- Last Active
normm said:I disagree about who benefits the most. News organizations make money by telling you to read their articles or you will die! According to them, everything is the worst crisis ever. True that politicians do the same thing, but the real money accrues to corporations and billionaires that get the laws they want. Creating and promoting crises is key to putting stooges in place and getting laws passed.
meaning politics and media are two separate things? u r in for a treat these next - hopefully few - years.
blockchain technology is the only hope of a corruption-free world that i know of. id love to hear about any alternative visions out there for our common future? just touting CBDCs as a solution reminds me of those dogs trained to walk by the owners holding the leach themselves.
Anyone reminiscing about paper money needs to know that there will be none soon. there will only be digital currencies. then u can choose ones that are created by central banks freely - just like now but even easier for them.. or we can have digital currencies with built-in deflationary aspects among other impressive tech, preventing anyone to create currency at will and deflating every other unit of currency.
We can repeat whatever clown we resonate with on the news, but we will never feel comfortable with anyone stuffing their hands in our pockets. no matter how persuasive the clown may be.
99% of all cryptocurrency is transparent to track, in the blockchain spirit. The American Dollar is and always as been by far the currency of choice for crime. you cannot easily trace dollar bills in those briefs, but you can know everything about every transaction and trace every satoshi/cent of bitcoin ever. at all times.
this leads to other important questions regarding the remaining 1% of crypto mentioned here, but if central banks are your thing then the most transparent form of currency should be obvious?
macseeker said:For ALL;
I have a problem. I'm a very much a traditionalist when it becomes to the Mac system. I use the terminology by Apple for the macOS system. Gawd, there are some crazy people think they can call some features of the macOS with terminology they desires. They confuse me. In one example, they love to call the macOS Desktop Pictures as 'wallpaper". This doesn't make sense. I know that nearly all of you are die-hard Mac fans, please help them to see the light. To me, 'wallpaper' has no meaning. Why call Desktop Pictures as 'wallpapers?" Really doesn't make sense to me. Seems like the ones who stupidly call Desktop Picture as wallpapers are very dumb.
If the uninformed others like to use the word "wallpapers", they need to be ignored or tell them to use the correct terminology. I've notice this a lot in other forums.
Pleas help me. Thank you.
(Moderators, if I'm in the wrong forum, pease tell me what forum is the best.)
For a very long time though having a Mac was like living on another planet (with all its ups and downs), especially if you were a kid and wanted to play games, or if you simply believed color was useful on a screen. Regardless of whether this was fair or not given the Macintosh's extraordinary experience to the day, the proportion of Mac users was nearly irrelevant market-wise in regards to the Windows ecosystem - another word that expanded like "wallpaper" to encompass a whole new dimension. If you wanted to find nice images online to use as your desktop picture, your chances of finding what you were looking for depended on using the Windows term. Still to the day that is the case if you happen to like using other people's beautiful images and creations. Maybe it is because Windows pioneered the term, but probably it was because we end up using the terms the majority uses. The glorious Selfie could be an example of such, as likely in most if not all languages had a specific term for this for centuries, but it would sound very funny to call these 'self-portraits' now. Probably ultimately it is all about being understood first and foremost, so whatever waists less time and energy works? cheers
All who wish to participate/use personalised Ads can opt-in.
The mere suggestion that this shouldnt be an option is both a sign of times, and of this company - so much that in every post here this isnt a surprise to anyone.
Funny enough, on that Netflix documentary - Social Dilemma -, we learn that most (if not all) senior execs in these companies that depend on digital surveillance, do not allow their kids to use their own platforms.