’t come into conflict with the possibility of death from the procedure. It’s a matter of personal choice.

Especially considering the maternal mortality rate (# of deaths per 100,000 live births) is 17.4, while the case fatality rate for abortions (# of deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions) is just 0.45

Now imagine how much higher that rate gets when abortions are performed illegally because legislation like this stops safe abortions from being possible, without curbing demand.

Yes, people die from abortions. Yes, people die from pregnancy. Yes, this woman could have died from the abortion procedure even if she was able to get it.

But her chance of death was significantly lower if she had been capable of getting an abortion, which she was not.