Cederfjard

I think Enginerrrd is saying that there could be a larger supply of other artists, that would satiate fans and make the demand for any one performer less impossible to meet. I’m not sure I think that’s true, but that’s my interpretation of their argument.

See my response to your sibling comment.

I was mostly asking because the explanation in the parent comment seemed overly simplistic, and to indicate that this approach would destroy the scalpers’ business model entirely. I’m totally open to the idea that this is a good solution that would improve on the status quo.

What if the kid passes at $30 because money is tight, they’d prefer to pay $20 and want to try for that, but scalpers snatch up all the cheapest tickets before the kid is able to. The kid still really wants to go, however, and is willing to actually pay the scalper up to $40 when push comes to shove, even if it hurts a bit?

Or if they weren’t organized enough or able to commit to going early on, but still have the purchasing power to pay a higher price?

WhatsApp had like half a billion monthly active users when they were acquired, that could be considered fairly large scale, no? But I agree with your point in general.

You only do voice calls six times in a year?

Your logic isn't really valid. It could be that the glue is indeed effective in facilitating waterproofing and was put in place for that reason, however not to the extent that Apple wants to make any promises that it will survive being submerged.

I don't know what the truth is, I just disagree with your conclusion based on the logic you present.

Not their salary per se, to be clear. They will tell you how much income someone paid tax on in the previous tax year.

The point is that what you think is true might not necessarily be true. So only reading things you like and believe to be accurate could mean you’re getting the truth, but it could also mean you’re getting a feedback loop of misinformation and indoctrination.

First off, I’m very sorry about the suffering your mother (and you, I’m sure) had to endure because of this.

The idea isn’t ”if we legalize opiates and opioids, no one will ever get hurt from them again”. It’s ”when they are illegal, even more people get hurt”. Just like how alcohol is a substance that causes a very large amount of direct and indirect damage to its users and those around them, yet its prohibition in the US increased the net suffering substantially.

As long as there are opiates/opioids around, they will be abused in a self-destructive way by some (and they are cheap and easy to make, so they will be around as long as there’s demand). We’re currently trying to limit this through enforcing prohibition, which is not particularly effective and has well-known drawbacks. We could instead try to do the same with increased spending on education and treatment. Through that, we could make people less likely to want to use them, we could make people use them as safely as possible when they do, and we could make it so that less of the people who use them start to abuse them in ways that affect their lives negatively. Perhaps this would have better effect than criminalization, while increasing safety and decreasing associated violence.

Of course, this is all very complicated and messy, and every possible policy has negative effects and causes collateral damage. I’m open to arguments saying that this is not how it would play out. But I think the chances are better than with the current approach.

> The comparison to Canada and prohibition doesn’t pass the smell test. Given that the war of 1812 wasn’t predicated on getting the Canadians into a drunken stupor as a tactic of economic warfare.

Since we’re speculating freely anyway, why does the revenge have to come in the same form as the initial affront?

So this is the crux of the disagreement. You believe that you either need maximum possible security or none at all, so when you need to be secure, it doesn’t matter if you have to use an inconvenient solution, because it’s that important. Whereas in reality there are a ton of less severe threat models that can be countered with more user-friendly methods of communication. Advertising companies, ISPs, local cops, etc won’t be able to read your Signal messages or find out who you’ve been talking to, and that can be important to many people. NSA or equivalent probably can, if they’re interested in you already, but that’s a concern for far less.

Just because you hide a big bag of cash where no one can find it, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s yours, just that you have it.

If the US government says that it has lawfully seized your bitcoin, then by law the US government owns the bitcoin, even if they don’t possess it. If you’re successfully keeping it from them, they can and will punish you for it. Again, as FormerBandmate said, that’s the basis of their power.