PopularUsername

If Democrats lost because people on the left refused to vote for them, they would be forced to change. Problem is everyone claims each election is an existential crisis (doubtful) so you're never allowed to withhold a vote or vote third party.

So by paying for university he is funding any protests done by students? A bit of a stretch, no?

I used ublock to block the popup by using the pick function, but I have not run into this 3 flags your out popup yet, so depends on how they disable the video I guess. I'll try to report back.

What do you mean by direct-to-content-producer? I can't find it on Google. Are you suggesting the viewers pay the content creator and the content creator pays YouTube for hosting?

Subscription is a reasonable funding method. It's also reasonably priced. I think the bigger problem is companies that refuse to offer subscriptions, because Facebook knows no one is dumb enough to pay $15-20 a month, but that is what they make off the ads so offering the service for anything less would cause them to lose money. Merely offering the subscription shows users how much Facebook really makes off of them.

YouTube is also very generous with how much they spit revenue with creators. I don't like that they exist as a monopoly, but at least they aren't parasites like the other half of the web.

Yeah I was tempted to add a caveat, it does technically auto executive, but because it needs to interact with the real world it will always run into the oracle problem. The only solution to the oracle problem is courts and tort law, which makes the blockchain contract redundant and unnecessarily expensive.

VC investing is effectively predatory pricing, squeezing out original non-tech service providers by providing services below cost, then replacing them with monopoly tech versions. The funding is intimately tied to the industry and they all use the same strategy.

This was actually the original idea of non-fungible tokens, but because you need special legislation to tie an object to this digital receipt (there is nothing legally tying one thing to the other), they just skipped over it completely and said the NFT itself was the commodity, which is why they could only do it for digital art with the a web link. (we could, for example, see this more useful for a title to a car or house)

In fact, many NFTs don't even contain any language about copyright or licensing, they don't even attempt to pretend that the NFT holder owns the copyright. The owner of the NFT in these cases only owns the NFT, and not the copyright. Of course, you have to transfer the copyright separately from transferring the NFT, which makes this whole thing redundant for buying/selling on secondary markets, but they could have at least tried to pretend they could.

Apparently, smart contracts are not contracts at all... they are friendly suggestions. Unsurprisingly a contract needs a mechanism to enforce it, which makes decentralized contracts redundant at best (as you still need institutions outside of the blockchain to monitor and enforce the contracts), and or worse, completely useless if there is no legal way to enforce them.

The people that can actually make him look like an idiot refuse to interview or debate him (don't want to "platform" him, among other concerns), so he looks like a genius to people that don't know better.

People also seem to be concerned that he can bullshit his way through a debate by overwhelming people with fake facts. This is completely false, I've seen clips where he gets light pushback from relatively neutral speakers and he immediately folds or says something stupid.

People need to stop trying to sweep him under the rug, it only makes him look more authoritative and convincing to dumb people.

I don't like centralized religions either, and I think I agree with your points. But I'm just saying the line "The X of peace" is either so generic that it is a bland description of any ideology. All ideology hides it's violence behind self defense, and are therefore "peaceful". Or it implies that they are particularly peaceful, so it's a description of non-violent. But few ideologies would identify as non violent, and so they would not use that term to describe themselves.

I've never actually heard anyone use that line except people in alt-right circles, and I am around a lot of Muslims. It is not a term Muslims use to describe their religion, not that they would describe it differently, just that it is a strange description. It would be like calling Canada "the country of peace", which I guess is technically true because most countries want to avoid war and promote peace? But does not mean their military is non-violent.

The line is clearly used for the intent of creating a false contrast to make some made up point about hypocrisy.

Also as the other commenter pointed out, you are making a critique about the middle East, everyone agrees the middle East is dysfunctional.