In many countries, both democratic and not, police can lie (e.g. to try to get a suspect make a mistake and expose some information).

Going to court is the standard, and usually the only, path for resolving disagreements that parties cannot easily resolve between themselves. Retaliating by putting the passenger on a no fly list deserves public shaming and pushback.

For example, a major grocery store can put people on a "do not come here again" list. But this is an easy way for a big business to hurt a person and should not be used for minor issues. I might see this "the business bans whoever it wants for any reason" as a legitimate defense, but not in a regulated business with high barrier to entry.

Everything else IMO is just fine. The airline landed the plane safely, made some promises (including a single room), could not keep all of those promises, the passenger pushed for more compensation than what airline offered, etc. That happens thousands of times every day all over the world. But this does not remove the big black mark of exploring putting a passenger on a no-fly list. My 2c.

Because kids, because pornography, because terrorism, whatever. This is too powerful an option for control freaks to resist.

Can you share a link or two to this? Hearing a data center from miles away sounds suspicious.

As much as I doubt that spreading of the data centers is a good thing, noise is not the weapon to wield. Unless we are talking the center of a quaint town. And possibly not even then.

My experience was not with pure software houses; we had some labs, measurement and RF equipment, but even without the hardware component the offices, insurance, admin expenses, HR, janitors, conference travel and so on would easily bump the total employee cost to double the salary. My 2c.

But pure tech is a small part of all white collar jobs (the linked article references "white collar jobs", not "professionals" which the title substituded for it). And many non-tech white collar jobs are not nearly as meritocratic as those in the pure tech (I also agree that in Asia or Western Europe those jobs might be even less meritocratic, but this does not change the point above). My 2c.

I personally find the US setup where often the longest serving and oldest workers would be earning the most, strange. Even when those oldest folks are clearly past their prime and themselves admit so.

There are always exceptions. I worked with a fantastic colleague who was a highly knowledgeable technical expert and a capable PM, always punching above his weight at work. One day in a chance conversation with him I was shocked to hear that he wants to retire soon because, now that he is on the wrong side of 90, he is not that interested anymore. My jaw dropped -- I never paid attention to his age. But I suspect many folks in the last quarter of their productive life will be happy to slow down. My 2c.

No, but a good first step would be to widely acknowledge that the problem is hard. And thus is not solvable by a quick fix of a type "let's ban ". Otherwise we will keep trying quick fixes and local optimizations that will be just as quickly subverted by the deep pocketed incumbents.

This system needs a reset. It could (after a likely painful disruption) refocus on teaching, keeping current (exorbitant) prices but providing a better education. Or it could focus on costs (cutting off unnecessary expenses). Or do something else, but the current setup is not sustainable.

Sorry to nitpick, but why is the next month's ballot (and in general the issues that have not been voted on yet) affecting current service?

Maybe because otherwise for a significant portion of the world population their own fiat is the only game in town. And it sucks so much that the regular people are willing to break laws and risk fines, confiscations and occasionally prison just for keeping their savings in anything else, like a neighbor country fiat. Their govvies use their fiat as a transfer mechanism (which makes saving impossible) and thus must discourage any other savings vehicle; otherwise no fool will use their fiat.

I saw fiat rug pull twice in my first 25 years: once as an instant nationalization (a friendly radio announcement one night that your money is ... well ... not a money anymore) and, later, a hyperinflation that over 2 years wiped out savings. And being found with a less sucky fiat at home meant jail.

I was just a kid, did not have any savings and thus did not care that much. But an older generation lost everything. So yes, a lot of people will gladly use anonymous, permissionless money, drawdowns and other warts included.

Most people who use Lightning do not operate their own nodes; same as with other payment methods -- credit card users do not operate their own payment networks, people writing checks do not operate their own banks, etc.

It feels like we are talking across each other and I just do not get it.