I get what you're trying to say, but the paperwork isn't just to not get arrested. It's also to make sure your rocket doesn't flatten a building when it comes down uncontrolled, doesn't hit an airplane on the way up, doesn't crash into any other spacecraft in orbit, and doesn't turn into yet another piece of untracked space debris cluttering Earth orbit.
None of which gets in the way of actually making a rocket or launching it though, as unlike for example cars or guns everyone builds and launches their own anyway. Well, 99% of the time anyway.
That stink has been etched into my mind ever since a night ten years ago when I spent an hour waiting for someone at a Shanghai subway station that was within wafting distance of a stinky tofu stand. I still have no idea how that stall owner avoided getting lynched by half the commuters that had to pass through his cloud of putrid miasma.
Twitter won't automagically stay online. A complex system needs dedicated and experienced engineers to maintain it, apply updates and troubleshoot issues, and that's if you're not actively developing new features.
So it will coast for a while before the wheels come off. Maybe performance will degrade, maybe media stops loading or your timeline won't refresh. Maybe none of that happens and a critical system deep down fails and it just stops. But Musk has all but ensured that Twitter in its current form cannot continue to function.
Be kinder, this kind of attitude is exactly what is causing deep societal rifts.
If you want to live in a heavily-moderated place and you'll blindly accept while you are fed what the latest ever-changing Truth is (even if it contradicts what came previously, even if it contradicts logic, reason or scientific understanding), then go wild.
I don't agree with parent's takes, but calling them "stupid" is needlessly derisive.
Some people don't like this, that shouldn't be seen as a Bad Thing.
If "they" try to stop him from voicing his opinions, you'd have a point. But "they" only stopped this person from imposing his opinions on people who had chosen instances whose policies involved a certain style of moderation.
The benefit of the fediverse is exactly that any moderation or blocks do not stop your speech - no matter if it's actually abhorrent or just unpopular with the wrong people - it merely lets people opt out of listening to you.
"style of moderation"? what does that mean? I don't agree with what GP said, but on what basis could you moderate his posts? Because they aren't "true"? In that case why not say that your instances bans all "untrue" things? how simple!
Consider HN. Try to post a thread of puns here, and you will be flagged. Do it often enough, and you will be blocked. That is a style of moderation.
Consider Reddit. Post pun threads there and you'll likely be heavily upvoted instead. That is a different style of moderation.
To take more extreme examples, there are fediverse instances that consider racism to be ok, and there are instances who don't consider it ok but won't block other instances as a matter of principle, and there are instances who will block whole instances if they don't moderate racism. Those are all styles of moderation.
You have a choice in which rules are right for you. You might want a highly curated environment (like HN), or a more freewheeling one (like Reddit), or a near total free-for-all (like 4chan). Which one you pick may determine who else are willing to talk to you, because some dislike eachother - whether justified or not - enough to not want to talk to each other. If I want an instance that blocks people who like dogs on sight, I'm free to do so, and you're free to consider it an idiotic policy and not join my instance.
Nothing stops you from having more than one account if you want a mix of environments who don't get along.
Christ. This isn't the government censoring opinions. This is people kicking others out of their bar for not following the social rules and norms in that bar. They can go to another bar. The basis is: "we don't want that behaviour here" and that is ok when there are alternatives.
When you visit Persepolis, you can rent a VR headset and see certain parts of the site reconstructed in VR. It's really impressive and drives home the scale of what was built.
He is free to voice his displeasure at sharing a platform with an ill-informed blowhard spouting dangerous bullshit out of every orifice. Spotify has no obligation to platform Rogan, but they choose to tie their flag to his mast, and I for one am happy I switched to a different platform.
The reason it's "better" for international transfers is because it has decided to ditch all legal and financial safeguards that have been introduced, often with good reason, in regular banking. From a technical standpoint, crypto adds nothing to the process that a centralized system can't provide cheaper, faster and safer.
Additionally, a hedge is only as good as its performance in case of a worst-case scenario. If the stock market takes a dive or war breaks out, crypto will dive just as hard - same as it had done in the past.
During the Cyprus financial crisis, on 25 March 2013, bank account balances over €100K were seized. BTC surged 87% that day, and 700% that month. [0,1,3]
When Greece was freezing / slowing bank withdrawals during its financial crisis in 2015, BTC price climbed.
IIRC BTC also jumped when Russia was getting involved in Ukraine in 2014.
It's not a perfect hedge, but I do believe bitcoin could be valuable if the world/governments go (partly) to shit.
iPiece?