The American Civil war began with a Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. At the same time it was never established that you can opt out of the US, that's generally not how countries work.
The Confederacy would not have happened if it wasn't for fears of abolishing slavery.
Lincoln's election provoked South Carolina's legislature to call a state convention to consider secession. South Carolina had done more than any other state to advance the notion that a state had the right to nullify federal laws and even secede. On December 20, 1860, the convention unanimously voted to secede and adopted a secession declaration. It argued for states' rights for slave owners but complained about states' rights in the North in the form of resistance to the federal Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their obligations to assist in the return of fugitive slaves.
I don't care. I watched an interview with him and his foreign policy takes were so horrid he would be laughed out of the room if he said something like this in my country. Guess some people in the UK don't really give a crap about Ukraine.
I'm not from the UK but when I last watched something with Corbyn he was shilling for Russia, how is that not an absolute deal-breaker?
Edit: I was completely right and got downvoted for it. He wanted to stop arms to Ukraine. He sucks and can go and die in a volcano. No left-wing politicians in Poland are like this when it comes to Russia, why are western lefties so brain-dead and conciliatory to this horrible regime? Telling Ukraine to roll over and give up its land. Fuck you tankie POS.
Duder here defending a literal islamofascist monarchy that kills gay people and journalists, and an authoritarian one party state that uses Han ethnonationalism to replace native populations they conquered and puts minorities into concentration camps
Edit: you can't even spell echo right lol
It's a weapon like any other. Maybe you're iffy on the name, but suicide drones are just another way to attack specific targets, like missiles but far more precise. What is evil about having a remotely controlled aircraft hit an enemy position as opposed to artillery, bombs or gunfire hitting enemy position?
Theatge amount of energy you mention is really only relevant to proof of work. You've mentioned proof of stake etc - so you should know that. The energy requirements for "proof" techniques such as PoS is negligible
It can't compete with payment processors. Proof of stake is also basically just oligarchy, while proof of storage is a waste of hardware. All of them center their validation process on big money investors, who either have a lot of hardware or a lot of money to stake.
Although, I don't know of anyone that gets their salary into their crypto wallet.
So it would be useless for things normal money is useful for? Where's the revolution in banking that I heard about? Banking the unbanked?
Regarding on chain transaction transparency, there are some chains that are like this (bitcoin), and there are some chains that are not (monero).
Here you provided users privacy at the cost of making criminals completely untraceable. Bravo.
How about a bank account, where people who know you won't know your transaction history but police can catch people participating in organized crime?
I don't think crpyto will solve all of.humans problems, but I might just help with some
Which ones? I have not heard of one use case, only excuses from you guys.
You have to be quite stupid to support crypto in 2023, after Luna, Ftx, NFTs, all the rugpulls and explicit pump and dumps, you morons just keep coming back for more. That last paragraph is pure comedy gold - you're so close to self-awareness it's hilarious.
All stablecoins are not stable and a scam, algorithmic ones can't work, since they mimic death spiral financing, and the other ones just gamble their clients money
Every non-stable coin is just a bigger fool scam, since there is no use case for crypto, so no way to derive a non-speculative value (beyond selling illegal drugs, 419 scams, and couple of enthusiasts trading it personally as donations and the like)
Crypto destroys customer protections, to do a rollback a few bad transactions you have to convince the entire chain to back you and force a fork, creating an alternative, competing version of the economy
All consensus mechanisms are geared to allow the wealthy to control the crypto economy, whether it's proof of stake, work or storage, since you can buy all those things with money. They also waste inordinate amounts of energy which translates to an exorbitant transaction cost compared to payment processors like Visa or MasterCard
Crypto gives great privacy protections to anonymous criminals and scammers and destroys privacy for anyone using the system as a honest user. If you used your crypto wallet as a bank account, anyone with whom you interacted on the blockchain in a non-anonymous capacity (like, idk, your boss at work, sending you your salary) knows your wallet address, and can figure out where your money is going. You can't hide your dildo purchases or campaign contributions from your employer, no matter how many intermediate accounts you create, there will always be a trace. How fun
Crypto aims to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, when most attacks nowadays are done through social engineering, which crypto makes trivial, due to it's write-only nature. 419 "Nigerian prince" scammers love crypto - because just like their other favorites money transfer through Western Union or MoneyGram and gift cards it's an irreversible payment method. If you pay with your bank account or PayPal, you can dispute transactions or get a chargeback, aside from forking the whole chain there ain't no way you're doing that with crypto. This also makes it perfect for retail scams.
And I don't expect most rides to be single occupancy. People will opt for shared rides if they are substantially cheaper,
Bus. That's called a bus. It can also fit more than five people and doesn't use as much energy to transport each person. You just reinvented a shittier bus
I don't care about arguing about veganism. Just stop bringing up stuff like this. Also, do you think calling something a "modern holocaust" is not a comparison in terms of scale of harm? As opposed to every other time those words are used?
Edit: If you want to argue for veganism, stop bringing up Shoah. It's disgusting, downplaying the severity of the genocide, and earns you no favors with the general population. It has negative convincing power.
That moment when your veganism goes so hard you commit a hate crime on the internet implicitly comparing Jews to cattle
Edit: I'm from Poland, the country where most of the Holocaust happened - this is where the Jewish population was the highest and where Germans build their death camps. We read about it extensively at school, including eyewitness accounts describing the atrocities involved in this horrific campaign of human extermination, from the home of the Jew, to the ghetto, to the transport train, to the camp, to the gas chamber and to the furnace. Many of us heard those stories from our grandparents, of their neighbors being humiliated and taken away, ghettos liquidated, and public executions. I don't know what kind of deplorable scumbag one has to be to equate factory farming with the Holocaust.
They will date