For me, the biggest news is the possibility of a tokenized stock exchange. I have no interest at all in cryptocurrency, but I would like more transparency and control over my assets which could potentially be done if they were tokenized. If it was designed securely, it could prevent shadow transactions and would expose frontrunning. Also, I have a lot less trust in stock exchanges in the past couple of decades due to all of their fuckery, so I wouldn't mind holding onto the assets directly after they're traded. While I'm not currently concerned about a rug pull of my assets, there have been claims that exchanges have been surreptitiously selling shares on margin without the owner's knowledge. Just twenty years ago I would have dismissed such claims as complete nonsense, but after seeing Wells Fargo get caught doing something similar with money held in bank accounts they managed, it's now entered the realm of possibility in my mind. While the reports may just be conjecture, it's spooked some people into purchasing direct-registered shares to ensure that such fuckery can't be committed.

Regardless of the motivation, tokenized assets could inject some trust into a system in which trust has been extremely eroded. And for the aforementioned reasons, I'll be very skeptical of all implementations since the people in power have too much to lose from allowing their shenanigans to be exposed and to lose direct control of people's assets.

It became political when a large group of women, mostly on the far left, insisted that she be free from the consequences of her actions and told any men who dissented that they're not allowed to have an opinion about it since they've never given birth.

everything else can be blamed on Obama, burden or Hillary

The rare autocorrect Freudian slip.

Trump rapes pedophiles? I guess that would make him the nonconsensual-sex version of Dexter.

That would be a temporary solution, but competitors of Flock are already using fingerprints from your car based on Bluetooth from infotainment, built-in modem for updates and telematics, and even your TPMS sensors which broadcast unique IDs. In addition to that the fingerprints can contain info from your phone (Wifi, Bluetooth, RFID, cellular modem) and other wireless devices such as headphones and AirTags. Apparently this is already available in a product known as Leonardo. Looks like it's time to build a Faraday Cage around my vehicle.

Oops! MW-h, not WM/h. That was pure dyslexic typing.

It looks like Muphry's Law applies even when correcting your own posts!

There is an irony here

It's not irony, it's hypocrisy!

Also, what the reporter is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Flock does. The reporter didn't surreptitiously gather tons of data about this person, feed it to law enforcement agencies, or make reports (sometimes falsely) to those agencies that the person may have violated some laws. That's the real problem I have with Flock. I don't mind recording in public spaces. But I get really pissed off at what they're doing with those recordings behind the scenes.

Several decades ago, politicians would have recognized the dangers of this technology, not to mention how unpopular they are, and would have created restrictions on what companies could do with the footage. Republicans and Democrats would have argued vehemently about where to draw that line, but they would have both recognized that something needed to be done. That created a relatively high-trust society because the people felt that the government would do a reasonable job protecting them from overreach. The reason why nobody trusts the government anymore is because they let this shit run rampant, despite how unpopular it is. And it's gotten to the point that even if the government did create laws that prohibit analyzing the footage and alerting law enforcement agencies about the whereabouts of people of potential interest, no one would believe that those prohibitions would actually be enforced. So instead of having a potentially useful technology used in a reasonable manner, the only way we can be sure that it's not being abused is to ban it outright. This is what happens when governments decay to the point of dysfunction. Given that history shows it always ends the same way, and that so many top politicians supposedly studied history as political science majors, you would think that they'd act with far more caution, or at least pretend to give a fuck about the will of the people. Because if they're not respecting the will of the people, then we effectively no longer have a representative government.

How people at OpenAI and Anthropic aren't going to jail, or aren't even being prosecuted is rather beyond me.

You're talking about the U.$. - we know exactly why this isn't being prosecuted.

We'll see if you still feel that way when there's no one to feed you your applesauce and change your diapers when you've outlived your self-sufficience.

such as China's fertility rate falling to 1.06 births per woman in 2023

It's crazy to realize that China had a higher birth rate when they had the one-child policy.

I'm here before everyone starts blaming the economy for low birth rates. Either they're late to the conversation or no one cares about the cause of population decline anymore.

You didn't include a link to the blog post for "Wolves, sheep, and gypsies." Here it is. [hey.com]

Thank you for including the link. My analysis of the second article was a last-minute addition to my post and I forgot to include the link.

Hansson may not have explicitly "called for" ethnic cleansing, but the insinuation was clear enough: he considers vagrants and homeless people to be vermin

I base my opinions on what is actually stated, not my projections of what a person may have intended. This is what's causing so much division within our society: people get offended at an opinion that differs from theirs, so they proceed to assume the worst about the dissenter and publicly vilify that person. Ironically, it's surprisingly similar to the vilification that some people are performing of migrants.

I know we're in agreement about him not explicitly calling for ethnic cleansing, but I think it's worth analyzing just how much of an exaggeration it is for the blog author.

When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them

This is the probably the closest he comes to supporting ethnic cleansing. I have to admit I'm not thrilled with the pejorative term he's using here. However, when we look at his call to action, he never stated that Romanis should be removed from all of Europe, as the blog author had claimed. He didn't even say that all Romanis should be removed from Denmark. He stated that the Romanis who illegally camp on public land and violate the local laws meant to protect public health and safety should be deported. This is about holding visitors of your country to the same standard you hold the natives. When you're a guest, you have the choice of obeying local laws or risk being deported. What's the point of having laws if you're not going to enforce them? How do you think the natives will feel if their government enforces the laws on them but chooses not to enforce those same laws on migrants?

I have to say that I'm not thrilled with his comparison of people to unwanted animals and I can understand why that makes people uncomfortable. However, the specific solution he suggests for the migrants seems like a reasonable application of the laws that already exist. Deportation of serial lawbreakers is exceedingly warranted. In fact, not doing so is what breeds contempt among the natives.

Downmodding me instead of providing counterarguments demonstrates that you're incapable of refuting my points but you're not open-minded enough to agree with them. I guess ideology doesn't wander off easily.

Every one of these countries with its own quirks, rules, laws, tariffs...

I thought Uber's whole thing is that they find loopholes to avoid following the rules.

I'm not very familiar with DHH, so he may have said and done some truly horrific things, but the author of this "viral blog post" lost me from the start:

In “As I remember London,” he voiced support for ethnically cleansing London of minorities.

I believe I read that article a while ago and wanted to read it again because I don't remember it calling for ethnic cleansing. After reading it very carefully looking for any direct or indirect calls for ethnic cleansing, I came up short. Never at any point in the article did DHH state that ethnic cleansing was a valid solution. As a matter of fact, he directly recognizes that it's not clear how they can undo the erosion of British culture in Britain:

I really feel for the Brits because it's not obvious how they get themselves out of this pickle.

The whole article seems to maintain the tone of a cautionary tale with the message "this is why you don't let erosion of your culture happen in the first place - because it's virtually impossible to recover".

Similarly, the author of the blog post claims:

In “Wolves, sheep, and gypsies,” he called for the ethnic cleansing of Romani people across Europe, comparing them to wolves.

However, after reading that article, he never called for any ethnic cleansing, especially not "across Europe", as he never mentioned any place in Europe outside of Denmark. As a matter of fact, his horrible solution to the problem was for the Romanis to make use of the shelters Denmark provides:

Copenhagen is the Danish capital. It's repeatedly been named the safest city in the world in recent years. Partly because it didn't tolerate vagrants and homeless people taking over public spaces (as has happened in so many American cities). Previously, police would tell someone they couldn't sleep or camp in the city, and they could go to one of the city-run shelters. But now that this is considered too cruel(?!), the native inhabitants of the city instead have to deal with literal shit on their way to the metro.

With all of that said, he may have stated or done some other things that are indefensible of which I'm currently not aware. But the way that "viral blog post" grossly mischaracterized the tone of the articles is emblematic of why people on the far-left are often seen almost as equally divorced from reality as people on the far-right.