Please do define how Bitcoin or Ethereum (among others) are "pyramid schemes". Cryptocurrencies have indeed been used for pyramid schemes by specific actors, but then again so has normal money, and many other things. Numerous people on this site who presumably have the intellectual faculties to know better toss that little qualification out from their mouths almost reflexively out of emotional crypto-hate, but have apparently never even read a basic encyclopedia definition of pyramid scheme structure.
It doesn't matter if it is a crypto scheme or pyramid scheme. The token itself is not a product, the central distributor sells you tokens in a presale and then you have to recruit new members through marketing the token and sell them your tokens. The point is that there is no end goal. The last person to buy the token didn't get chocolate coins that he can eat.
The current crypto bubbles seem to be working on the "greater fool" theory, same principle can be argued to underpin MLMs - your downline are your "greater fools", and you only make money so long as you (or your existing fools can) can recruit more fools.
Could you explain or substantiate this claim in a bit more detail? How is it absolutely impossible to find anonymity using any commercial service? and where did you hear that all the ransomware hackers are known?
I'd suggest everyone step back from their own politics for a moment and pause to consider just how absurd it is that a fucking medicine for parasite infections that barely anyone except veterinarians, tropical explorers, pet owners and farmers knew previously has now been polliticized to this degree across vast swathes of the media landscape.
The obvious answer to such a situation is that science should be allowed to take its normal investigative course and all possible options be investigated and presented so long as the researchers behind them are also honestly examining evidence. And yes, this could very easily include ivermectin or anything else, because it already does in much of the world where this polarization bubble around this particular medicine, or certain other subjects, doesn't ridiculously exist to the same degree.
I shake my head thinking about people a few decades from now shaking their own heads at emotionally and ideologically driven stupidities like this in the middle of numerous other hysterias revolving around a global pandemic and the politics of the last few years..
Is there reasonable suspicion to believe that the political split around it was/is intentional? To me, it seems as if the mainstream media outlets are needlessly ripping this drug and it's proponents.
The fourth amendment gives you that right (despite it having been badly mutilated by all sorts of supposedly valid or forced exceptions (ie: border areas). You're supposed to be secure in your possessions and property. The legal breakdown is here, https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... and definitely doesn't allow cops to arbitrarily rifle through your car looking for evidence of suspicious things. They are supposed to have prior and clear cause for probable illegal activity (note that being suspected of having cash is not an illegal actiity), though probable cause can be stretched to include a lot of things by a sympathetic judge and corrupt cops.
The bill of rights doesn’t actually give you rights. The premise of the bill of rights is people have rights superior to the government and the government is explicitly required to respect certain rights as listed as well as respect other rights and authorities not explicitly listed (9th amendment). In fact the 9th amendment explicitly forbids construction of a rationale by the government to deny rights, listed or not listed.
Of course, I’m only a citizen of the United States, not a gov’t official or attorney or judge. So naturally my plain reading of the Constitution and the writings surrounding its adoption are JustMyOpinion. Considering the government’s resources are far superior its best to kowtow to the government’s interpretation should one run afoul of such things and hope that due process will sort it out eventually.
Thanks, next time a cop wants to search my vehicle I'll be sure to wait for you to reply with a link to a website and then read it in its entirety. And yes, that website says they can search with probable cause, and it doesn't say that being suspected of having cash doesn't count.
The whole point is that because it's badly mutilated, an individual citizen quietly driving their car has no particular reason to deeply understand the relevant jurisprudence when a cop asks them to do something, and is heavily incentivized to say "Okay" and find a lawyer later. That's why, for instance, the Miranda warning is a thing - you have the right to remain silent even if you're not told it, it's right there in the Fifth Amendment, but people don't know that. (And even so, it turns out you have to specifically say that you're invoking the right to remain silent, you can't just remain silent.)
First off, I don't know that for sure. (Do you know that for sure? Have you read every law and every binding precedent in your jurisdiction?)
Second, I'm not saying that possession of cash is a crime, I'm saying it might be probable cause of some other crime, such as dealing drugs or whatever.
Where the Statutes are nice and all, but it's the case law that makes up the majority of the iceberg. You can legally construct an argument with the right cherry picking to justify anything, and the court won't give you time to in the moment read up to ensure that what your opponent claims even makes sense.
You may be getting downvote d for seeming unwilling to "read the link" but you have a 100% sound point.
The law isn't worth the paper it is written on until a judge makes a decision on that particular case, which will be heavily dependent on the arguments prosecution and defense both bring. Which all happens after your encounter with Law Enforcement.
However...
I do want to encourage you that the right you do not assert in the encounter with Law enforcement does not contribute at all to an effective defense. Most reasonability tests only weigh what is said in the exchange to the point where you must clearly and unambiguously use certain legal "magic words" to dispel any illusion of muddied waters for the courts.
Think of it as a protocol.
A cop can stop you. You must accept the interruption.
Hello officer, how are you?
If they ask if you know why they stopped you.
"No sir, but I'm sure you're about to let me know."
You must provide identification if requested.
They must provide a reason for stopping you.
If they ask for consent to search the vehicle, your answer is "No, I do not consent. Are we done here? Or is there more I can help you with Officer?"
They should either respond with:
"You are free to go." End transaction.
Or,
They will assert some justification for further detaining you. If they assert the smell of alcohol or drugs, or a need to breathalyze you, you must consent in most jurisdictions. If you do not consent to be breathalyzed there, or suspect their equipment, you are entitled to be transported to a medical facility to do a drug test to confirm or dispute the result.
If you've done nothing wrong, and you've gotten this far you are now playing paperwork chicken with this cop. They have paperwork to fill out, and you do not. On the other hand, cops are largely immune to the pain of paperwork from doing it day in, day out. If you have a phone, I recommend letting somebody know things are getting interesting, so they can echo it to your social circle. Even employers will usually understand this type of thing can happen. You still do not consent to having your vehicle searched. You inform the officer you'd like to call someone to come pick up the vehicle. If your phone is in your pocket, you tell them that and make sure they understand what you are doing, or allow them to get out the phone from where it is stored if they strike you as twitchy. I'd recommend only doing that as a last resort. Try if at all possible to never leave your phone somewhere a cop can clearly access on your person, or observe there is not a weapon hidden ahead of time.
Note:
Miranda doesn't have to happen until you are formally under arrest. Don't jump the gun. DUI isn't confirmed until the test results are in. It's a pain.
After all of this...
"Am I free to go?"
If yes, end transaction.
If no, God help you, the fates do not smile upon you this day. You will have the makings of an excellent harassment case if this continues for more than 24 hours without them either formally charging you with something, or letting you go.
Contrary to popular belief, cops are people too, and likely have an aversion to having their time wasted. If you get a malicious one, then as scary as the prospect is, the system is still people'd by reasonable folks.
ACAB isn't necessarily a given, but they are not your ally. Ever. Dealing with them is one step closer to having your life ruined. So always stick to protocol.
Be courteous.
Follow protocol.
They must justify their actions in an Official capacity.
Make it as easy for them to finish the process.
If you get into a failure state, just do everything in your power to make sure someone else knows.
And I suppose you yourself are not at all a self appoiunted internet expert with your broad and highly charged range of opinions without a single clear cut reference backing any of them up?
Worth noting as well is that you're trying to assert a negative without evidence-based substance as part of your particularly alarmist discourse. In effect: We don't know that COVID doesn't cause X list of aweful long term things I just mentioned, though no evidence so far indicates that it does, we should just assume it does however in order to push for a bunch of harsh and punitive measures against those with any skeptical take.
Actually, a good deal of evidence suggests it might. There have been 3 or 4 recent well-publicized studies suggesting neurological effects of COVID coming at various angles (imaging from Biobank, tests of various mental tasks on people who have or haven't had COVID, etc). The science is far from settled - sample sizes are small, effects are unclear, etc. This is fairly understandable as it's hard to tease apart correlation and causation, etc. unless you have before and after data (the Biobank study did, but the sample size is quite small).
UK science twitter is full of alarmed neurologists and epidemiologists yelling about this sort of thing. I don't work in the area, so maybe they're a bunch of clueless self appoiunted (sic) internet experts too. The idea that COVID does nasty stuff to the brain and might cause a small uptick in Parkinson's and Lewy body dementia also came from similar sources...
Here's the thing. There seem to be endless folks who, armed with a few slogans about "things being endemic" and a mock-realist take on things ("look at me, I'm the smart one who knows we have to live with this") are way more sure of themselves than actual doctors and scientists who study COVID patients and worry about long-term effects. I remember the Internet being full of self-appointed "just a flu" experts when COVID just got started.
I'd say that the prevailing tone among people who actually study this stuff is... caution. I agree. I'm not sure. You're the person who is apparently so full of certainty that we can just steam past all these worried experts (again).
As an expat from Canada living in Latin America and using a number of services from both regions, I've had similar probems, also these same problems with other services from specific countries outside of where I live that I need to use due to work.
Overall, this general location-obsessed balkanization of online servicces, websites and pages has become ridiculous. A great number of tech companies and websites, in ther fixation of "giving users a more localized, personalized experience" (in part mostly just tracking the shit out of them obsessively) have actually done more to break the ease of using the internet as a traveler and in ways that are ironic as helll when one considers the supposed ideals of an internet that was supposed to help more people become MORE global in their access to media, content and services regardless of where they reside or travel to.
What we're seeing is an absurd, almost fuedalized regression of what should and easily could be fully delocalized platforms, which ruins them in the name of supposedly making them better. It's tedious, annoying and increasingly common.
That this has been normalized is grotesque. That the focus has shifted to mere cases, even in small numbers as a justification for draconian, personal freedom-ignoring lockdowns in this paranoid, absurdly overreaching way is not something that any normal person should applaud or defend. Simply imagine the extrapolation of these tendencies moving forward into the future, for any government anywhere, using lockdowns as a justification for all sorts of things and always using the "somebody think of the children"-like argument of, "but if it ambiguously saves even one life, it's justified".
>This is actually a widespread problem in medicine. The worst offender is the FDA, which tends to list every problem anyone had while on a drug as a potential drug side effect, even if it obviously isn't. This got some press lately when Moderna had to disclose to the FDA that one of the coronavirus vaccine patients got struck by lightning; after a review, this was declared probably unrelated."
