Same here: Two Oculus Quests in the household and a number of Linux laptops, and that's it (we seem to have been successful at keeping the kids away from mobile games so far). If it doesn't exist on Arch Linux (& AUR), Oculus Quest, Sidequest, Steam (Linux), Lutris (including Wine support), we won't even try.

The biggest annoyances about using a "console" type gaming platform are vendor lock-in and privacy invasion. The worst one I have used is Playstation, but Quest is quite close. After we got the Quest, I began filtering the household's network traffic, especially to Facebook. Don't think it helps much, but it is something. Unfortunately, the only reason to get a gaming "platform" is convenience, and there doesn't seem to be a decent VR platform that is also hassle-free.

The rationale behind Bitcoin is to ensure that everyone/everything, regardless of jurisdiction or position, have access to a common economy. What matters is its penetration to everyday lives.

Market price is irrelevant. It could go sky high and still fail in its mission.

What goes on is conceptually same with paying with Norwegian krone, except that I do not have to keep Bitcoin in a custodial service in order to pay online.

Whether they want to keep some krone or bitcoin around is a matter of accounting. Valve probably doesn't have operational costs they can pay with Bitcoin, but other firms might (hosting, domain registration and whatnot).

Seems like the summary is correct then:

I don't want to but I have kids.

I've always thought that companies should not handle anyone's data, but centralization is quite efficient, so alternatives never gain traction. This sort of push could help people learn about the benefits of privacy, decentralization and data protection at a very young age.

I have a different world view, in which people are pushed into becoming stupid and crazy extremists because of social and economical isolation. It doesn't require the assumption of naturally evil people, or ideas that are strong enough to magically convert weak souls into stupid/crazy. It also allows ways out other than outright elimination of said peoples.

However, I do assume that people can accept just about anything when rendered ignorant of alternatives, which is what both the group and those who like the existence of such groups both want.

Agreed, but I don't think it hurts to note that the Internet gives us the unprecedented ability to reach out to radicals, too. And just like we did in pre-modern times, we only do it to challenge and intimidate. We don't speak their language and we have no intention to listen to their reasoning or empathize with their situation.

All of which actually proves one of the points of radical Islam (and to my experience most Muslims, and double-ironically people like Trump), that freedom of information is not that useful for freeing minds.

Outside U.S., there are plenty of options available. bit-x does optional on-the-fly Bitcoin to fiat conversion and has a neat system, but others may have better fees and whatnot.

Within (almost half of) U.S. I suspect Coinbase might actually be the first, but I didn't look too deep.

Actually I think these news prove that debit cards are getting better, rather than saying anything about Bitcoin.

I have a similar debit card (not Coinbase) which lets me spend out of my Bitcoin wallet, converting on-the-fly to target currency. The Bitcoin side of this is quite straightforward, but I am rather impressed that VISA allows this sort of automation.

Militant Islam, and any sort of extremism really, not only feed off of, but also depend on hopelessness. The entire structure exists because there are an enormous number of people who are forcefully deprived of all means to find meaning.

Lack of reach, both socially and economically is the primary culprit. But you also have those who have suffered for decades without the feeling of any sort of power. So it is not really surprising to see them cling to an implausible but overwhelming promise of eternal well being.

I said it could help with economic restrictions, which is a natural consequence of the argument made against it. I specifically refrained from talking about its effects on inequality, since it depends on which school of economics you favor.

You are trying to control the *totality* if the body in order to extinguish the symptoms instead of going after the cause.

Actually, one could argue that this tendency has caused the whole mess to begin with. Instead of going after wealth inequality and economic restrictions, they went on to create more inequality and more restrictions.

The case at hand is even more advanced, since digital currencies have not been used by terrorists. They could help with economic restrictions though, which I'm guessing you wouldn't like at all.

To be perfectly clear, cars *would* be banned if they weren't so widely used already.

The sad truth is, democracy is yet another method to herd people into working towards goals set by oligarchs.

Yes, "we" could have elected some other people, but "we" do not and would not.