shadowprofile76

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.

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..

Don't forget the also excellent "Black Book".

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.

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.

McDouglas? Do you not mean Douglas MacArthur?

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."

How I laughed out loud... Gold

I just recently bought a Lenovo for someone close to me. Would you mind elaborating on why you say this about them, and if you really think they can be made somewhat privacy-safe for general use?

One major problem with sites like the skeptical Enquirer is that they exist to serve their main purpose -to be skeptical. This by itself is fine to an extent and much of their content can and does legitimately debunk nonsensical and unfounded claims. But when your main purpose is skepticism, it can become self serving to the point that you cherry pick arguments, evidence, cases and lots of other things in order to always ensure that a known explanation can be found no matter what, even if it has to be stretched thin. Unknown things do happen, forcing them to conform to a certain easy bracket of the known is its own type of irrationality.

You meant to say that it was not a sensor anomaly no?, in other words that it could have been an actual anomaly (because they were viewed multi-spectrally) as the other commentator asked? Genuinely curious.