My view is the opposite. The demographic has gotten old enough that the average commenter is more likely to have their name on some piece of work they've created, and so are more likely to have a personal stake in how the law protects their rights to that work.

I'm not really arguing for the utility of stablecoins. I don't hold any and don't see any compelling reason why I need to - a government-insured checking account covers all of my needs.

But:

I don't really see how they can be a systemic risk to the financial system.

I have credit and debit cards with NFC chips. No authentication required to tap and pay, up to a certain amount.

If these stablecoin issuers are required to maintain 1:1 reserves in cash/treasuries as the summary indicates, it seems like they'd be less of a systemic risk than real banks. Not more.

I don't think anyone's arguing that you cannot train people on new software in the sense that it's literally impossible, but that it's time consuming and therefore potentially very expensive to do at scale. More expensive than Microsoft's license fees? I suppose that's the big question.

Because if you don't at least attempt to maintain feature parity with your competitors you tend to lose sales?

The fact that it isn't "minus" IP infringement is the whole (alleged) point.

"Clickbait" and "accurate" aren't mutually exclusive. I call it clickbait because it doesn't meaningfully describe the content of the video (with its current title it could just as well have been about companies that pushed leaded gasoline). The title is meant to drive engagement more than inform, in other words.

Hence the part of my comment regarding naturally occurring levels. I'm not going to somehow become super hydrated because DuPont is dumping pure H2O into the local stream, so H2O's persistence isn't a concern to me (though maybe I would be concerned about erosion, or effects on the stream's temperature, etc.).

I think there's a principled argument to be made for tight regulation of these things based on their persistence alone.

If someone wants to manufacture a substance that, if not handled properly, will persist in my food, persist in my water, and ultimately end up floating around in my bloodstream far beyond natural levels, I think they should be subject to strict rules. It shouldn't be required to prove a causal link between the substance and bad medical outcomes for us to say that a chemical manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Interesting video on the history of PFAS, despite the clickbait title.

Seems like a risky move to build eight second stages with plans to (hopefully) launch just one.

Do rockets do well sitting in a hangar for months or years waiting to be used? What are the odds that one of the first few launches reveals something that requires major design rework for the remainder they've already built?

There's a spectrum of BS. A good read on the subject: One of these stablecoins is not like the others

At least at the time of writing in 2022, USDC (the coin issued by Circle) was on the better side of that spectrum.

I think many people take a manual transmission to be a part of the definition of a motorcycle. Pretty much every moped/scooter (Honda PCX, Vespa, etc.) runs a CVT.

I'd say it's more like holding a gas station liable for selling gas to someone who they had previously been told was using it for some sort of unlawful activity. I have no idea what the law and precent actually say about that kind of scenario, but there's some culpability there.