ForgotMyPwOops

Blood requirements are set by the tribe, not the federal government

Source: am member of a federally recognized tribe that only requires one parent be a member for their children to be a member, much like US citizenship, so unless that changes my children for 100 generations will be 100% Native-American just as they will be 100% American

Being likeable is more desirable than being an amazing programmer

People would much rather work with someone mediocre who is pleasant than someone very talented but who brings everyone down, this is especially true for junior positions where you're expected to not be very good... so as unfair as it is make sure you come off as charismatic in your interview

I don't think you can justly punish people for an unquanitifiable "group harm" with regards to speech

You could easily use such a justification to ban anti-war speech (something that has been done before), or ban speech against whatever you favorite political view is

Should all opinions based on bad reasons be banned? Should people be compelled to explain their beliefs? Who decides if these opinions are good or illegal?

I don't believe fairly arbitrating expression based on beliefs is feasible, and I do believe it is actively harmful

Should all speech be up for vote? Should all opinions that the majority disagree with be banned?

I believe weakening protections such as free speech, which are used by the vulnerable to call attention to their plights, is much more likely to hurt Jewish people than allowing ostensibly antisemitic expression to exist

Who decides what is antisemitic? It seems to me that based on your logic all speech can be prevented assuming some arbiter declares it antisemitic

Boycotting can hardly be considered protected speech if that's all it takes to silence it

Do you believe boycotting is protected speech?

Do you believe American citizens should be allowed to choose who they boycott?

> Israel is its own nation and it isn't America's business what it does to its own citizens.

I would argue that as long as Israel is lobbying the US to make it illegal for Americans to boycott Israel it is in fact our business

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws

> The spread of anti-BDS laws in U.S. states is largely due to the lobbying of the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF), an umbrella group of Israel lobbies headquartered in Jerusalem that has received funding from the Israeli government

I have heard that the IRS doesn't have the resources to go after people who can afford good lawyers

Though I was referring more generally to things like known pedophiles getting slaps on the wrist by the feds, the spouses of politicians making millions insider trading, politicians not facing consequences for deleting public records, ect

Only when enforced equally, which is not typically the case in America

The problem is that the more likely a job is to help people the less likely it is to pay well, software engineers are expensive and is helping people going to outweigh things like being able to support a family? Or at least an extra 100k

Because monopolistic business practices tangibly hurt consumers by reducing incentives to produce a good product and by artificially raising prices that get passed to the consumer

My Dad is on a similar diet for health reasons after a cardiovascular scare (not even nuts or avocados allowed), apparently the amount of oil and protein the average sedentary person needs can be obtained from vegetables we don't tradionally think as being good sources of them because you actually don't need much oil or protein to be healthy

Though if you're trying to build muscle/are more physically active you'd probably want more protein rich food sources

> People think it's magically going to solve all the problems created by the government

No one other than extremists (which exist in all groups) believe this, using this as a reason to hate NFTs makes you appear unreasonable and not grounded in reality

Your implicit claim is that NFTs offer nothing more than decentralization which is not true, as it's basis is a public tamper resistant ledger that is difficult to censor. How many systems like this exist already? How many are easier to use than NFTs? How many of your prospective customers are likely to know about or want to use this alternate system versus NFTs?

To claim it has no benefits other than decentralization seems odd to me

Edit: I can't respond past this point as I'm being throttled

Maybe I misunderstand your point but intellectual property can only exist under a legal system, this seems like a shallow 'gotcha'

Can the NFT be cryptographically verified to be authentic? If so then it should be as good as any other proof of purchase

My understanding is that this is not correct, it conflates all NFT transactions without nuance, if one buys intellectual property via NFT and can prove it (which is ostensibly NFT's raison d'etre) then I see no reason why they couldn't exercise their rights to it (i.e. sue for copyright infringement, ect)