Are you calling Twitter a public utility?

You point didn't fly over my head, it's a common enough argument.

The US Government specifically made treaties and then violated them, repeatedly. Sure we didn't sign those treaties, but we definitely benefit from the violation of them. It's not crazy to think the descendants of the people harmed should be compensated.

I can't believe they only put 7.5 billion for charging stations. It's going to cost a hell of a lot more than that to build 500,000 stations - that's only 15k per station. Charging stations is the main thing holding EVs back at this point, and if the current EV demand is any indication, charging on road trips is going to be a goddamn nightmare for the next decade.

You are a United States citizen, yes? Then you are directly benefiting from the theft and murder of millions of Native Americans.

Your ancestors are irrelevant. You, personally, benefit every day from that theft. We all do. It's only right that the country and people that benefit from that terrible injustice should do something to make up for it.

It's not about punishing or blaming anybody. It's about lifting up those who were oppressed and who's rights were violated by the US government (and the colonial governments before it).

So your argument is "Sure, we brutally murdered your ancestors, stole their land, and then forcibly moved whoever remained onto the leftover land that nobody else wanted.... but now we're *letting* you build casinos, so we're cool right?"

Maybe because their people were brutally murdered, their land stolen, and then the few remaining were moved onto the inhospitable land that nobody else wanted?

Then on top of all that, they were completely surrounded on that land by the very people who did all these horrible things to them?

Are you really asking why native American tribes are poor???

What do you mean? Everyone knows a 20" pizza is twice as big as a 10" pizza!

I mean, can't Apple say the same thing? They've made the software & hardware, and it's their choice to not make side loading a feature. If you don't like the feature set they've created, then don't buy one. Nobody is forcing you to buy an iPhone.

Yes you can do whatever you want with your hardware, but that doesn't mean Apple has to support or enable everything you want to do. If you want to try to crack their OS so you can side load, go for it.

Sure, but it seems trivial to attach copyright ownership to NFT ownership.

Of course, this is solving a problem that doesn't really exist, but it does make it pretty easy to transfer and prove ownership of a copyright.

I do the same with email, and it works very well.

The same thing doesn't work for work files, at least not for me. Code and datasets especially cannot be stored in a laundry basket - you would have to come up with a unique filename for each one. This would have to be something human readable so that you can find them... which means you wind up just concatenating folder names into a filenames. Seems rather pointless and difficult to manage.

Seat belt laws are a thing because you are not by yourself on the road when you're driving. If your vehicle is subject to a sudden force, a seatbelt keeps you in place so that you can try to regain control... or at least not go flying out of the window and create another hazard on the road.

Similarly, vaccines prevent the transmission of infectious disease. Sure, they also protect the person who is vaccinated, but that's only part of why they should be required.

As for pro-choice & pro-vax-mandate being hypocritical... maybe a little. The big difference is that an abortion is a private matter. Not getting a vaccine affects everyone around you.

It kind of sounds like he's actually auctioning off his 1/3 share of the royalties in the album. It's attached to an NFT just as a marketing ploy to pump the price.

The bigger question though is do you need to own the copyright for something to sell an NFT linked to it? I don't really see why you would... you're not selling the underlying asset, you're selling a token hashed from it, right? So you're just selling a number very loosely derived from it, and from which you can't reproduce the original in any way.

It's not even like taking a picture of a painting and trying to sell it. It's more akin to selling an audio recording of you standing in front of a piece of art saying "I'm looking at a Picasso".

The "security" part is the loan contract. Bitcoin being a security or a currency doesn't really matter for this discussion.

I use tons of Realsense cameras at work... they're not hard to buy. You go on Intel's website and you order them.

Except that all transactions on the blockchain are public record, so if it is money laundering, it's completely pointless, no?