trutannus

14 ms·

1.
by trutannus 4y ago
> seems way easier than just deciding to solve it with crypto Yeah, I don't disagree that crypto won't fix this. I just disagreed that it was "easy". I took them as being literal.
2.
by trutannus 4y ago
I thought it was a fair summary, but I can also see how someone would arrive at your conclusion. I read it as minimizing, but you make a fair point.
3.
by trutannus 4y ago
You dilute the meaning of the word at that point. Weapons are specific tools that are used with intent to cause harm. If something happens to cause harm without intent, and you define it as a weapon, the word becomes useless.
4.
by trutannus 4y ago
> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy. This is the one I'm specifically discussing, its from a different user. This is the line that started the thread. Plenty of users are discussing this specific line I
5.
by trutannus 4y ago
> When you deliberate misquote someone Yeah, I'm done with this. I told you my objective was to summarize, you have decided I'm maliciously twisting someone's words. I'm not. I've told you as much. My misuse of q
6.
by trutannus 4y ago
> That's a pretty American, libertarian take. I'm not American. This take tends to come out of countries where the government has strayed away from its objective of serving the people. There are plenty of governments I'd t
7.
by trutannus 4y ago
The initial discussion started with someone saying something to the effect of "just change the law, easy". To me, that reads as "just use the government, it'll be fine". Perhaps it's just me, but that sounds a
8.
by trutannus 4y ago
I definitely think laws can do what you say. But I think that's not always what happens. What I object to is really more specifically how the gist is "change the laws, its an easy fix". Anyone who spectates government (odd
9.
by trutannus 4y ago
> You make a law that everyone must be served by the banks. Easy. Here is the "just pass a law" line. I've summarized a line that makes this exact point. I see no straw-men here. Can you point out where I make a straw-man?
10.
by trutannus 4y ago
Sotheby's is already selling them. That to me indicates they're here to stay, for better or for worse.
11.
by trutannus 4y ago
Right, but you're taking my comment out of context here. The point I'm making is that dismissing Crypto for this reason makes little sense.
12.
by trutannus 4y ago
I'd agree that a rotten shark in a tank has more substance to it than an NFT. Shame it's in embalming fluid. You could eat it if you fall on hard times otherwise.
13.
by trutannus 4y ago
I'm not sure how the advice of "just pass a law" is anything other than blind trust. If you didn't think I was advocating crypto, then what purpose does: > And crypto isn't dominated by the wealthy and being used
14.
by trutannus 4y ago
Did I say that? I explicitly say in multiple places that I'm not advocating for crypto, just asking people to not put the blind trust into their government "just passing a law". It always baffles me why someone can't say
15.
by trutannus 4y ago
That's how I think we should!
16.
by trutannus 4y ago
Not suggesting we replace the banking, just pointing out how this path you suggest is still not going to be an easy fix. There's no easy fix. Again, not advocating for crypto as a solution. Just asking people to consider more deeply th
17.
by trutannus 4y ago
> It's not only being used by the corruption, it is itself rotten. And neither does some of it look nice on walls. So is the contemporary art world. The contemporary art world is vastly polluting as well. How much GHG do you think i
18.
by trutannus 4y ago
> On the other hand, what would the world look like without democratic governments Nobody here is advocating against democracy. People are just pointing out that blind trust in state institutions is equally as illogical as blind trust in
19.
by trutannus 4y ago
> x is better than the alternative y. I don't know what y is. They didn't propose replacing democracy.
20.
by trutannus 4y ago
I'm not advocating for crypto. I'm advocating against blind trust in the government to "pass a law" and fix it.
21.
by trutannus 4y ago
Except that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is: 1. Bad laws got us into this place 2. There's a lot of inertia in government 3. There's a lot of stake holders in government who don't have citizen&
22.
by trutannus 4y ago
> Our current method of "fixing" failures of the state involves layering more and more legislation and regulation on top of the broken legislation and regulation. The UK is the perfect example. Hundreds of years of out-dated la
23.
by trutannus 4y ago
I'm not advocating crypto here, I'm just pointing out that saying crypto is bad because you can "just pass a law" is just as illogical as saying "internet blockchain money will give us freedom".
24.
by trutannus 4y ago
> There are no hall monitors here, and there's also no magic wand. Right, and saying "just pass a law" is asking the hall monitors to wave a wand.
25.
by trutannus 4y ago
> Because artists haven't generally backed themselves [into a] very unhealthy social scene of greed and deception Except they absolutely have. The contemporary art market is exactly what you describe. There's sharks sitting in
26.
by trutannus 4y ago
You have to accept though that just saying "ah, the government will fix it" when historically governments have been a major contributor to wealth inequality, is somewhat glib. There's a reason NGOs and private charity exist.
27.
by trutannus 4y ago
Right, anyone can generate NFTs though. How does this differ from saying something like "the artist who called an empty room art is the jumping the shark moment, now I'm advocating against art at every turn"?
28.
by trutannus 4y ago
Use the state to fix failures of the state? There's a weird cyclic optimism here that I don't think can really be supported by the facts. After all, those who write a law can just as easily add addendum to that law, or remove it a
29.
by trutannus 4y ago
I've got to say, I love how responsive you are. Its clear you want to make your product better, it's really great.
30.
by trutannus 4y ago
Makes sense, sometimes I find weird UX friction comes when you needed a feature, and didn't plan it in initially. For the memeish stuff, it was under the example personas. While its fine to include some of these (ie: FIRE, looking for

More ›