All currencies are virtual. Their value is not real but implied. Even gold.

Gold was valuable because lots of people said it was - just like money.

There is no such thing as "real" money there never was.

You don't live in a country where they are squandered and your democracy is one in name only then?

I love paying taxes when the country is run for the benefit of the people living there...

Nope.

Weak evidence necessarily leads to weak conclusions which are more likely to be wrong.

In this field such weak conclusions are the *strongest* available and thus the ones most discussed.

This is common and acceptable in the fields that are harder to study such as anthro, psycho and thero physico. Everybody who is credible in those fields understands this and probably finds it more exciting than a field with "less" to discover.

Reporters on the other hand just report whatever shit they think is click bait and people click on this shit even if it is just to moan about it.

Oh please. That is a false dichotomy.

The only thing "clashing" here is the high tech political donations vs the military and surveillance dollars.

Its funny how the only "clashes" follow this same pattern...ok not funny at all.

Nowadays they use intelligent trading algorithms and other automated systems.

The REAL trick though is getting the laws changed so that you can fleece the public of billions of dollars and have it all be perfectly legal.

Wait..were you not talking about wall st??

I doubt it since that script already exists...

That whooshing noise was not a jet flying over your head...

You can mark it flame-bait but it wont change the truth.

Burying your head in the sand wont solve the problem...

Because there is clearly a high level and consistent level of loss each and every year as is quite clear from the graphs.

So that ends your theory...

Happy now? Thought not...

But perhaps its time to advocate for doing something about it rather than trying to argue nothing MIGHT be wrong because of some infinitesimally small chance that the results are incorrect....

Like the GW deniers do...

My original point was exactly this: Someone (somehow actually related to the actual thing) finding it offensive is not longer a requirement apparently.

PS: And if you haven;t guessed I like to play the thought provoking devil's advocate without trying to be a troll. (a fine line)

Of course this means a depressingly large number of people just pigeon hole you into their favorite stereotype and then argue against the view of said stereotype with no awareness of what you are saying...but it comes with the job.

Such is the world of the internet.

Nevertheless it appears there is no limit to the insanity of this topic which is why I bring up the point in the way I have.

There has to be a limit. And people are not automatically right simply because you cry "opression!" about a current hot button topic.

I am not advocating for it.

Having been a software manager for some years such behavior is discouraged.
But should a project like this be interfered with by a 3rd party because someone else might be offended?

I think not...

The decision on whether it is a good/sensible/professional/appropriate name has NOTHING to do with the discussion. That is for the people in charge of the project.

This is about a related 3rd party bringing down the hammer on a project because they feel they have the right to interfere because someone somewhere might get offended about a currently hot topic.

The fact that you don't understand what I have said does not mean I have said nothing important.

This probably happens a lot?

Well, unfortunately I have not the time to extend your formal education...

It shouldn't matter what the situation.

Why is the workplace so special? Believe me, it is anything but.

Racism is ok outside of the workplace? Thought not...

But I see the "men can't have an opinion" brigade are already here with mod points.

Its ok, I have karma to burn and what I am saying needs to be said. So be it.