l0ng1nu5

Let's be real, they've been doing this for years ever since they introduced siri. By now everyone's had an experience similar to having a conversation about something without searching or typing anything into a digital device and then magically starting to receive targeted advertising about said thing.

If you want something simple like ublock, the direct replacement is pihole, it runs on a raspberry pi or other minimal hardware, you setup your dhcp server to point at it for DNS.

Otherwise you can flash pfsense or opnsense on to compatible hardware which can also be configured with pfBlockerNG or similar to provide the same blocking functionality plus firewall functionality but it's probably a bit harder to set up.

It doesn't, the hacker already loaned against it to get eth so they froze saves assets.

> Worth noting too that this would have easily fetched >$50k via Nintendo's HackerOne (https://hackerone.com/nintendo).

Since they're so hell bent on preventing user control of their own devices, perhaps Nintendo should've better reflected the potential economic impact of such a bug in their bounty program and we wouldn't be here.

They also see one of the most ridiculously overvalued stocks of all time and want to collect easy money.

We'll block all of the night sky, deal with it.

>All the incentives for stablecoin issuers are to invest at least some of their reserves in riskier assets to get higher returns.

No.

The GENIUS Act requires 100% reserve backing with liquid assets like U.S. dollars or short-term Treasuries and requires issuers to make monthly, public disclosures of the composition of reserves.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-pr...

It boggles my mind that they gave police a legal avenue to take over accounts and modify data a few years later:

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Act 2021 (SLAID Act) introduced new powers for Australian law enforcement to combat serious cyber-enabled crime. These powers include data disruption warrants, network activity warrants, and account takeover warrants.

https://theconversation.com/facebook-or-twitter-posts-can-no...

What costs are you talking about? By just about every humanist and economic metric there are only benefits to decriminalisation.

The only conclusion i can draw from all this insanity is that the powers that be want things to be this way.

It was jack.

Since you developed the system, I assume you're a billionaire then?

Agreed but would also add the ability to prosecute anyone who writes something they don't like/agree with.

This area is where I see riscv excelling ahead of current proprietary options. I don't think it can compete on speed in terms of general purpose computing at this point.

The way I see it, once guaranteed security is offered, security conscious IT admins will insist on using it and the herd will eventually follow.

Life imitates art imitates life.

They can't do that or else the stock goes back to a sane p/e.

Thanks for the response, I was kind of hoping it might have a bigger impact, perhaps in modelling of climate or weather.

Didn't see this posted, wondering if anyone has an opinion as to the veracity and implications? Apologies if this is a duplicate.

I said developed country which is a pretty major distinction. Maybe my definition is off but it appears to prescribe the printing of currency which is consistent with what we've seen in most major economies and low and behold - we have rising inflation and wealth inequality.

The US since the GFC is probably the most obvious one.

As I understand it, pretty much every developed country employed mmt practice in response to covid.

Now we have (even more) rampant inflation and wealth inequality with no sign of slowing down.

> I prefer my economic takes from economists, or people who actually study these things.

Keynesian economists and now mmt advocates are the reason that most of the productivity gains of the last hundred years have ended up in the hands of a few hundred people while most struggle.

I'd say it's high time to stop listening to these people who are nothing more than useful idiots of the elites.

>it's not like there's a chain of provenance, and there's no particular guarantee that whatever grade of pure drugs was sold on Silk Road is the same purity that ended up in peoples' bodies.

The fact that the majority of listings on the site were for personal use quantities suggests that the majority of sales were to end users rather than traffickers.

It's hard to dispute that this saved lives and I would speculate that it saved many lives.

>That doesn't mean that large sales weren't made, or that those weren't in fact a significant portion of the site's revenue.

Nobody made any claim that large sales weren't made, of course they were.

>We tried that, it was called the opioid epidemic and Purdue was the pharmacist.

Not really, this was a case of a private company deliberately pushing narcotics for profit without oversight or any associated increase in access to treatment options.

Now the "opioid epidemic" has been replaced with a "fentanyl epidemic" which is objectively a much more dangerous drug with absolutely no regulation and murderous cartels instead of doctors - and we're still throwing people in prison for the crime of being addicts rather than treating it as a medical issue.

I don't know the stats (or if it's even possible to accurately collect statistics due to prohibition) but I'm fairly certain this costs more lives than the short lived opioid epidemic.

Least amount of harm to both the individual and society as a whole whilst recognizing people's fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

Touche, however there is plenty of evidence of people throughout history making this assertion, including MLK.

He was trying to create a more just, egalitarian society. I don't understand how you can consider acting in accordance with leading research on successful drug policy "moronic"?

The overwhelming majority of listings on the site were for personal use quantities.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that anyone was harmed for leaving a bad review.

As I recall weapons weren't permitted on the platform.

The society didn't decide, the ruling class decided to use drug policy to attack their own citizens.

History shows that prohibition is an abject failure. The fent epidemic is symptomatic of this failed policy.

If they actually cared about the epidemic, addicts would have access to regulated, pharmaceutical grade heroin whilst also having ready access to treatment.

But then we'd have empty prisons and the police would be free to solve real crimes so we can't have that.

It's absolutely one of the reasons why it was politically beneficial for him to enact the pardon.

So were most aristocrats of the time. Applying presentism doesn't invalidate the idea.