- lern_too_spelThe analysis requires understanding the total addressable market of greater fools. Bitcoin, like any speculative asset, has value as long as people believe its value will go up. When there are no more greater fools to buy in, its value stops going up, so it loses value as a speculative asset. People will sell off to buy other speculative assets, causing a price drop and accelerating sell-off from others who do not want to be bag holders until the asset reaches its intrinsic utility value. Since Bitcoin is strictly worse than alternatives as a form of payment, that value is 0. While this is the ultimate price of Bitcoin, correctly estimating when it will happen requires an understanding of the addressable market, which can change sharply as different countries implement regulation.
- GP was talking about where he'd rather hang out between the U.S. and China. Gaza wasn't in the running.
- You would only get presented with an option when an Intent has multiple possible handlers. If you install a new app that handles the insert event intent, then you'll get prompted the next time that intent is started. I just verified this by opening an ics file after installing a new calendar app.
- ChatGPT didn't validate your tinfoil hat beliefs. It simply didn't like the words I used to call them out. Once again, you believe that the government is doing massively illegal spying despite the fact that numerous leaks have shown it is not. You originally based your beliefs on misreporting of the leaks, but when that was corrected, you clung to your silly beliefs by using speculation from somebody who never claimed to have seen anything illegal that also goes against the leaks.
I use the words I do because I have known people who talk about ice bullets, chemtrails, and silent black helicopters, and the way they come to their beliefs is exactly the same as the way you have come to yours. If you see them as silly, you should be able to understand why I feel the same about you.
Now unless you engage with the facts of whether the NSA has access to all your FAANG data or not, I think we're done. You don't like the way I characterize your beliefs, and I accept that, but what I'm looking for here is evidence against my assertion.
- > So now you can actually go and openly say things like "I'm racist" and mean it, and there's still plenty of people who don't see a problem with that.
My point is that the people (Fuentes supporters) that he said see no problem with that are racists themselves, or why would they be Fuentes supporters? That's his whole schtick. They don't see a problem with him saying racist things, so why would they see a problem with him directly admitting he is a racist? https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/conservative-writer-says...
- As long as an app registers itself as a handler for ics files and calendar intents, you'll see the app picker when you get one of those. There is no notion of calendars in the OS. Apps just register with the OS what kinds of intents and URIs they can handle.
- > - but, most importnatly, your Google account's calendar (which you need for Play Store) is still a default and any 3rd party app adding an event to your calendar will adds it to the Google one. You don't get to change the default calendar, you don't get to disable it!
That seems like a bug in Google's Calendar app. Can't you simply install a third party calendar app like Fossify Calendar and set it as the default for handling calendar intents?
- > Barack Obama said at the time: “I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman”
And yet he didn't force the country to only recognize marriages between men and women. Instead, he did the opposite. He voted against DOMA in 1996. He repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell in 2010. He appointed judges who looked favorably on gay marriage and then told the justice department not to defend DOMA against constitutional attacks. Then he celebrated the Supreme Court's ruling against DOMA.
> In a politically neutral technology company there should be room for people who side with Barack Obama and the majority of Californian voters.
Barack Obama and California voters (64% of likely voters in 2013 according to PPIC) were on the other side in 2014 when Eich was appointed CEO. Eich remained (and remains to this day) on the wrong side.
- Definition of bigot from Oxford Languages: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Explain how the word isn't being used according to its definition.
> Nick Fuentes openly said he's a racist.
Do you doubt him? In March 2025, he said, "Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise ... White men need to run the household, they need to run the country, they need to run the companies. They just need to run everything, it's that simple. It's literally that simple."
> I suspect he lost 0 supporters by doing this.
You seem to believe that his supporters think he isn't actually racist.
- And also in 2014 when he was appointed CEO and also today. Eich has the same position today.
- > Where this analogy breaks is that at the time (2008), Eich's position had majority support in the US.
And where your analogy breaks down is that Eich had that same position at the time he was appointed CEO in 2014 and has that same position today.
- There is a hidden assumption that it takes $500 million a year to keep a browser up to date.
It might eventually be interesting to figure out how to build a model that serves the user instead of the model trainer, but the model trainers haven't figured out how to enshittify their models yet, so spending all the money needed to build a competitive model is premature.
- Mozilla makes user agents that serve the user instead of an app store, advertisers, or crypto scams. As long as they do that well, I will use their software. The real difficulty is finding a business model that works for this at a scale that allows them to keep up with competitors. Wikipedia does this successfully.
- > I wonder why meta chose not do the whole localhost thing on iOS
Presumably, they have a simpler way to tie the same ids together on iOS.
> The defaults aren’t really relevant because they don’t come up
If you ask your phone to navigate for you, you cannot use another app with better privacy. You have to use whatever Apple forces on you. The same with hotword-triggered assistants.
But yes, these are minor compared to the fact that you cannot get your GPS location at all in any app without telling Apple or the fact that you cannot install an app at all without telling Apple. These are egregious privacy violations done simply because Apple can.
- Re: privacy. That same system for violating privacy works on iOS. Just run a local web server, and there you go.
The big difference is in what Apple won't let you do, like get your GPS location without telling Apple or install an app without telling Apple. It looks like Apple finally allowed changing the default navigation app this year, but only in Europe: https://www.androidpolice.com/make-google-maps-app-default-i.... If you want to change the default voice assistant, you still can't do that.
- Android is strictly superior to iOS in terms of privacy. On iOS, you can't even get your location without sending it to Apple or install an app without telling Apple which one. Unlike iOS, you can even replace your default maps app with a fully offline app. User choice is the key to ensuring privacy.
Google Fit was released in 2014 and implemented data migration to Health Connect when that launched. Similarly, Samsung Health synchronizes data with Health Connect.
The long-fixed bug tickled by Teams was in functionality iOS still doesn't provide. If I use Google Voice, Skype, Signal, or some other telephony service, Android lets me route all outgoing calls through that service automatically.
- > Is that what posting the quote in full with a link to the original source means? Certainly not.
I based my claim that all he had was speculation on exactly the quote you gave. Nowhere in that quote does he say that he saw the devices set up to spy on Americans. Instead, he assumes it. He assumes something that directly contradicts the documents that Snowden released specifically about Stellar Wind. https://www.theguardian.com/nsa-inspector-general-report-doc...
You claim that I've chopped up a quote in order to come to my conclusion, but you're the one who gave that chopped up quote my conclusion is based on to begin with.
> The court documents, already posted, clearly explain the reason for the ruling as “impermissible disclosure of state secret information". If no data were collected, there would be no state secret information to disclose. Ipso facto
Utter nonsense. The government wouldn't say specifically how they selected foreign data in the initial Pearl case. Afterwards, Snowden's leaks showed that they only contained foreign data.
> Attempts to portray otherwise at this point amount to willfully misleading.
You're the one making conspiracy theories out of whole cloth. Instead of trying to use ChatGPT to dismiss my claims, why don't you spend your time looking at what Snowden's docs actually claimed like a reasonable person who doesn't wear tin foil hats?
Let's get back to the original comment I responded to. Do they have access to anybody's FAANG data or not? Snowden's docs say they do not. Nothing Binney said disagrees with that, even if his wild assumption is correct.
- The point is that regulation could have made Bitcoin and NFTs never cause the harm they have inflicted and will inflict, but the political will is not there.
- Chevrolet makes these. The Blazer and the Blazer EV look roughly the same. The Equinox and Equinox EV look more different but not completely different. The Silverado and the Silverado EV look completely different, but given those other models, I don't think it's for lack of trying.
Similarly, Volvo's EX cars look almost exactly like their XC counterparts.
- > Clear as day to me. Only reason to chop it up or not cite the source would be to misrepresent what he said.
You're the one who chopped it up. Now tell me where in your chopped up quote does it say he knew where it was going? All I see is speculation.
Even better, tell me why Snowden's leaks didn't say anything about this super illegal program Binney said was going on because of what he speculated so hard?
Even better, tell me why no oversight committee is taking Binney seriously.
Even better, tell me why nobody is suing the government over Binney's speculation.
> Procedurally dismissed
Do you know what standing means? It means their data wasn't collected, so they have no harm to sue over. That's the point, and that's what Snowden's docs proved.
Why do you claim to believe something because of Snowden's documents that is directly contradicted by Snowden's documents? Or are you quietly dropping your claim that Snowden's documents support your conspiracy theory and are now falling back entirely on the lunatic ravings of a middle manager who hasn't worked at the NSA in decades, which aren't supported by any of the leaks that have happened since?