Yes well, some claim it's "securities", there is no clear law for that. Can I give you, for example, Amazon shared and get a coffee or a pizza ? Directly, not liquidate it first.
Let's find out how the Ripple lawsuit is going to end, there is good chance to win it.
The woke up one day and they "hey this crypto is a threat to our dollar'. Gensler said "we don't need any more digital currencies, we have USD, EUR, YEN". And that for centuries there was no need to transfer value through more than one medium. That can explain their views clearly.
They want more or less government spending ?
They accept that the structure of the family will change ? Example, families with more than two parents (that is a real possibility due to overpopulation).
They want less or more police ? Reform the prison system (even dissolve it), maybe ?
What are their views on immigration ? Multiculturalism ?
Should we tax the wealthy more or less ?
Of course, there are different political ideologies. It's not just a popularity contest.
> I never heard of this unless you consider divorced people.
Look for articles concerning co-parenting, that's where its most often discussed. Wikipedia: "Co-parenting is an enterprise undertaken by two or more adults who together take on the socialization, care, and upbringing of children for whom they share equal responsibility[1] Co-parents may include a variety of configurations, including a mother and a father, two mothers, two fathers, a parent with an adult sibling or grandparent, or a parent and another adult relative. The co-parent relationship differs from an intimate relationship between adults in that it focuses solely on the child."
The other typical configuration would be in polyamorous relationships, when more than two of the partners decide to take responsibility of the child. Granted "typical" is a bit of a difficult word when we're talking about niche concepts. Most of my friends and coworkers have never heard about co-parenting or any other of the more diverse and sometimes complex family-alike structures, unless they concern failed relationships (see divorces). Which is kind of a bummer, that only failure in previous relationships motivates them to experiment with other concepts.
>> Most of my friends and coworkers have never heard about co-parenting or any other of the more diverse and sometimes complex family-alike structures.
I don't think it's worth to mangle obscure/exotic issues with mainstream subjects (overpopulation).
> "They accept that the structure of the family will change ? Example, families with more than two parents (that is a real possibility due to overpopulation)"
What does this mean? How is alleged population related to family structure and sexual relations?
I think grandparent was alluding to a separation of the two concepts of sexual relations and family structure: (Two or more) People can decide to bring up a child together without being in a romantic/sexual relationship. (Two or more) People can be in a romantic and/or sexual relationship without sharing responsibility of a child of one of the partners. Under this prerequisite, a family is any close social connection surrounding children (and the closeness and type of closeness being the linchpin of whether the term applies – not every flat share is a family for instance).
Regarding overpopulation: One motivation that I've heard quite often is that one of the most effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint is to have one child less. This is always presented with the asterisk that this is of course a very personal decision and there is the understanding that this is not a standard under which you will be measured. Still, if you're just looking at the numbers, that's what you get. Sharing parentage with more than two people is an alluring way to achieve the same result, especially as it means you will retain more of your personal time when child care is shouldered by three (or more) people.
In 1949 (just after WW2), Einstein wrote: "The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil."
Einstein was not a sociologist, but it's an indication that about "egalitarian capitalism" is not exactly true.
I did say “relatively”. As in relative to when 11 year olds were mining coal.. but you’re right, in absolute terms there’s no such thing as egalitarian capitalism, and even during the period I talked about it required 90% tax rates on the super wealthy.
I think it has to be acknowledged that this quote comes from an article titled "Why Socialism?" explaining why people should be socialist. It's not exactly intended as a neutral observation.
Well, let's see what software engineers use Emacs.
Donald Knuth. Author of "the art of computer programming" and many contributions in computer science.
Linus Torvalds. Original author of Linux (the most widely used kernel) & git (most widely distributed version control). In fact, he wrote his own version of emacs. He doesn't do much, if at all, coding now.
Joe Armstrong. Author of Erlang.
Guido van Rossum. Author of Python.
Yukihiro Matsumoto. Author of Ruby.
Rich Hickey. Author of Clojure.
Andrei Alexandrescu. Author of D.
Xavier Leroy. Author of OCaml.
Michael Widenius. Author of MySQL & MariaDB.
Guy Steele. Co-author of Scheme.
Stephen Wolfram. Physicist, computer scientist & author of Mathematica.
Peter Norvig. Research director at Google & well known Lisper.
RMS. Well, original author of GCC, Emacs & the GNU system.
All of them, apparently, don't require one of those "powerful" IDEs.
Those developers by and large were active in software development before the creation of VSCode or IntelliJ. If you've already invested time and energy to learning the ins and outs of one tool, the hurdle to switch is large.
VSCode would need to be 10x better for the seasoned veterans to justify switching. If it were only 2x better, arguably the investment would not be worth it, but it doesn't change the fact that VSCode would be 2x better than emacs.
Let's find out how the Ripple lawsuit is going to end, there is good chance to win it.
The woke up one day and they "hey this crypto is a threat to our dollar'. Gensler said "we don't need any more digital currencies, we have USD, EUR, YEN". And that for centuries there was no need to transfer value through more than one medium. That can explain their views clearly.