> When folks want to dump Tether, they generally cannot dump it directly into dollars. They have to dump to Bitcoin, move it off-exchange, and then sell the dollars on an exchange with fiat currency.
Not sure where you got that from, but that's not true whatsoever; USDT/USD is a thing in a bunch of exchanges with really healthy volume. Other than a few months ago (perhaps the run you mentioned in May) there's normally no premium and the peg is down or up by perhaps 0.5% or so.
Maybe you are saying that because Binance, the largest exchange doesn't have a USDT/USD pair (they don't have any USD pair afaik), but you can easily withdraw USDT and sell them for USD directly in other exchanges.
It's a thing on Kraken and Bittrex, with about $2M in daily volume on Kraken and $290K on Bittrex. That's a lot of trading days to absorb the $4.1B market cap of Tether or even the $800M that are reportedly unbacked.
> Not only that, there are and were multiple ways of installing software in Linux
Technically true, but practically false. To this day I get told that I shouldn't be even trying to use software that isn't in the repo. There are still a whole lot of applications released with a Windows binary and a tar.xz of source for Linux.
At DebConf 2014, none other than Linus himself bitched out the community for how difficult distributing things for Linux was. It should not require an army of maintainers across a score of repos to distribute software. And it isn't like the technology to make it simple isn't available. AppImage has been around since 2004 (it was called Klik at the time) and its existence has and continues to be largely ignored by the community. Other parts of the community are openly hostile to the very concept of simple application distribution, like Drew DeVault.
The situation is so awful, that recently when I wanted to use an application on my Linux laptop I found it easier to run the Windows version under WINE than get the Linux version installed.
And the most infuriating thing about it all is how incredibly resistant the community is to doing anything to change this situation.
AppImage & snapd & flatpak are poor solutions to a real problem. It's better to wait until someone comes up with a good solution than accept a bad one.
I would agree about snapd and flatpak, but AppImage is pretty close to ideal. The only more ideal way I can think of is if AppImage didn't require FUSE and could embed an icon (there was a proposal for an embedded icon standard in ELF, which was thoroughly ignored by the community).
It has been 20 years. How much longer should we wait for functionality the original Macintosh included in 1984?
autogen.sh isn't intended to be invoked for user installs. Users are supposed to invoke ./configure, with the configure script being generated by a developer invoking autogen.sh and readily packaged as part of the software's tarball.
You might benefit from reading Eric Horst's Maximum Climbing [0]; it covers precisely this just-pull-harder mentality and provides exercises to unlock it.
> most of them don't have a good quality of life
What does that even mean? Are you implying most of “them” (whatever that might be) are lives not worth living thus “we” should put them out of their misery?
> And more importantly, there isn't a way of significantly improving it (with today's technology and social/ethics understanding)
Sources? Read Factfulness; you’ll be surprised at just how far of reality your view is!
First of all, the premise is wrong. Major corrections usually receive more prominent placement and greater exposure. Minor corrections are printed in the corrections section, with stories updated online and correction notices appended.
Second, the point is not that reputable newspapers perfectly correct their readership's understanding. The point is that reputable newspapers correct themselves. Newspapers reputations are built on that honesty, and astute readers will have an understanding of a paper's track-record of accuracy and corrections. Less astute readers will rely on those that do track such things.
Not OP, but OP's point stands. If they can get special treatment, someone else's might be able to. The fact that it's a possibility means they must use it or risk being at a competitive disadvantage of a less ethical player.
Before an argument of "this justifies any type of behavior such as murdering your competitors' CEOs." There's a natural limit (albeit fuzzy) to what rules is in the company's self interest to seek a "special treatment". Relationships with gov't go sour, governments change, etc. What used to be "special treatment" might quickly transform into proof of wrong-doing against the company.
But then the argument becomes rather different. It is no longer a question of "If that's the law then it is not Amazon's fault". It has moved on to "Can we get away with coercing the government into allowing us to break the law".
That is morally a lot more challenging, and there is nothing in the managements fiduciary responsibilities that compels them to break laws. Nothing. Indeed the responsibility to shareholders is more complex anyway, aggressive tax planning may for instance damage your brand and reduce the future profitability.
