nexus6

I empathise, but I'm only really active in FP forum so had no idea censorship was a running theme. Trust me, I'd have much preferred a discussion about LTT's moral standpoint with regard to FP, mostly because a lot of my favourite YouTubers - who provide excellent content to MILLIONS of people - are losing out and, noticeably, uploading less and less. So I think a place where people can reliably get paid while not worrying about offending idiots/advertisers is important. Can't argue with that AFAIC.

You're "Off Topic" forum's caption is - "Discussion - Non-tech related content only please! New members can say Hi here." Perhaps you mean in the incorrect sub-forum? I deliberately posted in General Discussion because of the relevance to Floatplane. This sub-forum is named General Discussion... A question is by no means necessary for a discussion to take place. I wasn't aware of this. I don't like that you can't delete your comments though. FWIW I did not mean nor want this thread to become an attack on the mods. Quite the opposite, I wanted to draw attention to Linus's views on freedom of speech (despite the obvious monetary motive, funny how capitalism works sometimes), which is effectively what we are talking about. Now, regrettably, bringing it back to the question of moderators and their "censoring" - none of your comments will be read by more than a handful of people. They have little to no influence on society, nor is this a platform responsible for your livelihood. YouTube is responsible for both of these things, yet still bends to the whim of advertisers, effectively censoring what we, and more importantly our children, can see. Obviously there is a need for YouTube to have a set of rules and guidelines which one needs to follow, but it also has the resources to employ tiers of analysers - ranging from algorithms to humans - to enforce these rules. LTT presumably has a few guys who each independently and on the fly need to decide whether something fits into their rules or not, and no two interpretations are going to be the same. Each case is independent. Whatever hypocrisy you guys think I've uncovered here is moot.

Censorship is almost always bad imo.

Yeah, banks literally make money from nothing don't they lol? My "fragile" theory was based around the assumption that gold HAS intrinsic worth, but I dug a little deeper. After all the elements are removed from the periodic table that are either harmful or impractical (radioactive or gas for example) we are left with 30. After that we need the element to be rare, because if there is lots of it - not so valuable anymore. This leaves us with 5 - rhodium, palladium, platinum, silver and gold. Rhodium and palladium were discovered way after civilization needed cash, silver "tarnishes" too easily and platinum melts at too high a temperature to efficiently mould it to coins, which leaves only gold. I see two things which have happened here: 1) humanity has implemented as much thought as possible to this problem - assigning value to something which previously had none via a process of elimination, and 2) We have assigned value to something, therefore it has value to us. The latter is what's happened with modern day notes. But the government holds a 51% stake in that trust, that's my gripe. **All above facts were taken from here and whittled down by me**

When I really think about it, it makes it seem so fragile! As if it could topple over at any minute. Like, unnervingly so.

It's interesting though, the dollar's (and almost all other currencies these days) value is literally based on your faith that the government sees value in your cash. Bitcon et al's value comes from faith that other individuals see value in it. I know who I trust more, and it certainly isn't the fucking government.

3GB of RAM? Can it run Crysis?

Awfully distorted view of it, how it sounds to me is he finalised the name...

Explain "Aluminum" then That's just the wrong word.

Actually "color" is directly from Latin. "Colur" was the "Old English" spelling, and "colour" was french. Besides, I was being sarcastic. Pointing out the apparent lack of logic in the American spelling.

I presume you spell "our" as "or" then.

The English spell it rumours, nuff said (Chrome underlines it in red)

Shit, the BBC has footage of me? Thanks for the heads up.

I appreciate that you spelled "rumour" correctly. On the news - means nothing without pricing.

Helping a "friend" buy a monitor ;). I helped a "friend" source smack once.