Just like any other authoritarian state

Hardly. There are limits to speech in most jurisdictions. That hardly crosses the threshold for "authoritarian". The high profile cases in the UK have been around incitement to violence and contempt of court.

Most of government agencies are errors themselves

When China is more open than you, you've got a problem

That's comparing apples and oranges. One spent 10 years in a jail for making himself rich (and some others), the other never spent a day in a jail for committing at the highest level election subversion, retention of classified information, hush money payment (and more) - and was caught on the latter, eventually. It was arguably "exceptional prosecution" for that hush payment, like Al Capone was caught on a mere tax fraud

Maybe he should've pardoned himself into the past and a little bit into the future too, like that other man did. /jk

>One spent 10 years in a jail for making himself rich (and some others), the other never spent a day in a jail for committing at the highest level election subversion, retention of classified information, hush money payment (and more) - and was caught on the latter, eventually.

What an interpretation!

Another one might be: they tried to throw all kinds of things at Trump, and they all failed because they simply aren't true, until they managed to catch him on some triviality.

The fact that you "rule of law" people keep putting out accusations as if they were convictions, and insinuating people should be judged on these accusations is truly horrible for the system.

Are you calling Trump's crimes "victimless"? And he's barely been prosecuted. Everything was postponed indefinitely or blocked by corrupt judges.

Grossly excessive sentences for non-victim crimes while letting rapists, murderers and corrupt politicians go free with at best a slap on the wrist, is why people are abandon your "holy religion" in droves

Big shades of The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas in GP comment

Never read it, but I watched its recent adaptation as a Strange New Worlds episode called Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach, and if it's in any way representative of the source material, then I'd say the ethical problems there are nontrivial.

Money is not created through fractional reserve banking. Money is loaned into existence by commercial banks. Similarly Coinbase can sell you coins which don't exist. Like a bank it doesn't have to make good on this IOU until you withdraw your funds.

It is fractional reserve banking which allows banks to loan money into existence, as long as their reserve is at least a certain fraction of their total loans. The alternative is full reserve banking, where banks aren't allowed to do that - or no-reserve banking I suppose...

Which with the volatility of Bitcoin puts them in a situation where they can underprice an asset if they loan it out. Bitcoin loaning is rather rare because of this.

The author admitted in her opening that she doesn't understand the point of decentralization. Reading anything beyond that point is a waste of time.

Vaccines are not magic. Every treatment has potential downsides. That's why they need approval to weight the potential benefit/harm trade-off.

From everything I've heard, these particular vaccines are pretty close, though.

90-95% reduction of risk.

Maybe even greater reduction of serious disease?

Most common side effect people seem to talk about is something like fatigue and fever for a day or two after a shot?

That's a pretty good tradeoff. Especially when you consider that getting large populations vaccinated pretty much ends the pandemic.

As opposed to what? Twitter? All social media platforms are ideologically moderated.

This is just the same old keynesian fallacy. You can only consume if you produce. If we produce nothing it doesn't matter how much money we have. There is nothing to consume.