>But I don't have the right to insist that someone else do the same.

Agreed, and just to add, you also don't have the right to insist that someone else does not do the same (this is for people like OP).

>degenerate

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It wasn't an absurd ruling thought. Do you really think the description "direct physical damage" (which the insurance was for) should apply to damage from hacks and ransomware?

ELI5 style explanation why Proof of Stake is inherently inferior to Proof of Work:

In a Proof of Work based system, it's impossible to permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as it's impossible to prevent new miners from joining the network, even if you have 50%+ of current mining power. In a Proof of Stake based system, it's inevitable that someone will permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as when someone buys up 50%+ of all existing coins, their stake will only get bigger and bigger, and it's impossible for anyone to ever overtake them.

As specifically regarding Bitcoin vs Ethereum:

Based partly on smart decisions and partly on luck, it came to be that there's no "leader" in the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto left the project over 10 years ago. Satoshi's "successor" was Gavin Andresen, who, a few years later, managed to completely discredit himself in the eyes of the community and haven't been involved with Bitcoin since 2016.

Ethereum has a very clear leader - Vitalik Buterin. While Vitalik obviously doesn't have any direct control over Ethereum, his word is followed by the Ethereum's community as gospel. That would be bad enough in itself, even if Vitalik Buterin wasn't a Russian guy close to Vladimir Putin, which he is: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/06/05/vladimir-putin-and-vitalik-buterin-discuss-ethereum-opportunities/

ELI5 style explanation why Proof of Stake is inherently inferior to Proof of Work:

In a Proof of Work based system, it's impossible to permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as it's impossible to prevent new miners from joining the network, even if you have 50%+ of current mining power. In a Proof of Stake based system, it's inevitable that someone will permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as when someone buys up 50%+ of all existing coins, their stake will only get bigger and bigger, and it's impossible for anyone to ever overtake them.

As specifically regarding Bitcoin vs Ethereum:

Based partly on smart decisions and partly on luck, it came to be that there's no "leader" in the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto left the project over 10 years ago. Satoshi's "successor" was Gavin Andresen, who, a few years later, managed to completely discredit himself in the eyes of the community and haven't been involved with Bitcoin since 2016.

Ethereum has a very clear leader - Vitalik Buterin. While Vitalik obviously doesn't have any direct control over Ethereum, his word is followed by the Ethereum's community as gospel. That would be bad enough in itself, even if Vitalik Buterin wasn't a Russian guy close to Vladimir Putin, which he is: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/06/05/vladimir-putin-and-vitalik-buterin-discuss-ethereum-opportunities/

ELI5 style explanation why Proof of Stake is inherently inferior to Proof of Work:

In a Proof of Work based system, it's impossible to permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as it's impossible to prevent new miners from joining the network, even if you have 50%+ of current mining power. In a Proof of Stake based system, it's inevitable that someone will permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as when someone buys up 50%+ of all existing coins, their stake will only get bigger and bigger, and it's impossible for anyone to ever overtake them.

As specifically regarding Bitcoin vs Ethereum:

Based partly on smart decisions and partly on luck, it came to be that there's no "leader" in the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto left the project over 10 years ago. Satoshi's "successor" was Gavin Andresen, who, a few years later, managed to completely discredit himself in the eyes of the community and haven't been involved with Bitcoin since 2016.

Ethereum has a very clear leader - Vitalik Buterin. While Vitalik obviously doesn't have any direct control over Ethereum, his word is followed by the Ethereum's community as gospel. That would be bad enough in itself, even if Vitalik Buterin wasn't a Russian guy close to Vladimir Putin, which he is: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/06/05/vladimir-putin-and-vitalik-buterin-discuss-ethereum-opportunities/

ELI5 style explanation why Proof of Stake is inherently inferior to Proof of Work:

In a Proof of Work based system, it's impossible to permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as it's impossible to prevent new miners from joining the network, even if you have 50%+ of current mining power. In a Proof of Stake based system, it's inevitable that someone will permanently take 50%+ control of the network, as when someone buys up 50%+ of all existing coins, their stake will only get bigger and bigger, and it's impossible for anyone to ever overtake them.

As specifically regarding Bitcoin vs Ethereum:

Based partly on smart decisions and partly on luck, it came to be that there's no "leader" in the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto left the project over 10 years ago. Satoshi's "successor" was Gavin Andresen, who, a few years later, managed to completely discredit himself in the eyes of the community and haven't been involved with Bitcoin since 2016.

Ethereum has a very clear leader - Vitalik Buterin. While Vitalik obviously doesn't have any direct control over Ethereum, his word is followed by the Ethereum's community as gospel. That would be bad enough in itself, even if Vitalik Buterin wasn't a Russian guy close to Vladimir Putin, which he is: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2017/06/05/vladimir-putin-and-vitalik-buterin-discuss-ethereum-opportunities/

Edit: typo.

>But they didnt; they just wanted to take a shot at the institution.

Nothing like that is written in the article, that's all your assumptions. Like I've said, this article seems to have some parts of the story missing.

Maybe, but freedom of speech is not unique to the US, and freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment in the US is not even the "freest" free speech in the world.

>You could show a lack of respect to the court by not obeying it. Or you could try to humiliate the judge.

Ok, but how does pointing out the judge's spelling mistake humiliate them? Even if the judge gets humiliated, that's because the judge made a spelling mistake, not because someone said the judge made a spelling mistake.

This article seems to have some parts of the story missing.

>is a strawman argument

You don't know what a straw-man argument is, if you think this was a straw-man argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

A straw-man is purposefully misstating someone else's argument. I wasn't even talking about someone else's argument.

>is defeatist

In theory, yes. In practice, have you ever actually tried debunking stuff that paid trolls post? I did. A troll posted a chart with fake data. It took me 4-5 hours to collect actual data, and draw an actual chart. I went back and posted my reply. I checked the troll's post history. During the 4-5 hours I took to debunk their one post, they have made 57 (yes, I counted) similar posts of disinformation. Assuming I did nothing but debunked posts by this single troll for 12 hours a day, it would have taken me 20 days to debunk what they posted during only 4-5 hours of their time.

There's conspiracy theories, and then there's conspiracy theories. What the article argues for is a very noble and utopian idea of "we should fight all disinformation by facts, logic, and reasonable debate" which fails spectacularly in real life, for two reasons:

1. You can't use logic to debate someone out of a viewpoint which wasn't based on logic in the first place.
2. A single troll can generate so much disinformation in a day, that it would take an expert literal years to properly debunk it.

>Martinez recently sold a Pokémon Illustrator card with a Gem Mint 9.5 rating for $672,000. Don’t ask what all that means, because I don’t know.

The pinnacle of journalism.

Is there any website or software which would allow me to chat with an "AI"?

>Actual statements of fact or even quotes from politicians not edited for political bias for other side or the other.

So, Snopes?

The fact that you can't link a single example to back up your claim, so instead you repeat the same claim in several different ways as if that would make any difference, is even sadder.

My question still stands.

Can you link a specific example where snopes presented untrue information as fact?

>You either agree with snopes or you fall in the misinformation category, by axiom.

What would you suggest should have been used instead of snopes then?

No one ever said that a centralized crypto exchange can't get hacked (or stolen from) even if the coins traded on it are decentralized. Not your keys, not your coins.

Edit: Downvoted for simply stating facts.

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I think an extremely important thing that Karl Popper described is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I believe that in most of the EU countries, and in the US, not understanding the "paradox of tolerance" is the number #1 threat to those societies.

What the "paradox of tolerance" explains, is the logical fallacy which the enemies of society hide behind, to prevent being punished and destroyed. Unfortunately, in most cases, they do it successfully, and each and every step leads closer to the destruction of those societies. It basically goes like this: "if you're tolerant, then you must tolerate my intolerance". In other words: "if you try to destroy fascism, you're a fascist, because only fascists try to destroy other cultures/ideologies".

In reality, killing a murderer is not murder - it's self-defense, capital punishment, etc. Taking stuff by force from a thief/robber is not theft/robbery - it's restitution, confiscation, compensation, etc. In the same way, destroying a fascistic culture/ideology is not fascism - it's whatever you want to call it, etc.