The rub there is that the government probably now has a record of every site you have an account on.

What we really need is a system that’s anonymized in both directions. Where the website can verify the specific claim, age, nationality, etc, but the issuer of the verification, aka the government, can’t track where that verification has been used.

I think this should be possible, but it’s different from the way standard identity providers operate, and I haven’t heard of any of these government identity providers operating this way. That may be because it’s easier, and it may be because governments like the idea of knowing everything we do.

That experiment has been pretty thoroughly discredited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Finally got my last PC switched off Windows. It feels good.

I think you should stop writing post titles

sheepishly raises hand

I think it was satire

I keep trying to eat meat but it just won’t cooperate!

Which of these 23 links backs up the claim that “people only respond to violence,” or, paraphrasing, non-violent resistance is ineffective?

I tried to skim a couple, but the synopsis on one was simply a recounting of black power tactics from the 70s, and another was a wiki page about the radical flank effect, which actually referenced the book I linked to support the claim that having a violent radical flank appeared to have no positive effect. Other references sometimes found a positive effect, but I can’t really compare the merits of the sources.

Honestly, having a pile of obscure links to whip out in favor of political violence is, at a minimum, odd.

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156837/

This is the work that’s often being referenced when talking about non-violent vs violent resistance, and the 3.5% participation claim.

I don’t see any references for your claims either.

The payments can become a legal liability for the processors. I believe there are federal laws that have penalties for anyone who facilitates transactions for certain prohibited goods or services. It’s the same reason cannabis shops have such a hard time getting payment and banking services.

The payment processors have very little incentive to take risks here. As others have noted, there isn’t much competition pressure.

EDIT: I went to find a source, and found the cannabis analogy isn’t right. Seems that Visa and MasterCard really are the primary censors of the porn industry. This archived FT article went in depth. https://archive.ph/zXKuD

Whatever happened to that lawsuit trying to block arbitrary executive tariffs? The law that Trump is using to threaten all these tariffs has a set of causes listed, something like emergency economic events, price shocks, crashes, etc. I’m sure prosecution of the president’s friends is not on the list.

Here it is https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-court-blocks-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-2025-05-28/

But that was a month ago.

Personally surprised it was still up. I’m not sure I can think of a game that seemed so promising in the public beta, but then had so little at launch.

Exes? Okay.

Favorite car bangers? Right.

Fast food orders? Wut?

Honestly what are you talking about?

There is no way that these two didn’t talk about how to answer that question before the press event. This isn’t the president of El Salvador saying he doesn’t want to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, it’s him saying that he is on Trump’s side.

Yeah but how do you get the information from the IRS into the systems that manage this hypothetical program? How do you get your parents’ and grandparents’ IRS data correlated with your own? What about people who don’t file taxes? The risk is that all that work falls on the applicant. Or if the program administrators do all that work, that’s where the overhead costs come in.

This is something which happens with existing public assistance programs, where so many requirements have been put on the aid application that people give up trying to to prove they made less than X dollars in the last 12 months, or lived in the state for at least 5 years, or have passed a drug screening, and so on. Too often that’s done intentionally to stymie a program, but the phenomenon exists regardless of motivation. The more complicated the program requirement are, the more people will fail to get aid they should, and the more it costs to administer.

Has it worked well for France? I’ve been arguing that such an approach would work much better for the US.

Using self-identified racial identities for aid programs is too easy to argue is itself racially biased. Even if you can make good contextual arguments that race-based aid is a compensation for race-based oppression, either current or historical, that’s not a winning political position.

Using metrics like generational wealth, income, education is a much easier argument to make, even if in effect it would disproportionately benefit these identity groups.

The primary downside seems to be that administering such a program is more complicated, which means more of the expense goes to overhead, and more people will not get the benefits they could because of the difficulty of navigating a more complex process.

I didn’t see anything about a violation of election law. All it said was she was known for pro-Kremlin, and anti-Semitic positions. I hope there’s more to this story or Romania is going to damage the credibility of their elections.

Even a socialist command economy has to reason in terms of inputs and outputs. The difference in value between the two is a pretty good indicator of whether the given economic activity is successful or not. In a capitalist system the positive difference is called profits and the capitalists get to keep it. That fact doesn’t discredit the entire concept of “profits” as a net gain in value.

Anyway, just because the capitalists may win most (the whole system is called capitalism after all), doesn’t mean that ramping up European arms production isn’t a huge benefit for Ukraine.

You guys are only working on one project at a time?