You may not like it, but Steve Minecraft is what peak performance looks like.

Like a bulldog eating custard.

In theory that gets around the legal issue but then you're getting into practical issues: Trump is protected by the Secret Service so either it will be extremely difficult from a practical perspective, or you would have to get quite a few people to go along with the conspiracy. Again, this highlights what a terrible idea immunity is because the possibilities get horrifying really fast.

Theoretically, Biden could do it and not be prosecuted.

But if he ordered a member of the military to do it, they are required to refuse illegal orders. I don't know the rules about illegal orders but I bet this would fall under that. At the same time, the President can pardon people convicted in military court so that's not much of a deterrent.

Similarly if he ordered a civilian (say, CIA) to assassinate Trump, that person could be tried. But again, the President's pardon power makes federal charges not much of a threat.

BUT — the President cannot grant pardons for convictions in state courts. So anyone involved would be in trouble if it happened in a US state. And if the Supreme Court did not make the President immune from state-level prosecution, Biden could be tried for being involved... but it seems unlikely that they would go for "the President is immune from federal prosecution but not state prosecution."

Of course, all this show how insane and dangerous the idea of Presidential immunity is. It's a terrible idea.

I'll take "things that never happened" for $1,000, Alex. Fortunately some actual journalists looked into it and this is all a lie: https://www.ksl.com/article/50985141/no-evidence-of-furries-in-nebo-school-district-despite-allegations-social-media-firestorm

After the administration had conversations with the students wearing the headbands — noting that they were a "little bit of a disruption" — the students stopped wearing them, Sorenson said.

The letter also addressed the food throwing targeted at the headband-wearing students, saying that a "written, verbal or a physical act that creates a hostile, threatening, humiliating, or abusive environment is not permitted."

Instant ramen. Or if I'm feeling fancy, ramen that takes 6 whole minutes to cook

I read that as "the tool to report websites is broken."

Ah yes Bitcoin, famously free of fraud and abuse.

More seriously, every system can be used for fraud. The question is whether the solution is actually better overall. We could prevent all wire fraud by returning to a cash-only economy. But that would be hugely inconvenient and therefore create a huge drag on the economy compared to a world where we can do electronic transfers even though electronic transfers open us up to wire fraud. Returning to cash-only is not worth the increase in security, and it opens us up to other issues (e.g., bank runs and someone stealing all the money under my mattress).

And while power use is a problem with Proof of Work coins, it's not my biggest concern about cryptocurrency because Proof of Stake can fix that issue. It's a shame that the biggest coin now is PoW but hopefully that will change. The bigger issue is "is cryptocurrency better than traditional currency?" So far it hasn't proven to be better except in extremely limited circumstances. And a lot of the ways cryptocurrency is better will go away if governments start regulating it like other forms of finance. Having your money in cryptocurrency won't protect you from the police and courts.

We trusted bankers to invest our money, and some short sold the housing market with that money

Okay? You could do that with cryptocurrency if traders started accepting cryptocurrency for shorts. The only reason you can't do that today is traders won't accept cryptocurrency for shorts, and that's basically security through obscurity.

See I think more nuanced takes like this are good. I'm not familiar with the Chinese banking issue that you are describing, but it sounds like deposit insurance (like the FDIC) might be a better solution than cryptocurrency, and it's definitely better understood. Since the real world value of cryptocurrencies are so volatile they are a questionable store of value, and taking a risk on a poorly regulated bank might be better than taking a risk on storing your money in a volatile and unregulated security like cryptocurrency. Honestly it's hard to know which is the better risk. So it could be better or it could be worse.

I agree with your point about transferring money internationally, and even within the US transferring money used to be a real pain. So I'm still interested to see if cryptocurrency can be a better medium of exchange or medium of transfer than traditional ways, or at least give traditional systems incentive to improve. But again the volatility is a concern so for most people the best move is probably to get in and out of the crypto market as quickly as possible or else risk getting a vastly different amount of money out of it than you put in. Admittedly it could appreciate, but when I'm transferring money to someone I don't want that to simultaneously be an investment. The few times I have used Bitcoin to purchase something the whole process has taken hours, and there's no guarantee there won't be price swings — a lot could happen in those hours.

I appreciate the brutal honesty about cryptocurrency not being for the average Joe. It's not that long since many cryptocurrency boosters were hoping it would replace fiat currency, but now that I think about it I haven't heard as much about that recently. In its current state it is really not for the average Joe.

Sure, but what real-world problem does a trustless solve? I thought this was all very interesting years ago but now that we've had blockchain for years it seems it's only good for illegal or morally questionable transactions.

The approved mRNA vaccines went through the same approval process as any vaccine. And once approved, they are monitored for safety like any other vaccine. Between pre-approval testing and post-approval monitoring, we would have detected any issues. So the proof is in the pudding — lots of countries have approved them and none have found risks that are worse than the disease they protect against (currently only COVID but there are more mRNA vaccines in the works).

There's also no reason to fear the way they work. Other vaccines introduce antigens (molecules that your body doesn't like and produces antibodies to attack) in various ways — sometimes with a weakend virus, sometimes with a dead virus, sometimes just the antigens themselves. mRNA is just another way to introduce antigens so your body learns to fight them. For a little while your body follows the instructions in the mRNA to produce the antigens, and then your body learns to attack those antigens. It's not all that different from the way other vaccines work. mRNA breaks down pretty quickly in your body so it's not even in your system for very long, and there's no mechanism in the body for mRNA to produce lasting changes. So it's a lot like you got a cold: for a little while the cold makes your body produce molecules, then your body fights it all off, and then in the end there's no permanent change except your body learned to fight off that particular antigen.

Truth. /thread