2 and 3 absolutely can apply. Considering you get reported to the feds for transactions over $10,000 (or is it lower now?), it's completely reasonable for someone to decide it's not worth the risk and set the cash aside.
As far as number 5, you can't assume that's illegal either. I have a family member who's ex wife continues to commit identity theft and cause headaches for him 5 years after the divorce is over.
> Considering you get reported to the feds for transactions over $10,000 (or is it lower now?), it's completely reasonable for someone to decide it's not worth the risk and set the cash aside.
In that case, it would also be illegal.
> As far as number 5, you can't assume that's illegal either. I have a family member [whose] ex wife continues to commit identity theft and cause headaches for him 5 years after the divorce is over.
Okay? So he keeps his money in cash in a safe deposit box? Doubt.
It'd only be illegal if they weren't paying taxes on it or otherwise not reporting it for other purposes. Having a giant pile of cash because I don't like my bank auto reporting my money in and of itself isn't evidence of anything.
>I don't think it's fair to say your experience represents some runaway extra-judicial outcome.
Being involuntarily committed makes you a "prohibited person" and includes a lifetime ban on owning a firearm.[1] It wouldn't surprise me if there were
other strings attached to having that on your record too.
>Your threat model for ubiquitous cheap sensing tech is nation states? I'm not overly worried about being spied on by nation states. In general, my feeling is that if a nation-state decides I'm important enough to deploy hardware against, I have no real defense.
Nation states worry me precisely because I'm uninteresting. They wouldn't deploy hardware against me, but I'm under no illusion that they wouldn't use every mass-surveillance option available to them, including mass exploitation of commodity hardware.
I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.
What reassure me is that the americans are so aggressive and dangerous that they become huge money pit target, leaving the rest of us quite free from foreign espionage.
I can't tell if you mean that most nation state espionage resources are spent keeping a watchful eye on the U.S. since they see the U.S. as aggressive and dangerous, or you mean that literally American citizens are aggressive and dangerous (i.e. perhaps due to prevalence of firearms with non-conformist, anti-government, anti-authority views), that the U.S. spends much of its own resources spying on its own citizens?
There is an online course called nand2tetris where you build a whole computer from nand gate level (CPU, ram, ROM, memory-mapped display output, keyboard scanning, etc), write your own assembler and high level language, then program it to play tetris. It is, bar none, the most fun online course I've ever taken.
Maybe it is working, but being coerced to take a novel gene therapy from organizations with a long history of abuse is a horrific precedent that should offend everyone.
I assume you are referring to mRNA vaccines here. These are not in any way "gene therapy." Please quit spouting misinformation.
For reference:
> Gene therapy is a medical field which focuses on the genetic modification of cells to produce a therapeutic effect[1] or the treatment of disease by repairing or reconstructing defective genetic material.[2]
First: Injecting RNA into cells that currently have reverse-transcriptase proteins active? I'm afraid it will modify DNA. So in any cell currently infected with a retrovirus, and there will be a lot of those in any human, it will modify DNA.
Of course, no more (in fact significantly less) than the virus will. But mRNA vaccines, when used against a retrovirus, will modify DNA.
Second: it would be considered Gene therapy whether or not it modifies DNA.
Thirdly: all RNA activity will result in expression changes for other Genes. That might not modify the DNA directly, but most researchers now consider that part of the genetic material of the cell. Again, probably a lot less than a virus would.
Fourthly: all "negative" (meaning it cuts out "wrong" DNA rather than adding some) gene therapy treatments only inject RNA as well. It's not quite the same as an RNA-based vaccine.
The disinformation has been so effective it created zealots constantly defending the side of pharmaceuticals, government measures, systemic control of movement and ultimately even how to treat our own health. Always using reverse accusations, especially when proven wrong or suddenly disappear, refuse to continue the argumentation, or minimise the gravity of their falsehood.
The gravity of the falsehood is key to understanding.
We have seen an incredible growth of authoritarianism, from the near daily 'Simon says' mandate changes, lockdowns, increased surveillance, destruction of small business, 12 trillion dollars printed, and coerced administration of a novel gene therapy. You have no choice but to be right with all of that on your shoulders, that's a lot to weigh down a conscience if one is wrong.
We've had surveillance since forever, the destruction of small businesses also isn't new, printing far too much currency has been the new normal for decades, coerced authorities and groups using corruption to gain grounds have been investigated and often sentenced. If consciousness need to kick back into these realities, we got even more educational work to do then.
Let's complete the sentence of your quote and see who's playing word games:
"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism."
Can you agree that your original response with half the quote might have been a bit dishonest? And if you don't think so, why not quoting the entire phrase?
> "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA."
Are we reading the same thing? The misinformation and dishonest strawman argument came from the second poster. One might take other issues with kook_throwaway's comment, but what's wrong with that?
Because we weren't debating the safety of mRNA. That is unrelated to the discussion and I would be feeding the troll by moving the conversation from ethics to semantics and efficacy. I stated in my original comment that even if it's effective I still have ethical issues with coerced administration of it, gene therapy or not.
I'm sorry I offended you by being polite. I'm not going to let you drag me any further down this road. However, if you would like a very short course on how mRNA vaccines work, and why they're safe, I will be glad to offer you this.
You are free to refuse this offer. I have no power to coerce you either way, nor am I going to help you further turn this comments section into a shit show. However, if you accept, my expectation is that you do so in good faith.
