acidtakes1

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by acidtakes1 4y ago

   I'm only arguing the definition shouldn't be changed to something that is explicitly negative, even if the vast majority of the time it's used for nefarious reasons.
2. 2.▲
   by acidtakes1 4y ago

   Signal: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/opinion/jack-dorseys-twit...
3. 3.▲
   by acidtakes1 4y ago

   I don't understand why technology that provides a modicum of privacy must be demonized. It must be for money laundering and criminals. It can't have a legitimate use case. Is it used for nefarious activities? Of course, but not ex
4. 4.▲
   by acidtakes1 4y ago

   It's actually quite popular among environmentalists. We need to make progress on sustainability, and we will. We CAN sustain 8 billion people because of the immense progress humans have made in food production and efficiency. Pretendin
5. 5.▲
   by acidtakes1 4y ago

   We do not need to produce less people.