Except the internet has clear value, yet many remain unconvinced that cryptocurrency services any meaningful value to anyone but bad actors and oppressors. In fact, many would argue that it's a clear net negative and 5 billion USD going to North Korean oppressors would very much validate that.
of course you can move crypto currency to an offline wallet and by offline I mean its private key is held in some physical form/device that is not connected to the network.
Only spending from that wallet needs online access to private key - depositing to it does not.
it cuts both ways - it's fine when 2B of heist money gets frozen, but much less "fine" when your paycheck gets frozen because you've attended a political rally the ruling party/class does not like.
I'm lost, are you arguing against Binance or against freezable crypto? Both "control" you! There are like three billion dollars out there in presumably-north-Korean-hands that their owners thought they "controlled". They didn't.
So given the choice, yeah, I'd like some safety please.
That's why it's paramount for LEOs to go after people doing the bad deeds instead of simply banning a whole monetary ecosystem, just because it's easier to do.
If you ban a coin, instead of persuing the actual criminal, then you're both doing a disservice to honest users of the coin and leaving the bad actor to do harm to society in some other way.
There are only 8B people in the world - they all fit into a "box" of 2k by 2k by 2k of humans.
It really isn't that hard to know who's doing bad things to others, especially with current technology.
Criminals used to meet in person to discuss crime (because mail/phones can be intercepted) and meet in person to move cash. It was a hard limiting factor on what they can get away with. With e2e messengers and anonymous crypto both of those "issues" are fixed.
Do you know anyone who uses it for legit purposes? I don't. I bet you ban a coin like that and you kill orders of magnitude more crime revenue compared to .001% of honest users using it to send money home and save a few dollars on the transaction.
I actually don't miss it. I liked it in the beginning but towards the end the management and moderation pretty much derailed the project.
AI came at the right moment to save the knowledge from the knowledge keeper.
I can only hope that some other technology will save the knowledge once again, before the AI companies go completely rogue and hostile towards their end-users.
They are supposed to, but often times they don't and there are no consequences for it.
Current diagnostic setup relies on humans having vast expert knowledge, when in fact it's almost always impossible.
A well trained neural net/LLM will always be better at visual detection because of sheer number of examples it sees during training, compared to a dermatologist which, if lucky will observe no more than 20 patients/day x 270 days a year x 40 years of practice i.e. around 220k samples throughout his lifetime.
MD with other specialties will see significantly less and we are talking about top of the top specialists.
An average MD knows more amount medical diagnostics than than the average Joe, but in principle much less than a well trained AI.
Do we have those kinds of models already? Maybe not yet but, ceteris paribus, we will definitely have them in the future.
IMHO we do have those models already but they aren't available to the public, though their availability would certainly lower cost for healthcare providers.
There's nothing controversial about those statements - they are simply true in general.
Sure, there are people who value truth more than their social capital but as a general rule their social network is usually quite small as a consequence.
There's no greater outrage than the one from a man who was told the truth.
Humans are social animals and social bonds and relationship require accommodation and loyalty to persist.
reply