pgsimp

Since the explosion of kids identifying as trans is a rather recent phenomenon, it seems likely that there is no good research on the outcomes yet. The people identifying as trans who were studied ten years ago may be very different from the people who identify as trans today (their reasons for feeling trans may be completely different).

It seems rather obvious that something like social contagion is going on, similar to anorexia. There may be cases with other causes, but a lot of them at the moment are probably social contagion.

If you think about it, onset of puberty is when the bodies of kids undergo drastic changes, and it is normal that they struggle to come to terms with it. Maybe worse for girls because their bodies change in more obvious sexual ways.

So they are in a vulnerable state where their bodies feel wrong until they have adjusted to their "new world".

I don't find it surprising that they are vulnerable to people telling them the reason their body feels wrong is because they are really trans, and they desperately grasp for an offered cure.

That is just me thinking, not "medical research", mind you. However, I think parental common sense is underrated when it comes to such issues. Too much expert bullshit has been injected into child rearing over the centuries.

I also know many people who have seriously hurt themselves while helping friends moving - shot backs, destroyed knees.

I guess it is fine while you are still young and poor, and have few possessions. But as soon as you can afford it, you should pay the professionals to protect your friends from harm.

How are the small businesses supposed to update their websites, if there is no backend? You can't expect them to write HTML.

Not sure if suitable WYIWYG editors are still around, or if Word exports to HTML have become usable.

OP didn't actually mention compensation as a pain point.

It's a pity as it ranks #1 in this site about economic freedom: https://www.heritage.org/index/

I wonder if there are better lists that sort countries by actual freedom?

People invest massive amounts of time to build a following and create content on those platforms. It seems reasonable to ask that it can't be taken away from them at a whim. However, in theory, they should have read the contract before entering it. If they accept those terms, perhaps they should have to live with it.

An analogy would perhaps be a musician signing a contract with a record label? I think they expect some reciprocity, like if they owe three albums to the label, the label also owes them marketing for those albums.

The producers sign the contracts with the people they meet in person to make the videos, so they can verify those same people signed the contracts. A web site has no way to check if the contracts are real. People can just upload made up documents.

That assumes all thumbnails or pictures hash to the same value. Why would that be? There can be different algorithms, resolutions, crops... And there can be millions of thumbnails to check.

You bring forth one expert to support your claim. I am merely pointing out that there are other experts with differing opinions.

Lots of people also write books. And the Stanford Prison experiment has received a huge amount of criticism by now, afaik.

Also being famous does not automatically make you an expert.

Edit: googled citation for criticism of the SPE https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31380664/

You can always find people believing all sorts of things.

How will the sites in question learn of that court order? YouTube is one centralized site, that's different to the internet as a whole.

Maybe it is OK to ask money for such a service? I think in general that kind of service does exist. You can pay people or companies to try to remove as much as possible of your content from the internet.

I am not convinced that is is bad for consumers. Occasionally I see people talking about their porn addiction. But it can also boost people's mood. I don't know why some people seem to get addicted, but it clearly doesn't happen to everybody.

Whether it is bad for willing actors also needs citations. I don't know why people do it. I can think of some cases where it seems to have solved a psychological need, and they went on to lead successful lives afterwards (like Sasha Grey, or Sibel Kekilli).

Edit: googled article about Sasha Grey, with her quote about women in porn: "the reality is that there are a huge amount of women who are very happy with their careers and where they have gone in their lives"

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/exclusive-sasha-grey-d...

Does it actually host so many illegal videos? It is difficult to verify those claims (as certainly one can't simply go there to search for some child porn, and usually the videos will already have been removed when a story is published). Maybe actual criminal proceedings could be checked with the police? Are there articles that provide such references?

Or maybe it is just media companies trying to exert power and blowing up issues out of proportion. Just because some media outlet writes a dramatic article, doesn't mean politicians should rush to instantiate new laws to appease the journalists.

I'm not defending the hosting of revenge porn, but that specific issue does not seem to rely on the existence of porn sites.

It does rely on sites where people can upload stuff. Maybe media companies don't really like that such sites exist, because it destroys their information monopoly.

How could that even work in practice? Everybody who is visible in a video has to do some kind of VideoIdent and clearly state their consent? YouTube should have to do the same, btw.

No, women who are pretty without makeup do exist.

"They've all been bought by foreign companies."

But were the local owners forced to sell? And is there an actual issue with them selling to foreign companies?

It sounds like reinventing the wheel. Why not import the knowledge, rather than develop it again from scratch? Maybe you can imagine it could work with chocolate, but take something more complicated like cars, computers or phones.

It seems absurd to demand non-industrialized countries should develop all those things by themselves, while developed nations stand by. At the very least it would take decades, while people in the developing country remain poor.

Also, I take issue with the formulation "when developing countries are pressured into free trade agreements" - it is still simply a trade, "withholding aid" is not different from a sum of money offered in a trade. "pressured into it" is leftist propaganda.

The thing is that many places that are nice stop being nice when they are filled with lots of people.

I like to talk about living by the sea, near a nice beach. That's a limited resource.

Of course you can build skyscapers by the beach, like in this photo: https://f.vividscreen.info/soft/9eba11ee5bc029cbef496435a40f...

It's just not the type of beach everybody wants.

"living in desirable locations will still cost more, and will still be allocated via a market to those who can pay the most."

But then the demand of "giving everybody a shot at what they want" is not fulfilled. The people with not a lot of money don't have a shot.

"since locations are valuable because of all of society."

I saw that argument in the article, but I don't really think it holds up. I would say the people making a place high value already benefit from that place, they don't need extra taxes to benefit (for example if a place is great because of nice neighbors, those neighbors already live there and therefore already benefit from the place. If shops make a place great, those shops already benefit from the people shopping there. And so on). And sometimes people make a place worse, should the tax then punish them somehow?

"Effectively, those who can afford to live in the desirable locations will pay some of their rent to those who can't (indirectly)."

But then not because those "others" make the place so great, so in the end, what is the rationale? Also, isn't there a ground tax already? There is in my country?

I can agree that since property is a product of guns and more specifically police, and the government provides the police, some money can be asked for the service.

How is that supposed to work? I would expect the tax to be factored into the rent?

I don't think building costs are the main issue with availability of housing. You need the land to build on - and not just any land, but land in desired locations.

How are the artificial mega cities in China doing? Didn't they build several cities from scratch that are supposed to house several million people each?

I live in a city with high rents. What would it look like if everybody had a shot at fulfilling their economic dreams? Let's say their dream is to live in the center of the city, in one of those flats that now cost 2 million dollars.

So society is obliged to give everybody a shot at that 2 million dollar flat, no matter what their line of work or their qualifications are. How is that supposed to work?

Some things still are limited and will probably always be limited, unless everybody can live in virtual reality in their ideal world.

My protection against phishing is my password manager. If the site is fake, it won't find the password for it.

Everybody thinks that, because it is the leftist agenda and pushed in all media channels (who also happen to compete with social networks for clicks). The ultimate goal behind that narrative is of course censorship and control.

I'm disappointed that TBL, who seems to be very smart, falls for it so easily. Like when he mentions "feminist bloggers" - these people get toxic replies because they write toxic articles and messages (basically "all men are assholes", so naturally some men get angry about the insult). Haven't experiments in fact found that men receive much more hate messages than women, they just don't make such a fuzz about it?

I don't think TBL actually advocates for censorship (except with his "curation" idea) when he asks for better controls. Good muting, blocking and reporting features go a long way towards making social networks usable.

Authenticator Apps?

Maybe "not a lot of money" was a bit misleading. It really depends on what you want to achieve. I agree that it feels like a lot of money for spending it on a gaming PC (I have the same debate with myself). But since you are a head of something, you probably know how much it costs to hire people to get anything done. So 1000$ does not seem like a lot for investing in a project, for example - even if you don't pay any money for anything, you'll rake up 1000$ in opportunity costs quickly.

If you want to achieve anything, you'll need a lot more than 1000$, so in relation to that 1000$ seems little. And I don't just mean for projects, but in general, if you want to change things in your life (get an education, have kids, whatever).

And it also is not a lot in terms of how much money people need and earn. I think most people will spend more than 1000$ on rent, food clothing and so on every month. Especially if you have children.

I wouldn't spend 1000$ every day just like that, but I would spend it for special occasions (like going on holidays).

The point of Ethereum is not really to be a distributed computer. It also seems misleading to describe it that way, as it doesn't distribute computations. Every node computes the same thing.