One cannot be sincere / ethical and be a billionaire simultaneously.

“Says who? You? Maybe they once were not that sincere and have since had a change of heart. BTW, the Gates Foundation has done a tremendous amount of good over the years.”

No. They might have done some good, but the harm of hoarding that much wealth outweighs their good contributions. Anyway, it’s not the billionaires fault per se, but our flawed systems that have allowed it to happen. If I or most other people were put in the position of Bill Gates in his heyday, we likely would succumb to our vices as well.

"“They are moving away from unfettered, no-strings-attached giving and toward increased donor control over organizations, and are blurring the lines between private investment and public benefit.” —Gilded Giving 2020, by Chuck Collins and Helen Flannery [17].

“Your “Giving Pledge” has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that’s it.” —Robert Wilson to Bill Gates, 2010 [18] […]" —What if I paid for all my free software? | arscyni.cc

I believe Gates and Buffet are sincere.

One cannot be sincere / ethical and be a billionaire simultaneously. If Gates were sincere Microsoft wouldn’t be the monopoly it is now.

Bollocks. If these rich assholes felt guilty and inclined towards altruism they’d have spent it already instead of “pledging”.

"[…] Furthermore, their supposed philanthropy isn’t just them giving money away no-questions-asked. More often than not they aim to benefit their coffers and/or virtue signal their “conscience”:

• “They are moving away from unfettered, no-strings-attached giving and toward increased donor control over organizations, and are blurring the lines between private investment and public benefit.” —Gilded Giving 2020, by Chuck Collins and Helen Flannery [17].

• “Your “Giving Pledge” has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that’s it.” —Robert Wilson to Bill Gates, 2010 [18] […]" —What if I paid for all my free software? | arscyni.cc

It’s sad that this is so funny because it’s true.

Sorry. Totally right. I can’t edit the linked post anymore, but I’ve added it as a comment.

As @Alaknar@lemm.ee rightly pointed out, this only works for Nvidia GPUs. No idea what the method for AMD GPUs is, if there is one.

It’s good, and it’s funny. So much so that I’m jealous.
With this potential critical mass combined with the gaming community it’s all downhill for Windoze from here.

PS How to force Steam games in Linux to use an Nvidia GPU, because games might unknowingly perform needlessly bad.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

“Are you 14?”

Irrelevant.

ad hominem (adjective, ad ho·​mi·​nem (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-nəm -ˌnem)

1. appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2. marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

“Russia, which is blocked from other international payment systems.”

Fair enough.

“We’re still throwing around fallacies like it’s 2010? Okay, I cast fallacy fallacy!”

Guess I’ll simply parry with fallacy fallacy fallacy—quoting from your linked Wiki: “That one can invoke the argument from fallacy against a position does not prove one’s own position either, as this would also be an argument from fallacy”.

Your latter argument for the crypto cult is that the others are problematic too, therefore it’s okay to join the cult. This invalid reasoning renders the entire conclusion void. I did not claim your conclusion is false, only that your reasoning is invalid.

“like it’s 2010?”

There’s no expiration date on logical reasoning.

“Cryptocurrencies are a tool, similar to how money is a tool. You can’t blame money itself for all the scummy shit done using it, similarly for cryptocurrencies.”

A knife is a tool. Knives can be used for food and violence. However, knives do not persuade their users to buy as many knives as they can, they do not incentivize manipulating others to do so too, nor do knives inherently encourage violence. The exact opposite is true for crypto"currencies" because these are multi-level marketing pyramid schemes. As soon as one joins the Crypto Cult one benefits from recruiting new members—often by indoctrination and/or demagoguery.

“I guess some random HN user is smarter than the research arms of these companies who are all building on and utilizing crypto”

List of fallacies in the aforementioned statement:

• Ad hominem.
• Argument from authority.
• Bandwagon fallacy.

“I don’t have venmo, so I don’t use it. I don’t get mad when somebody offers it.”

Venmo is not a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme, all crypto"currencies" are^[1].

“Depending on where users are located, it might be the only realistic option they have if they want to donate.”

Could you give us an example of such a location please?

“Besides, traditional payment systems like PayPal, MasterCard, Visa etc are all problematic in their own right.”

Whataboutism fallacy.

“There’s a legitimate use for crypto, to support something you use and (probably) enjoy, and you want them to remove it to set a good example?”

Of course they should remove it, for it is the moral thing to do. The only legitimate use is donating to entities who have their access to a bank account removed, e.g., whistle blowers, Z-Library, et cetera. In any other case it is an unethical instrument that brings out the worst in humanity.

“All of this existed (except the bit about nazi coins) already.”

Whataboutism fallacy.

This whataboutism is probably the most used fallacy within the crypto"currency" sphere. If A and B cause cancer, and A was first, it doesn’t follow that B is less malignant.

Quoted from my Crypto Cult Science essay linked in the original post:

“Strong currencies are not the solution to poor governance. Good governance and democracy makes a country and its currency strong. Not vice versa.” —halukakin, HackerNews, 2021

Never heard of Revolt before, nice.

As a community I’d use Revolt if my game/mod/whatever is built upon extensive bot functionality, and Matrix if not.

Eating the rich—if they tried.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

That adults are mature and know what they are doing.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

♡ it. Work less, play more! ^(arscyni.cc)

“Small”? It’s literally changing the time, one of the most significant variables in our lives.

To be honest, if I had to choose a dictatorship to be conquered by I’d pick China over the US hands down. My antipathy for racist macho morons runs deep.