Cigarettes also exist and people smoke and get cancer from smoking all the time.
Does this mean cigarettes are a good thing? Why do they exist in society if they so clearly harm people?
There's a big industry around smoking that has managed to perpetuate itself in society despite the fact that it causes harm. This doesn't mean there's a good reason reason for it to exist; the reality of the situation is that you can entrench yourself in society and become very difficult to remove if you have enough power to do so. It might be that in 100 or 200 years the cigarette industry is finally gone.
Pretty much the same applies to Casinos. Yes, people play at them, and a lot of people that go to Casinos have a gambling addiction. For some, perhaps most, casinos provide a degree of entertainment that is not really a problem but ultimately Casinos are set up as a business that relies on people losing more money than they win. There's things like lotteries which seek to channel gambling addiction into social good.
And even in this scenario; Casinos are highly regulated. Which crypto ponzis are not. The existence of crypto gambling is simply a failure of regulation which is slow to adapt to new technologies. Yeah, crypto bros are in luck that there's an administration that goes as far as to encourage people to fall for these scams. It doesn't mean it's something that's going to last.
I concede that just because something is consensual doesn't mean that it is ethical or legal.
However there is and should be a legal difference between selling tobacco to unknowing customers, like in unlabeled soda or ice creams, against selling to cigarette buyers who are informed.
Similarly security laws are in place to protect legitimate investments, the courts do not want to be involved in inproductive speculative trades. You need to have some nuance between speculative casino games and genuine trading.
You can't treat both cases the same, if you do you do it at the expense of genuine commerce.
In this case, it crossed over to the criminal kind because it passed as an investment security, and was sold as such. So I do backtract in what I said in my original comment, I do see how THIS is a crime, but not other stuff like say, other typical pump.fun coins. Mostly because I learned a bit more about the case.
I'm sorry but I'll believe it when I see it, Elon Musk has promised a lot of things haven't happened yet; even when they were supposed to be "by the end of the year" 10 years in a row, 10 years ago.
I really like svelte 5, personally I find the rune system to be much more explicit about what the code is doing and I prefer that.
I always felt that reading svelte code (prior to svelte 5) required to understand a sort of "magic syntax" very well, which was off putting.
I don't really mind having to declare reactive variables as `$state()`, it makes it very explicit that we want the variable to be reactive. It seems this change has also allowed for a lot more powerful and reusable code so I'm all for it. I guess that people who were already in the ecosystem might have found that they had to learn a lot of new stuff but imo this is very much a case of "might be a bit painful for our current users but it'll make life easier for everyone else in the future".
There's a few things I am a bit conflicted with but it's probably due to myself not really knowing how to solve a determinate problem rather than a problem with the framework itself. It's a bit difficult to get help sometimes.
You have a child and a parent component. The snippet is declared on the parent and rendered on the child.
So, you will have the snippet where you want it to be rendered on the child:
```child.svelte
<script>
let { myFirstSnippet, mySecondSnipper } = $props();
</script>
<div id="Your first snippet goes here">
{@render myFirstSnippet()}
</div>
<div id="Your second snippet goes here">
{@render mySecondSnippet()}
</div>
```
Here we are declaring that this child takes 2 snippets called `myFirstSnippet` and `mySecondSnippet` and we place them wherever they might go.
And then on the parent we need to actually build those snippets:
```parent.svelte
<script>
import Child from ...
</script>
{#snippet myFirstSnippet()}
<span>Hello from firstSnippet!</span>
{/snippet}
<Child {myFirstSnippet}>
{#snippet mySecondSnippet()}
<span>Hello from secondSnippet!</span>
{/snippet}
</Child>
```
Here we are taking that `Child` component and rendering the two snippets that will go into it, as you see, you can either pass the snippet as a named prop or you can declare it inside the child component with the same name as the prop the child gets.
The end result of this will be a `Child` component that's rendered on the `Parent` with the two snippets inside this child component.
You could do it in different ways, but if you're using synthetic data then you can pick and choose what kind of data you generate which is then used to train these models; that's a way of baking in the censorship.
These socialist types really can't get enough of living from the state.
It's good that now we have an administration that values the work that private companies do instead of just giving government handouts to companies that wouldn't survive otherwise.
It's pretty creative and funny stuff, imo. If you consider that to be "good" or "bad" that's up to you I guess.
The way people choose to spend their lives is largely up to them, I'm not sure it's good to be labeling things as a "waste of time" when they're deriving something from it that you simply do not understand. Particularly when they do it in a way that is pretty harmless.
I don't know if you have pets, but if you spend time observing them you'll see most of what they do is simply letting time pass and for them, that's enough. Believe it or not, for many people the same is the case. Finding meaning in the acts we do is a personal endeavour so I think rather than telling people they're wasting their time instead try to understand what they're seeing in such things that you don't see.
I think a lot of people find creative acts very rewarding, there's an element of surprise that comes from it. The unexpected can be enjoyable. I think one of the reasons why the TikTok algorithm is so powerful is that it really succeeds in giving people the feeling of constant surprise.
Personally, I've found really inspiring art on Tiktok, as well as new music and also a lot of simple but engaging content in german (which I'm trying to learn).
Does this mean cigarettes are a good thing? Why do they exist in society if they so clearly harm people?
There's a big industry around smoking that has managed to perpetuate itself in society despite the fact that it causes harm. This doesn't mean there's a good reason reason for it to exist; the reality of the situation is that you can entrench yourself in society and become very difficult to remove if you have enough power to do so. It might be that in 100 or 200 years the cigarette industry is finally gone.
Pretty much the same applies to Casinos. Yes, people play at them, and a lot of people that go to Casinos have a gambling addiction. For some, perhaps most, casinos provide a degree of entertainment that is not really a problem but ultimately Casinos are set up as a business that relies on people losing more money than they win. There's things like lotteries which seek to channel gambling addiction into social good.
And even in this scenario; Casinos are highly regulated. Which crypto ponzis are not. The existence of crypto gambling is simply a failure of regulation which is slow to adapt to new technologies. Yeah, crypto bros are in luck that there's an administration that goes as far as to encourage people to fall for these scams. It doesn't mean it's something that's going to last.