It didn’t create the system, and it doesn’t have the power to replace it.

But it does support the system by being a part of it

What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?

That person has it now. They mjght volountarily be willing to send it back with another transactions or the courts could force them to do so (as in give fines, request keys, send to prison, or just have the government own and ooerate all the wallet keys and simulate transactions eith blockchain just as the technology used in a very janky way)

What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?

Similarily, either the government does all the transactions with ‘your’ keys for you, or you write down the keys in your will and have someone of trust (e.g. a lawyer) do the partitioning/transactions part in your stead.

Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?

The seller and buyer beforehand, mostly

What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn’t represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?

Rebalance by having everone affected send their portions for redistribution to a trusted entity

As you’ve said yourself, NFTs seem wholly unsuited for keeping track of general ownership on a large scale. All the problems do have solutions, but they’re either complicated for the owners or it’s someone else controlling people’s keys, defeating the entire point.

It could. It may or may not. I agree decentralization is a good thing, but do governments agree as well? First of all, governments are very resistant to change if that doesn’t play into their interests (real or percieved like this privacy violation). Using a traditional database to keep track of ownership seems cheaper (since they already do it) but most of all simpler. I’m not too familiar with the way blockchain functions so I may be wrong, but say someone wants to sell a car. In the current state of most countries you just draw up a paper or fill out a form, maybe get it notarized and pay taxes. A database seems flexible enough that if your sale didn’t get logged and the buyer got pulled over and questioned, they could provide the contract and clear up any questions about ownership. Or say the ownership was stripped as part of a court order. If it was a database, then changing the records is simple, but with blockchain the court would either have to get you to transfer the ownership volountarily, force you to disclose your keys or have some mechnism of forcing a transaction from the requester account (which as I understand it seems what blockchain is here to stop abd a core part of the specification). Alternatively the government just uses blockchain instead of a database, managing all the keys, wallets and identities (as in they have everyone’s keys and do all the transactions) which is the same level of centralization as a database, but with extra steps.

Ownership was (and is) a social contract, and a flexible one at that. Things get gifted volountarily, sold, taken away lawfully and inherited in a single jurisdiction by the thousands daily, and not all of these are well documented. Blockchain seems very limited in what it can do flexibility-wise which makes it unsuitable for keeping track of ownership, and that’s not taking into account that either everyone would have to actively use the blockchain for their sales and be familiar with the technology (decentralized) or having all the wallet keys operated by the government (defeating any useful feature of the blockchain for citizens). Adding blockchain into the mix will just complicate the transfer process and centralize it (as in we either do all validation on the blockchain or none), and with the fact that all the transfer history is centralised in the blockchain (despite it being decentralised in storage, it’s still explicitly stored and accessible) it would serve as just another venue of privacy violation and opression.

Maybe blockchain could be useful for things like, say carbon credits, or similar government-issued ‘currency’, but I don’t see it applicable to validating general ownership on a large scale for the general population, ever. The ‘digital Euro’ proposal, also being blessed by the buzzword Blockchain seems very distopian to me as well. Here, with currency being used I can see how it would be applicable in the real world (instead of heavily unstandardised land deeds, sales contracts and other proofs of ownership you have strictly defined currency units), but this also seems like a gross privacy violation as the government (and maybe anyone) can see where you got your money and where you’re spending it down to the cent.

As most others already said, the best solution is immersion, ideally by talking with someone. If you can’t find someone to speak with that would make it quite a bit harder to improve, but not impossible.

For your situation (being able to understand but unable to express yourself in English) I’d reccommend the stereotypical “think in english”. I’d recommend talking with someone (ideally a native speaker, but even a fellow learner is incredibly efficient, followed by writing a diary abd participating in online forums (like you currently already are!).

It’s best to have input from someone else who can correct you if you make a grammatical mistake, give general advice on what sounds ‘more natural’ or ‘better’ in the language and answer any questions you might have, as well as help you if you’re “missing one word” (from personal experience when learning a language it’s rarely a ‘it’s at the tip of my tongue’ situation. It’s more like I just don’t know this one word and I need someone to give it to me).

Another thing I can say about your problem is I also suffer a bit from it. Whenever I try to talk in German I need a few hours to ‘warm up’ - to just get my brain to switch to German and having a speaker on the other side really helps. I can hear the language to jog my memory and the other side can (and often does) give me input on what they think I might be trying to say. (I’m a B1-level speaker so not even close to fluent but more than enough for doing basic interations within an environment open to helping with language issues).

What I liked to do when I was actively learning German was trying to come up with different ways of saying ‘the same thing’, seing how they differ in their meaning, potential usecases, complexity, grammar, etc. It helps with vocabulary as well as the “thinking in German” part, as languages differ greatly in the ways they package the same message and taking a comparative approach helps greatly with being able to (casually) converse later. Having a fellow learner or a fluent speaker give you multiple variations of the same thing and analyze the differences for/with you would be a godsend for this approach.

I think it’s exactly the same as a Doubleclick ad as in it’s a 3rd-party script that adds obnoxious content (be it ads or a signin popup) to the site. I think Doubleclick is owned by google which ironically makes it even more similar than if it was, say, a Facebook popup.

You’re right. I had a quick look on Wikipedia and it seems that 3G is getting shut down sooner due to frequency overlap with newer generations as you’ve said. 2G seems to not have so much overlap so it’s living longer.

I thought "if 2G is still around and is x years old and still isn’t fully disabled, then 3G which is y years old must have at least y-x years left. But alas, I was wrong, and thank you for correcting me.

Get your head out of your ass, it’s in your laws.

My head just might be in my ass, but none of that is in my laws, as I’m not a US citizen.

From what I’ve read online more than a few months ago, there were criminal charges in certain places for having abortions in certain other places where they weren’t illegal. Maybe it wasn’t for the people having abortions themselves per se (I don’t remeber anymore), but there definately was a doctor sending aborion pills/information that was sued as well as some police sharing data and peoole getting in trouble shenanigans. Or just straight up people looking stuff up on the internet and being investigated for it. Chilling stuff, really, whichever way you look at it.

Also, with the way the US seems increasingly unstable (what with the Supreme Court doing whatever they please, more or less, as well as a potential 2nd Trump presidency), there’s a high chance that the current status quo changes for the worse, i.e. some of the ammendments/clauses you’ve listed get selectively overruled for abortions, as well as more states getting abortion bans (perhaps even as a simple “No More Abortions, Anywhere” Supreme Court ruling).

Most parts of Europe still have 2G service, so 3G isn’t fully dissapearing for at least the next 20 years there.

As if crossing state lines to deal with that isn’t illegal in some places

On a related note, when shops let you “donate” stuff you buy at their store to a food bank.

Honestly, I’m fine with them putting the AI sticker on everything. What I have a problem with is if by AI they mean they scrape any and all data they can get their grubby little hands on.

The only way I can see them weaseling out of this is by keeping the program running the model made in-house and proprietary while releasing the model in a format unusable without the base (proprietary) program. But maybe the GPL forbids such obfuscstion efforts (I don’t know, I haven’t studied it in detail)

UscITA

On diagrams you’d use + as the “source” of elecricity, i.e. you assume electricity flows from + to - (poaitive to negative). Electricity as far as physics goes is an effect created by electrons, which are defined as negative in charge.

DC is electricity where the literal flow of electrons from point A to point B make the current (so it flows from negative to positive, since it’s the flow of “negative” electrons that carries electricity). Benjamin Franklin assumed logically that electricity obviously must flow from positive to negative (since it’s the logical choice), but alas, he was wrong as far as history sees it. So today, whenever you’re dealing with electrical diagrams current/electricity is assumed to flow from + to - while in the physical domain it’s the negatively charged electrons that create what we call electricity.

AC is a bit different - here electrons aren’t flowing directly from point A to point B, but rather wiggling about or “alternating” in place and it’s this alternating movement that carries the (still negative) charge. But even for AC it still holds true that electrical charge is the “negative” charge of electrons and that this movement of electrons alternating in place enables them to move this “negative” charge of theirs from one place to another.

I assume you know about the saying “opposites attract” - for electricity and charge it’s literally true, so you can view power consumption as the “positive” charge of protons (which is immovable because protons are bound to the cores of their atom), while it’s the “negative” charge of electrons which are located in the outer shells of metal atoms that can leave their atoms and move their charge that are viewed as the source/carrier of electricsl energy.

I put negative and positive in quotes because to get back to your question about defining why Franklin was wrong:

As it stands, there are two conventions on electricity. One is used in diagrams and often attributed to Franklin, the one that says that electricity flows from the positive (+) to the negative (-) pole. The other is the physics convention that protons hold positive charge while electrons hold negative charge, and this is where the disparity comes from. I don’t know which convention was chronologically earlier, but I assume it’s the physics one since Franklin is the one cited as “wrong”.

Obligatory I’m not an electrical engineer - this is only what I remember from my physics classes. Please assume it mostly correct but maybe not technically for every minute detail (the only use of “power” is technically very wrong among other things, but that’s the gist of it).

It does set a potentially dangerous precedent, but with how things are going (American newspapers declining in quality and SCOTUS selectively ignoring precedent and doing whatever), you’re right that it doesn’t mean much.

withholding law Did you mean upholding?

Playing devil’s advocate here: maybe they were trying to be inclusive by not specifiying gender but haven’t heard of they. The US education system is a joke in a lot of places so the (hypothetical) teacher may have to think twice before suggesting they change the it’s to their. But hey, at least the apostrophe is where it should be and I’d take that as a win for education.

The only crime I see here is the use of SI units! What’s a ng/dl? ::: spoiler /s :::