Nice points being made here. American roulette has double zero, European roulette has a single zero. The zero(s) represent the house edge and that's what the casino makes its money from.
Even funner fact, even if there isn't a zero and you truly get 50/50 odds, you'll still hit ruin over the long run because the house has "unlimited money."
"to take something without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it"
As far as I know, they do not have my permission to get my wealth.
From RAE, in Spanish, robar:
"Quitar o tomar para sí con violencia o con fuerza lo ajeno." -> To extract or remove for oneself with violence or force other people's property (ajeno in this context refers to property in spanish)
So yes, it is an objective definition of what stealing is, because you pay under the threat of jail, not by mutual agreement, as you do when you purchase something.
>Tell me why should technological change benefit workers?
Technological benefits make individual workers more productive, allowing them to be exploited for more profit. If you don't understand the economics or incentive of the situation, there's no reasoning you out of a box you didn't reason yourself into.
> Technological benefits make individual workers more productive, allowing them to be exploited for more profit.
It also makes harder jobs easier and in some cases allows someone unskilled to perform a job that a only a more highly skilled person could do. Thus someone is easier to replace and thus cheaper.
> If you don't understand the economics or incentive of the situation, there's no reasoning you out of a box you didn't reason yourself into.
I understand it fine. Technological advances is a double edged sword with regards to Labour. It may create whole new industries while destroying old ones.
> Why would I artificially limit myself, both for existing and future releases?
> But unless you are willing to be limited in what you can play, a PC gamer will continue to pick Windows.
A lot more people are willing to be limited in what they can play. 10 years ago, it wasn't anywhere near 6/10 -- and in my case, all of the major titles I play (20k~ steam hours) except for one have worked perfectly fine on Arch; no longer a Windows user after 20+ years.
Not to mention a lot of indie games are released native to Linux and there's so many choices compared to 20 years ago, that I would just skip the game for something else if it's not at least Proton compatible.
You didn't really give any legal perspective. Either Facebook owns the content and the liability as a publisher, or it's a platform and shouldn't fixing content towards what they want to show.
You're not making any sense. From a liability standpoint, there is no legal distinction between platform and a publisher.
You might be getting confused by the concept of a common carrier. Facebook is not a common carrier. It might be possible to amend the common carrier law to cover Facebook, but in the current political climate that seems unlikely.
Facebook is not a common carrier, but enjoys liability protections under the CDA Safe Harbor:
47USC230(c)(1)
"(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
And definitions--
47 USC 230(f)(3)
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
Of course, CDA also excuses Facebook from making tilted or faulty moderation decisions in good faith.
You are mixing up two legal concepts: one is intellectual property ownership; the other is liability for republishing what others say. They are two different bodies of law: IP law (copyright/trademark) and tort law (libel etc.). They are analyzed under separate legal lenses.
That’s actually the point. You theoretically shouldn’t need a court. Everything is regulated by code, and if something goes wrong you have to own it. The code is public. You can vet it as much as you want. Proposals are voted proportional to code ownership. It looks controversial but not utterly nonsense to me.
For on chain stuff, sure. Where it interfaces with the real world, how do you make the agents carry out the decisions of the code without using the courts?
I'm by no means an expert, but my intuition is that the relationship between on chain and real world should be regulated by real world courts.
So, for instance, an on chain DAO hires a contractor, that then does insider trading on behalf of the DAO in the US: both the contractor and any real world activity in the US get targeted by US courts.
It's like fining Google in the EU: you can't touch it in the US (it's as if it's on chain), but you can prevent it from doing business on EU soil. Or what happened with Facebook in the UK: the parliament summoned Zuck, and he just didn't show up.
It's convoluted, but not far fetched imho.
You don't need to hire lawyers to create the entity and coordinate internally. I've managed a multinational company: it's absolutely crazy the amount of complexity needed to coordinate between legislations, just because states can't efficiently talk with each other. It doesn't make any sense. It's a broken protocol.
It's a fine line: within the org, on chain and no lawyers, only code and everyone must take care of code due diligence. Outside the org (ie. real world), you deal with lawyers as much as needed.
I've thought that many crypto solutions are just workarounds for not having global standardization around laws. Do you think a global governance level (with more buy-in than the UN) would help mitigate some of the challenges that a global company encounters?
In other words, do you think there would be as much of a need for DAOs if a company could register with a global authority, had globally aligned taxes, etc?
It's literally an implementation of a Kafkaesque judge that can never be reasoned with, will never explain itself beyond pointing to the rules and can never be overruled.
Why this is supposed to be a good thing is never explained.
Because it's global. I don't need to reason with anyone anywhere, I don't need to hire lawyers, I don't need to make a global enterprise fit local regulations that are often conflicting.
I'm not saying it's recommended, or even reasonable. I'm arguing that is not utter nonsense in some peculiar cases IMHO
I don't find any of these points to be convincing.
Storing data in a blockchain doesn't mean that local laws don't still apply. Even if the FBI can't prevent you sending money to a terror organisation with a smart contract, they will still arrest you for it.
Being able to reason with someone can be an advantage. With imperfect rules, having authorities involved that are allowed to have some discretion can be a huge boon.
And not having to hire lawyers? Well, you still have to hire someone who understands smart contracts, someone who writes them, and someone to negotiate them with whoever you want to close your contract with.
I believe we're not saying opposing points of view. What I'm arguing for is moving corporate law on chain, mostly regulating relationships between shareholders, and keep everything else real world. In Europe for instance it's quite absurd how much bureaucracy you have the cope with to create operating entities in different countries within the same economic space. Everything else can stay the same - penal law in particular. It's a very fine line but I believe it can make sense in some instances
A fair point—there also isn't much of a global judicial system to regulate property ownership. WIPO perhaps but doesn't seem too relevant/powerful to most and probably doesn't cover most things.
So then we have global things often being regulated by national laws, which, seems to be a conundrum I see happening more and more.
>The blockchain data will never be "optimized" or "disappear"
This is a really bold assumption - you do understand that core dev is still ongoing, yes?
You do understand that "infinite data on a disk" doesn't exist, yes? And as the chain goes on longer, more space is going to be needed, and centralization of the miners will continue to increase, yes?
Please take the time to learn how Bitcoin works before pontificating
