xboxnolifes

I modify my biological drive chemically every time I wake up and drink my daily coffee. Seems fine and we've been doing that for a long time now.

People also do it with smoking, and the only reason that is bad is because of the cancer, not the drive changes.

Well, all of the big jumps of technology that revolve around communication at least. While im sure some pedant could find an nth degree link, I dont think the cotton gin or steam engine led to increased spam in any direct way.

I find it very easy to find people who support systems marketed as empowering police to better catch criminals.

> The way I look at it, let's say 20% of users are addicts and who will jump through any hoop they need to in order to gamble. Very difficult to help this group. Banning won't stop them from betting.

I think this position is fundamentally incorrect. Banning gambling reduces the volume of money in gambling, making it hard to make big bets. You will never stop all gambling, but you can reduce how many people ruin their life with it.

The first amendment protects you from (mostly only direct) government retaliation on your speech. It does not define what is and isn't censorship. It doesn't even protect you from the government circumventing it by having most communications go through private avenues and then strong-arming those private entities to regulate speech. And it certainly doesn't protect you from private censorship from massive corporate entities that seemingly want to have a corporate autocracy.

It says they didn't save time, not that they didn't save effort.

The difference between censorship and moderation is the ability to realistically opt-out. Your friends might get mad at your for saying something, but you can choose your friends. Your community might not allow certain speech, but you generally get to choose the communities you are a part of. When the avenues where 99% of all communication go through "moderate" speech a certain way, that starts being censorship.

The difference is somewhat part who is doing the moderating, but it is far more important the ability to opt-out without significant negative impact.

At an individual level, the forward process is only done 3 times and you can reverse it in batches as slow as you wish. And after the first time you have to do it, all of the friction is gone, since you've already setup your exchange method.

No law is going to prevent billionaires overnight. At the stage we're in, any political change needs to aim for decades in the future.

I'm not sure how one can be cognizant of world events and think we've put religion behind us.

I've never heard anyone ever pronounce it that way.

If you've never touched a SaaS/IaaS cli tool, yes, thats what they are.

Apple isn't a person. It doesn't need to memorize. Its a Apple failing because no process caught it, and because anything coming out of Apple that is bad is a failing by Apple.

What objective things can you mention about the WASM sandbox besides saying "it works"? People prefer seeing good benchmarks.