cadekat

To be clear I don’t agree with this statement, but the steelman counterargument would be something like: if the president of the United States were to destroy evidence of a crime, shouldn’t that also be a crime?

When the cybertruck was first announced, I actually appreciated how different it looked, but its performance and association to Musk has entirely ruined any hope of me ever liking a low-poly vehicle ever again.

It’s equal to the calories contained in that many cheeseburgers or expended while eating? Or in making that many cheeseburgers? And are we talking like Big Macs or Whoppers?

I was curious, and redid the math using cars (a unit I can understand). Works out to about 370 cars. That’s equivalent to like… 0.0006 cars per user.

Sources:

epa.gov/…/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passen…

10.1109/CICTN64563.2025.10932395

ycharts.com/…/ethereum_daily_active_addresses

Ugh. Yes, cryptocurrencies are full of scams, and yes, memecoins as dumb as hell, but that doesn’t make the entire space worth banning. They don’t ban BitTorrent implementations because 99.9%[^1] of the traffic is copyright infringement.

Ethereum, for example and chosen only because I’m most familiar with it, doesn’t burn electricity any more, is about empowering users, and has real use cases.

There are plenty of serious developers building useful technology in the space. Cryptocurrencies are censorship-resistant, and bad actors will inevitably use them, but that’s true of any open technology.

Ban projects that are themselves scams or fraudulent, but it’s unreasonable to reject an entire class of technology because those projects exist.

[^1]: unsubstantiated hyperbole.