phissk

The point being made is that if you have enough Nukes you can just tell the US "I don't like Codes 831 and 832, change them or I'll wipe your country out"

> Cruise missiles have had similar technology for a long time.

Cruise missiles aren't trying to survive the landing.

This already exists, it's called a computer.

You seem to forget that what you refer to as "still the law" is only the law in one country (the USA), and when Apple, Google etc comply in China the rules they are complying with are "still the law" in that country.

Science stands up pretty well to ridicule because once people are done laughing you can come back with facts. Religion on the other hand, once you have temporarily broken the hold it has via blind faith is left with ... nothing.

Which is why religious folks are so easily threatened.

Laughter is a fantastic weapon because it is most effective against pompous bullies.

Whether it be autism or sexual orientation, it seems even more wrong to choose to have a child with something that will disadvantage them just to bolster the numbers of the other people already in the world being unfairly discriminated against.

Given that in this scenario there are two potential children; the one with undesirable_trait_x, and the replacement without it, and one will come into existence and one will not, as a parent, shouldn't you pick the child that will have the happiest life rather than the one that will better serve as canon-fodder in someones ideological crusade?

Please note that you're not aborting 'people' ... just a thing that might become a person.

You're giving (actual) people the opportunity to choose to have healthier families.

- Note that I say 'healthier families' specifically because willfully passing on genetic features that disadvantage your children burdens not just them but your entire family unit.

Hulls said one of the key things that attracted him was that the ASX presented a viable way to avoid late-stage U.S. investment firms, who can offer quite a lot of money for start-ups but also add unfavorable terms for founders. For example, their money can come with preferences that make it hard for employees to make much money in an IPO or acquisition.

“You get these really big valuations, but they have a ton of structure on them,” Hulls said. “They’re really not clean terms.”

Someone else ALWAYS controls your money for the simple reason that 'money' has no intrinsic value, it is a proxy for a debt owed to you by your society. Your ability to ever redeem it for anything of real value leaves you beholden to a structure far more elaborate and beyond your control than just a few government regulations.

Actually, I knew a guy who used to smuggle drugs into nightclubs in his afro, so targeting people on the basis of whether their hairstyle is physically capable of concealing contraband seems quite reasonable.

If you don't like it ... then you are free to change your hairstyle ...

How about the snowflakes gtfo the kitchen.

If that's how you want to look at it ... you can consider the EU to be making the same offer to businesses "accept our terms or you can not use the EU".