The difference between the stock market and almost every other 'asset' is something called "Positive Sum Game". Gambling is a "Negative Sum Game." Much of the rest are "Zero Sum Game"

Negative Sum Games are games where someone takes money out of the system. Like a casino offering a poker game.

Zero Sum Game is when no one takes money out or puts money in. If you have a office bet and ten people put $50 bucks in and the winner takes 10*50= $500, that is a zero sum game.

None of the following are Positive Sum games: Pokemon, Art, Bitcoin, Commodities, etc.

The stock market however is a Positive Sum Game. Profitable businesses increase the value of the stock. Some use these profits to pay Dividends, others to buy assets or even buy out other companies. So the Net Sum of money in the system keeps going up.

This is a huge difference - the exact opposite of going to a casino where the casino always wins. If there was a casino that instead of taking a profit every day kept putting more money into the poker game, you would definitely play with them rather than real casinos.

That is why the Stock market is an Investment rather than gambling. The businesses put more money in than they take out.

Positive Sum Games are better than the other kind.

That is, while the law allows the US military to agree to vendor required repair contractors, the generals can still say no.

In fact, they have guns, and could theoretically take them out and threaten to shoot the salesmen as traitors to the country when they mention requiring repairs to be done by the vendor.

I would be surprised if they were even court martialled for shooting those salesmen.

But age based rules have three issues:

1) They are easier to get around than a ban of bad content.

2) They require anyone above the age to prove their age, thereby destroying their privacy which does far MORE damage than the supposed bad content. When it comes to censorship the government is always the bad guy, not the hero. Just look at the US currently.

3) They allow the bad content to continue to exist and affect the people they claim are old enough to deal with it. But people are not uniform. What some learn by 16, others do not until 18. Some never learn it. Worst of all, they never offer classes to teach people how to recognize the issues and deal with it. That would be far more effective than a temporary ban.

We need a Modern Home Economics class. It should talk about dealing with the police, dealing with taxes, dealing with the internet, how to recognize fraud/scams, how to recognize when a company is offering you a horrible deal (especially how your email/phone etc. is valuable and not a 'free' thing you give the company), sexual consent, how to ask someone out, basic medical care (do not remove the knife), and of course basic scientific method / logic.

Social media has become a toxic dump. If you wouldn't allow children to play in waste effluent from a 1960s nuclear power plant, then you shouldn't allow them to play in the social media that's out there. Because, frankly, of the two, plutonium is safer.

I do, however, contend that this is a perfectly fixable problem. There is no reason why social media couldn't be safe. USENET was never this bad. Hell, Slashdot at its worst was never as bad as Facebook at its best. And Kuro5hin was miles better than X. Had a better name, too. The reason it's bad is that politicians get a lot of kickbacks from the companies and the advertisers, plus a lot of free exposure to millions. Politicians would do ANYTHING for publicity.

I would therefore contend that Australia is fixing the wrong problem. Brain-damaging material on Facebook doesn't magically become less brain-damaging because kids have to work harder to get brain damage. Nor are adults mystically immune. If you took the planet's IQ today and compared it to what it was in the early 1990s, I'm convinced the global average would have dropped 30 points. Australia is, however, at least acknowledging that a problem exists. They just haven't identified the right one. I'll give them participation points. The rest of the globe, not so much.

Gyre is a more official name for the Pacific Garbage patch, as there are presumably few kids in it

Not really IMO, moderation is broken by design at best

I don't see a rash of bans, but I do see the same abusers of moderation given all the mod points they can use every day.

You can thank student loans for that. Earlier generations got their schooling subsidized, but now people have to get loans to pay for it themselves instead. Colleges therefore could raise tuition. Then a bipartisan effort in Congress was launched to make sure we couldn't discharge those loans through bankruptcy like you can gambling or other personal debts, which was led by Joseph R Biden. I think we know how that turned out, forgiveness for a few of the worst abused players, and blaming inability to keep his campaign promises related to partial forgiveness for all buyers blamed on Congress while he went around them to fund genocide in Gaza.

...how often does ChatGPT use Dictionary.com's word of the year, "6-7"?

I wish I had a girlfriend like that... (Not really, I prefer people that challenge me. Maybe someone should train ChatGPT to challenge people.)

People suck.

There is a reason why we put limits on cops - it's not to protect the guilty. It's to protect the innocent. Cops hate these limitations because it makes their job harder and they frankly do not give a crap that they are the ones breaking the law and hurting innocent people.

I personally would never give my DNA to Ancestry.com in part because they used to let cops examine it and even now because I do not trust them to maintain their current rules. I have however given my fingerprints when I worked in finance.

The problem is how many other things DNA can tell.

Did your mother cheat on your dad? Your grandmother? Do you have a gene that some asswipe is going to think makes you more likely to commit a crime? Or makes you likely to be gay? Or stupid/lazy/racist?

Keep in mind this not about what the gene actually does - it is what some asswipe is going to THINK the gene does. Look back at the the old fake 'science' that claimed skull size or shape determined things like that.

Mankind has a long history of judging people not on reality but on bad science.

Maybe they are just reading each other's cookies?

... and Meta _always_ strictly abides by their privacy deals! (See the number of times they have violated their consent decree with the FTC by violating the established privacy rules.)

Yes, I'm sure than Monsanto is champing at the bit to be the next Owens-Corning and sued into oblivion, which is why they're working hard to make sure that Roundup has to be removed from the market for safety reasons.

Do you people even hear yourselves sometimes? How do you say shit like this with a straight face?