thereforegrin

that would be a net loss - it's as if you postulated to not rebuild the Internet after the countless breaches and hacks.

what kind of regulations would serve this particular scenario?

The hack is purely technical in nature.

This could have been the FED's system that got compromised and the response would have been the same.

Oh, no, sorry - it wouldn't because we wouldn't even know it happened as FED is fully opaque while crypto is quite transparent.

In that sense crypto is much more democratic because at least there's some ability for the public to audit it. With FED there's none.

of course you can move crypto currency to an offline wallet and by offline I mean its private key is held in some physical form/device that is not connected to the network.

Only spending from that wallet needs online access to private key - depositing to it does not.

it cuts both ways - it's fine when 2B of heist money gets frozen, but much less "fine" when your paycheck gets frozen because you've attended a political rally the ruling party/class does not like.

That's why it's paramount for LEOs to go after people doing the bad deeds instead of simply banning a whole monetary ecosystem, just because it's easier to do.

If you ban a coin, instead of persuing the actual criminal, then you're both doing a disservice to honest users of the coin and leaving the bad actor to do harm to society in some other way.

There are only 8B people in the world - they all fit into a "box" of 2k by 2k by 2k of humans.

It really isn't that hard to know who's doing bad things to others, especially with current technology.

I actually don't miss it. I liked it in the beginning but towards the end the management and moderation pretty much derailed the project.

AI came at the right moment to save the knowledge from the knowledge keeper.

I can only hope that some other technology will save the knowledge once again, before the AI companies go completely rogue and hostile towards their end-users.

They are supposed to, but often times they don't and there are no consequences for it.

Current diagnostic setup relies on humans having vast expert knowledge, when in fact it's almost always impossible.

A well trained neural net/LLM will always be better at visual detection because of sheer number of examples it sees during training, compared to a dermatologist which, if lucky will observe no more than 20 patients/day x 270 days a year x 40 years of practice i.e. around 220k samples throughout his lifetime.

MD with other specialties will see significantly less and we are talking about top of the top specialists.

An average MD knows more amount medical diagnostics than than the average Joe, but in principle much less than a well trained AI.

Do we have those kinds of models already? Maybe not yet but, ceteris paribus, we will definitely have them in the future.

IMHO we do have those models already but they aren't available to the public, though their availability would certainly lower cost for healthcare providers.

those restrictions are actually about safety, which in case of banking apps is actually justified.

Either way, what Google plans to do is absolutely crazy.

yes, but one has to note the irony, that it's the right-wing part of the spectrum that wants to uphold it, while the left-wing constantly tried to disarm the population.

At the same time it's the left-wing population that is in under increasing pressure to arm themselves if they want to save the republic from a perceived right-wing tyrant.

I guess what was once a must to ban, will be once again a must to own - until the struggle is won and the need to secure the new government from the people's wrath overrules the need for the people to overthrow the unjust government.

Every opposition needs cannon fodder, which will fight and die for the opposition to become the new government.

the "started it" will certainly be false, but the "want to continue it" might not be.

Congress has the authority to end any war or military action. If by 2028, with Dems-controlled congress and possibly Senat, they won't force US withdrawal, it will then count as a "want to continue it", no matter the justification.

There's nothing controversial about those statements - they are simply true in general.

Sure, there are people who value truth more than their social capital but as a general rule their social network is usually quite small as a consequence.

There's no greater outrage than the one from a man who was told the truth.

Humans are social animals and social bonds and relationship require accommodation and loyalty to persist.

which is profoundly stupid from a digital sovereignty and security standpoint.

no typical person is going to buy 6 GPUs unless those are 6 dies on a single card.

Ergo 6 GPUs isn't a typical setup, never has been and most likely never will.

OP is a classic outlier dev who is able and willing to set up and maintain such a thing - most normal people aren't.

and this assumption is wrong how exactly when viewed through the lens of real-world events?

I'm not talking about the lens of morality nor even the law, because it's obvious this shouldn't be the case but in actuality, it is - everyday more true than it was yesterday.