If being fair to people is truly an objective, it seems like being honest about the need to cut 10% of your workforce, rather than blaming the cuts on performance deficits in an individual, would be the necessary first step. Lying to people is not compatible with fair treatment.

The man already admitted he lied. Why can't you admit it?

If only this were true. Sounds like heaven.

There is actually no need for theories of any kind. The WEF, and others that believe as they do, have been telling anyone that will listen exactly what they want. It's in their speeches, documents, published books and actions, there for all to see. When people tell you and show you who they are, believe them, or fail to do so at your own peril.

Radicals realized some time ago that standing up, laughing and shouting "I aim to destroy your entire way of life" is unsubtle enough that even the densest among us get the message. It is more clever to say things like "We're all in this together" or "We're here to help" and to simply get on with it. Working in this way, you can talk about your plan in full detail, in public, while gaslighting anyone that does the math and comments on what it all adds up to. Look at the silly conspiracy theorist!! You reap the added benefit of gaining the support of well-intentioned people that have their own agendas that overlap parts of yours, but don't comprehend the full scope what they are signing up for with you.

Working in this way you can, for example, describe a program that advocates for a return to serfdom, on a worldwide scale, without ever even using the word.

... it was your money that you couldn't access.

Stories like this involving media, tech or tractors always solicit plenty of justifiable outrage here, yet when someone like me explains that this is why we prefer self-hosted cryptocurrency to the modern banking system, we are met with confusion and scorn. Is it really that difficult an idea to understand, and relate to, that someone might not like an arrangement whereby their money can be frozen or taken at any given time, for any number of reasons or motives, just as these purchased movies have been?

Apologies for going offtopic, but the parallels are to obvious to pass up the comment, and I already post at -1 so no one can really punish me any more by now. But I believe the concepts are related - as more and more products and services move towards this model, characterized by an extremely out-of-balance power ratio between "producer" and consumer, it is up to individuals to insulate themselves from it as much as possible if they don't like these outcomes. Crying about it after the fact doesn't really accomplish anything, especially when people were already warning against it. Any tools to help a person avoid the anti-ownership model should be supported by anyone disinterested in a return to serfdom. I continue to be amazed at the incongruity of thought on the subject, especially here.

This reply is technically correct, but omits an important piece of context. While it is true that most (all?) "modern" cars come with the Creepyvision (tm) features, there are still plenty of legacy automobiles in service. Some don't even have computerized fuel injection. I can buy one today, and have a reasonable expectation of keeping it in service for the foreseeable future, and avoid all of the pitfalls described. The same cannot be said for EVs.

Whenever someone asks me if I would consider an EV, I answer that I would love to. Much of my life has been spent in tech; I am many things but certainly not a Luddite. But they don't make one for people like me, sans Creepyvisioon (tm), so I can't get onboard. Apparently Control matters more to these people than they say the environment does. That's on them, not me.

It is interesting that none of the oblique replies your post solicited directly address this question. I would suggest that many of the people that regularly comment here do in fact want the design you describe, and more. This fact can be readily ascertained by reading the comments on any number of other topics including cryptocurrency, online anonymity, trusted computing, vaccinations, gun control, and just about any subject involving law enforcement.

Go post this in a cryptocurrency discussion and watch the results. You'll be posting at -1 like me in no time at all.

The simple fact is that you haven't given enough information for many (most?) people to stake out a position. Are these people protesting against restrictions on abortion or against restrictions on guns? Because many (most?) of the people that would cry Foul! in the first instance would gleefully support the second. And vice-versa. Without taking even very much time, you can scan sites like this one, Reddit, Twitter, etc... and find examples of this. Both "sides" are guilty of it, in plain sight. And all involved put the cart before the horse to justify their position - it is different for them because they are on the right side - they are the "good" guys and gals.

At first glance, this seems like no more than a statement that most people are hypocrites. To leave it there is to ignore the implications, and the reasons why people advocate what they do. It is not so much that these people do not understand the dangers of power, but rather that they understand these dangers all too well. And much like a compulsive gambler. they are willing to risk being on the wrong side of a power structure for a chance at being on the controlling side of it. Then they can crush what they hate so much - once and for all - thus "saving" humanity, on the terms of their own worldview, of course. And whether their prize is a modern, worldwide Paris Commune or Plymouth Colony, the reality is that it is thanks to these people that we are all in the process of losing.

But I'm the crazy one.

I agree 100% with these sentiments. Realize, however, that those laws weren't passed in a vacuum. I'd be surprised to find a single one that listed as a goal the exclusion of classes of people from the financial system. The ostensible reasons would have been for things like security, stability of the money supply, and stopping crime. See any thread on cryptocurrency for an education in how important these laws and regulations are to have.

The "unbanked" are just a necessary, physics-imposed side effect of these regulations and restrictions. They are "the cost of living in a society" if the commentators living here on Slashdot are to be believed. And these laws and regulations also happen to benefit the filthy rich in a big way. Good luck fixing this under the present regime.

I'm not sure how you arrive at this belief. I have on display a bank note from 1774. There are no names on it except the Treasurer's signature, but it looks pretty used and is one of millions printed. The last "user" was the person that exchanged it for silver, as specified on the bill. But there is no way for me to tell who used it during it's lifetime.

Coins and fungible currency have been a thing since the bronze age. So long as there has been payment, there have been ways to pay someone - to satisfy a debt - without giving your name. Whether people choose to do business on that basis has always been up to them. But whether or not it is a right, it has always been possible, historically.

Since this is a tech site, I would expect that the idea that "security is not a binary condition" is a generally accepted principle. The same goes for anonymity. Those security tapes in Starbucks will likely be erased after a few days. Once that occurs, good luck proving that I bought a coffee there. With a card transaction, the fact is pretty much indisputable. You may desire a world where this the reality - that is your right - but please don't claim there is no difference at all.

Indeed, it is striking. The first business day after a very public issue, and an announcement is made detailing steps being worked on to address the problem. I agree that it is not likely a coincidence.

And it is a breath of fresh air compared to what we're used to. "We are constantly evaluating different options to improve our product and best serve the public." Nothing actually changes, because it doesn't have to. These companies are too big to fail, and they know it. So just a little bit of lip service or some performative dancing for the most egregious scandals, then it's on to the next shareholder meeting to brag about how much they're "delighting" customers.

The nice thing about posting with terrible karma is that you have nowhere to go but up.

The fact that you included the word "nominally" in your sentence suggests that you are aware of the reasons some people don't wish to trust their personal well being to government. Further evidence can be found in your sig. I accept your assertion that corporations do not give a rats ass about me as an individual, but don't see how a nominal difference is a meaningful one. Governments can be just as bad, and in some cases much worse due to the legal power to incarcerate or even kill me.

That's also what governments do. To use your example, much if not most of the plunder of Africa has been accomplished via the good offices of foreign governments, native governments and government-owned corporations. This is why some of us elect to trust neither governments or corporations with stewarding and protecting our well being. If you don't believe that you, individually, would be considered expendable under the right circumstances by the people in your government, I have a bridge to sell you.

I agree that the preponderance of power has always been and probably will always be in the hands of those who already have a ton of money. Given human history, I'd call it physics at this point. So if there is no difference there, and I'm always behind the eight ball in the main, why would I not support a system that affords me some small semblance of control with which to counter these forces and guard my own well being? One thing I've noticed about most criticism of cryptocurrency is that no meaningful solutions to the problems that prompted the advent of cryptocurrency are offered. We are just expected to live with these very real disadvantages as the cost of living in a society. No thanks.

The property of (most) cryptocurrencies whereby anyone with a balance can post transactions to the network and transact value over distances without any special approval or account is a solid example of gained practical autonomy. A person can't be (easily) blocked or interdicted from participation, as is the case with every digital instrument offered by traditional finance.

This is not a theoretical gain. Ask anybody working in legal-but-morally-questionable-by-some industries like legal drugs, pornography, sex toys, prostitution. These industries have great difficulty participating in the digital economy because large groups of people don't like them, and payment companies don't like offending their investors and advertisers. Recently we've seen this kind of "customer auditing" extended to political views. There is no shortage of law-abiding people that benefit from this autonomy.

Ask also dissidents of oppressive regimes. This is a smaller group of beneficiaries, but I would argue a vital one. These people are always technically outlaws, but is anyone prepared to argue that, for example, The White Rose Society deserved that designation? It is always interesting to note how many of the people that recognize the importance of the topic when it comes to software freedom (Dissident Test) don't apply those same principles to something as fundamental to our existence as money systems.

Reading the article might have eased your mind: "the DAO’s big plan for what to do with the document, though, is 'find a safe home for it, such as the Smithsonian'"

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I comment mostly about cryptocurrency, because it interests me and I know about it. I haven't been rude to anyone, I haven't spread misinformation and I haven't given in to the temptation to let thoughtless haters have it. I am downvoted nearly every single time I open my mouth, because people here disagree with me and (apparently) are bitter about the subject. I'd love to get some faces for a bunch of the people in here... just to see what they look like. Some must live very small lives indeed.

Both the article and summary are pretty clear. Previously "only holders of MiamiCoin could earn any kind of crypto return" and this is what they will be changing. Now, they will be going "to give a Bitcoin yield as a dividend directly to its residents" and "residents will be given a Bitcoin wallet and receive free BTC regardless of whether they hold MiamiCoin or not." So they are changing the terms of the program to make it more inclusive - a strange thing to consider scammy.

Great post. I take issue with some of it, but it is nice to see some evidence of thoughtful reflection beyond the obvious surfaces of an issue, which is rare here.

This I agree with emphatically. I have studied history, psychology and philosophy as a passion for most of my life, no matter what else is on I always have a book going. Having done all of this, I am constantly amazed at how little I actually understand, in the grand scheme of things. I am positively astounded, however, by the apparently never-ending supply of people that have not done any of this and yet feel qualified to offer commentary in a discussion. When I don't understand something, I just keep my mouth shut and listen.

America has always been a country of sharp divisions; it is part of the pedigree of the nation. George Washington warned the nation against political parties, yet before the ink was dry on his farewell address we had the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans, representing two distinctly different outlooks on how to forge a nation. That fundamental division exists to the present day, though it is poorly represented by the existing parties.

Yet somehow we have survived several secession crises, including a full-blown civil war, for several hundred years. And in nearly every time period of our history, you can find people claiming that society was on the verge of disintegration because of these differences of opinion. It does seem that way at times, but is worth noting that, so far, they have all proved to be incorrect.

These are 2 completely different things. I would argue that opinions that are "not in line with the 'Powers That Be'" are essential to a healthy society. Because the "Powers that Be", be that governments, public opinion, expert opinion, social mores, etc... have all demonstrated world-class examples of being completely wrong throughout history. And each time this has happened, the people that ended up being correct were horribly unpopular in their own time, often to the detriment of their personal situation. So I don't see that this does any harm, but stifling it certainly would cause tremendous harm.

The best antidote to crackpottery, which should by definition be provably false, is diversity of opinion and an atmosphere of open-mindedness. People don't want to hear this, but it doesn't make it any less true. It takes time, resources and a great deal of patience to show that someone is wrong, rather than just shut them down. I don't blame people for wanting a shortcut, but I don't admire it either.

We haven't arrived anywhere, we are just people living out our time, in our time of history. And in doing so, we're repeating patterns that have played out plenty of times before. The strongest divisions between us carry on not because they are passed on, but because they represent fundamental differences in outlook. Some have carried on through all recorded history, because they are so fundamental to the human experience that each new crop of people "rediscovers" them.

More like centuries. Technology has made the effect more intense - amplified it, as you say. But that is all. An amplifier with no signal makes no sound, as evidenced by the hundreds of unpopular social media sites. I personally don't view it as decay, for the reasons I gave. Rather, I think it is the inevitable messiness that you get in a society organized as ours is, where people can speak their mind freely and publicly, and that was thrown together from so many disparate elements.

I agree that to lay this at Zuckerberg's doorstep is shallow and foolish. He may be an ass, but he is not the world's keeper and not responsible for the bad behavior of others. But one clear and present pattern throughout history is scapegoating. It is comfortable to believe that if we just fix that rascally Facebook, the problem would be solved. Meanwhile, nothing could be further from the truth.