pelliphant

The problem is that it isn't true, you can say things that they agree with without being banned, but say anything even slightly leftish and it's insta-ban.

That isn't enough for me to accept the "equally bad" part.

Also, as a european, I see both american parties as being on the government is bad side, even if one of them are obviously more so than the other.

> as people died in Texas cause no one cared enough to make sure the wind turbines worked in the cold.

That is not true, wind turbines failing is not the cause, that is a lie.

I think the solutiion is that both are needed.

corporate funded news can investigate the government, and government funded news can investigate corporations.

yes, it is well known. I just see it as a digital versin of the phone book.

And there are even more extreme versions, like ratsit.se

where you can pay to get credit information on anyone.

Personally I think that what ratsit does is probably too far, and maybe it shouldn't be legal.

But in general I like our "public information" system, that lots of government information is available to every citizen, I find the benefits of being able to check what the government and those with power does (journalism would be way harder without this), outweights the negatives.

I seriously hadn't considered the second definition of the word.

Thnx.

I have no idea how american school funding works, but property taxes? Is that really true?

That would mean that schools in richer areas with higher property values got more funding?

No, that is not it. =)

If you are rich enough you can pick what country gets to tax you, if one country raises the tax too much, rich people will just move their taxable assets to another country.

It is super difficult to actually do that when tax laws are national but corporations are global.

When a corporation is large enough to be able to move around in the world they can start shopping around for the most advantageous place to set up shop.

I would guess they didn't put different adds on different words, so, those words had the exact same adds as every other word.

peddle investment schemses, that sounds like cryptocurrency proponents to me...

But how would one actually know if a result is a false positive or not?

Sure, in extreme cases it might be obvious, but if you just know that one test gives more matches than another, not knowing which one is the one giving false results?

That's a fair point.

Ok, and if the owner in our hypothetical scenario was my government, then I might change my mind.

That is true.

But people from those countries could use a currency from one of the more trusted governments instead of using bitcoins.

As an example: american dollars was used as currency in a lot of soviet states.

Ok, but if I rephrase it as:

I consider bitcoin to be more of a pyramid scheme then your average asset.

Yes, that was my point.

Well, that makes more sense, thnx.

That seems plausible.

I would argue that if prosecutors and/or cops get to pick the tool, false positives would result in more sales.

Just as false negatives would result in more sales if the defendant gets to make the pick.

Ì'm scandinavian, so yes, I assume that my government is more on my side that pretty much any for-profit organization in the world.

Am I a "corpo merc" since I don't like crypto currency?

What does that even mean?

What are the positive sides of "Evading capital controls"?

Also, does POS here mean "piece of shit"?

When you say speculative, for whom do you mean?

Do you mean that it would be easier for some rich person to make more money by speculating in dollars and euros than it would be to speculate in bitcoins?

Not OP, but I wouldn't.

I consider the tools available to central banks to be actually usefull. Example: The ability to print more or less money depending on what is needed.

I'm a crypto hater, I consider bitcoin to be a pyramid scheme.

And also, I think that it is a positive thing that an institution that I can influence (government) is in control of deciding how transactions work.

This might also be a cultural thing, since I'm scandinavian, and "we" generally consider government regulation as something necessary.

Not an expert, but as an anecdote: every company that I have worked for have had their stated purpose as "Doing X and Y, and also investing in stocks/bonds/whatever".

It is uncommon for sure.

But then again, now days, most people don't consider gold as a serious currency.

I think that the problem here is that the group "them" are on both sides.

Sure, you can hold some stock to hurt some "them"s, but at the same time, you will help other "them"s.

In my opinion: The charm of reddit is the smaller subreddits, once a subreddit grows too large, it's usually better to just find a new one with the same purpose.

Abortion laws in europe isn't decided by our most liberal parties.

The first trimester rules you mentioned are usually what everyone can agree on.

Example one: In my country (Sweden), a high-ranking party-poard member of our conservative christian party just got into a lot of trouble because it was found out that they had been a member of an anti-abortion organization 10 years ago, and now had to publicly state that they now support the first-trimester abortion rules (Personally, I think it's a lie, but this is what you have to do over here to not ruin your political career, even in the conservative christian party).