I'm trying to clarify your position, not mine. No, I can't do that without asking questions.
What I identify with isn't the point. (I identify as neither, BTW.)
Little Green Men, in case you were unclear on what I meant there: So Russia sent a bunch of Russian military, without insignias on, into Ukraine, where they became a "secessionist" movement. But what they really were was a stealth invasion.
So, if you have no borders, how do you stop that? How do you stop armed thugs from somewhere hostile to you from coming over the border, as individuals, and destroying your country?
Or do you oppose the idea of countries? And if you do, then how do you get from where we are currently (as a world of countries, some with hostilities to other countries) to where you would like us to be?
If you want my position, I guess it's that your statement "I am opposed to borders on a fundamental, ideological level. They are an expression of state violence prohibiting natural freedom of movement and trade" may be fine in theory, but is fundamentally unworkable in the real world. I see some specific problems, reasons why I think it can't work. I'm trying to see if you have answers.
No, I am trying to clarify your position and have already given mine. If you were actually unclear, how did you expect a rebuttal to be taken seriously? Pick one, concede the other and we can go from there.
So, I'll ask directly. Are you a paleo-libertarian?
Can you express your viewpoint without questions or using my viewpoint for reference? Does your world view vanish if I am not around?
Holy shit, it looks like it was going at full highway speeds (at least) in a residential neighborhood. Doesn't look like it attempts to stop or steer away at any point. This seems like the outcome one would expect from a passed-out driver and a stuck accelerator. I'm honestly amazed that the driver survived.
But then the analogy doesn't work at all? ARR isn't calculated by multiplying revenue to 30 years and then saying that that's 1 year's revenue; what criticism is being made here?
If everyone stopped mining transactions couldn't go through anymore and the value of bitcoin would drop.
If you're heavily invested in bitcoin that's bad.
Also miners try to squeeze in their preferred transactions which they can't do when they're not mining.
Finally the costs dont drop to zero when you turn the miners off, so the loss from mining might be less than the loss when not mining.
He's not saying everyone, just the ones who are unprofitable. Not everyone mines bitcoin at the same cost. The ones who do have to stop can also profit from curtailment depending on the price of energy relative to hash profit.
You can generate transactions but ultimately transactions are validated and written in the blockchain by miners. Mining is essentially a way to select voters based on their ability to solve puzzles, ensuring that if you are selected once you have no particular advantage next time. Without miners this whole system doesn’t work.
This calculation is a bit naive, you should at least take into account the capabilities and crew training and operation cost. That's before you start thinking about the cost of crew rescue missions.
It seems to fly way higher than the poseidon, so I guess it covers more ground as well.
That's premised on the attacker never having write access to the encrypted partition, which is the thing storing the FDE key on a remote system or removable media does better than a TPM. If the key is in a TPM and they can extract it using a TPM vulnerability or specialized equipment. Or boot up the system and unlock the partition by running the original signed boot chain, giving the attacker the opportunity to compromise the now-running OS using DMA attacks, cold-boot attacks, etc. Or they can stick it in a drawer without network access to receive updates until someone publishes a relevant vulnerability in the version of the OS that was on it when it was stolen.
Notice that if they can modify/replace the device without you noticing then they can leave you one that displays the same unlock screen as the original but sends any credentials you enter to the attacker. Once they've had physical access to the device you can't trust it. The main advantage of FDE is that they can't read what was on a powered off device they blatantly steal, and then the last thing you want is for the FDE key to be somewhere on the device that they could potentially extract instead of on a remote system or removable media that they don't have access to.
Fair cop on the headers, I write these at 2am and it shows. But on the diplomatic/commercial thing. Iran charges ~$1/barrel in yuan through Kunlun Bank. That's real money through real channels. And the access list keeps expanding, started with 5 countries in March and now it's 10+. If this were purely diplomatic the list would be stable, but it's growing like a customer base. You could argue the fee follows the politics and not the other way around but then why yuan specifically, and why route it through Kunlun Bank with a per-barrel rate structure. Every transit builds volume through yuan settlement channels that bypass dollar clearing. The Danish Sound Dues ran for 400 years on the same logic, different rates for different nations depending on who Denmark was allied with. None of this is new, it's just never been done at 20% of global oil supply before
I don't think its meaningful to talk about commercial/diplomat as such clear categories at this level.
Bypassing dollar clearing is only really a commercial concern because it is a political/diplomatic concern.
Diplomacy is the act of non-violent interactions between countries. Commerce is (generally...) a non-violent form of interaction between countries. High level diplomatic actions enable commerce (of various forms and levels), while commerce creates incentives for diplomacy, and creates the strength for a party to perform diplomacy.
