My wife and I watch it. I rewatched the entire Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z series with her, which was great because she had never seen them before. By time we finished watching all like 700+ episodes, finally moved onto Dragon Ball Super.

She's now discovering the frustration of waiting weeks between episodes for this show when the plot moves at a snail's pace. After cramming several episodes per day to go to 1 episode a week is sad. But on the bright side, at least they're still producing content.

Also, can't wait for episode 129, I wanna see ultra instinct again, this time with attack mastery.

I've seen idiots come in all ages and forms.

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”
-Socrates

What's the local industry around you look like?

Indeed. Maybe posting something useful would be nice. "Reversible computers" would be akin to AI driven singularity. It's not here yet and not even close.

That only works until they develop synthetic skin and perfect voice synthesis. AI would have billions of hours of research to perfect their craft (from just public youtube videos alone).

You're dumb.

This post is dumb.

Reversible "one-way" functions are fucking useless...

Maybe you should actually read up on cryptography before making stupid ass posts.

His grammar blowsis fine, but his point was made. I can barely understand your shitposts.

>Hello, I have a question for all of you

Entirely unneeded. Asking to ask makes me hate you more.

>If someone make a good thread

That's a mighty fucking big "if". What the fuck are you going to contribute? More twitter spam bullshit?

>and that thread is usefull and informative for someone else

Oh, just useless data that you think other people will find useful. Fuck that, you're posting useless shit constantly.

>he/she will get merit sometimes will get a lot of merit..

Of course people who actually contribute to the overall conversation and make clear points earn merit.

>So, how about a question thread like me now?

Yeah, gonna give you merit for being a fucking dumbass. That totally makes sense.

>as good as what questions to asked to get merit? Huh

Oh, so not are you only a dumbass for thinking that asking for information is meritable, but you're asking what to ask. Holy shit, can you not see how stupid that sort of logic is.

>maybe someone out there have a same question like me

Probably the other 3000x signature campaign spammers. Probably not any actual bitcointalk member.

>So, please answer this question to make me and someone out there who's still confuse can more understand  Grin

Fine. Start using actual English. Fuck off with begging for merit. Spend a few weeks reading about the technology behind bitcoin. Gain an actual understanding of how the process works. Answer technical questions to people asking them. Spend a few weeks thinking of a solution to the scaling problem. Contribute to serious discussion with a serious topic.

Hell, by then you'll probably have enough activity to be a legendary member judging by your current position. Honestly, you'll probably just feel insulted by this because it's not sugarcoated, but it's the truth.

>Greetings of peace... Wink

Nah, this isn't how english works. You don't end your message with a greeting. That's dumb as shit.


Just think if I ended this post:

Hello you fucking retard  

Author of the article is an idiot blogging about all these neat "crypto monies".

They should probably read:

https://bitcoin.org/en/faq#why-do-bitcoins-have-value

Dumb idea. OP doesn't understand Bitcoin.

The point is decentralized; not centralized or tied to an authority.

Get a real monitor? Problem solved. 

On 4k, I have so much blank space on my screen.

I've never heard of that drug before "krokodil". I took the time and looked it up. Seems like a cheap knock off (10% the effectiveness), dangerous form of heroin ( codeine and iodine derived from over-the-counter medications and red phosphorus from match strikers - yeah, let's just cook that up in my back yard as opposed to just buying the $30 bottle of bills from the store). But when someone mentions drug use legalization, your first conclusion is addiction.

Addition is a disease. Treating a disease is the job of public services (imho).

>Doctors use these with the knowledge that they could be harmful.

Doctors don't always know what's best (at least in America... once they've earned their education, there's no continuing education... so you get doctors still prescribing old antibotics..)...

>Doctors use these with the knowledge that they could be harmful, and because of that, they are always used to try to get the maximum benefits effects, with minus harmful effects in a special case.

Ah, maybe I'm confusing medical doctors with doctoral researchers? I'm not sure why a doctor of medicine would be studying long term effects of any one specific drug. Yes, the obvious short cases exists, but with street drugs, how can you be sure?

>Now, I think there is really two kinds of drugs, recreative ones

I agree. Nuclear waste isn't a drug just like tide pods aren't food.

> that should be allowed, and dangerous ones, that aren't good at all.

I think we can both agree that taking iodine and codeine and cooking it with red phosphorus wouldn't meet even the lowest of standards for drugs, just as mixing bleach and pepsi wouldn't make a good soft drink.


>But with dangerous ones (heroin for me is a really a nice instance), you don't have "enough" good effects to counter risks, and even mid/long terms effects (as inward-looking attitude, paranoia, psychotic effects, skins effects, cardiovascular effects, there is so many...)

No one's suggesting that one should become addicting to the drug after trying it... continued usage should be warned against, but nothing should prevent someone from purchasing it over the counter. If there's a need for it, people will figure it out...


>So yes, it is important to improve all the conditions to do it safely, but I'm afraid that it could "create" dependance that should be avoid in an other way.

There's so many things in the world that people can become addicting to or things that "create" a dependence in a person. Shame we remove gambling? Gaming? Porn? I mean, societies seemed to have tried and failed multiple times with these objects...


>I mean, I don't really care that people try to smoke a joint. But that's a really different problem if they try a fix of heroin imo.

You're right, fixing heroin requires fixing the system as a whole, however legalization and taxation to confront and hopefully solve the issue makes a lot more sense than keeping them entirely illegal and ignoring the problem.

>But I don't want to make myself judge of the devil "it could create new dependance blablabla", I know the pros and the cons,

If one piece of art is created due to someone being high, it's a win. Some people believe drugs enhance their performance (and studies can back that up). If a person wants to burn their candle of life twice as fast, why not let them? Obviously, they'd be responsible for their actions.

> I'm just thinking as a good father,

I've met some pretty terrible fathers out there, good on you for trying to be a good one. Make sure your child doesn't eat a tide pod, and you're doing pretty well compared to some

>I want the best for my children.

Don't you want your child to grow up in a place where criminals are always people who they should be scared of rather than just those who like to take an occasional puff?

>That's all.


Come on now, there's more to you than just being a father =)

>The best solution that I was able to come up with is using the service of a company for the identification part that deals with official papers

That's some sort of centralized authority which is opposite of decentralization... also you literally just recreated PKI =)

The problem is a complex one and I doubt anyone on this forum is going to solve it.

Proof of work is inefficient. Proof of capacity and proof of retrieval would be better systems. Not a huge fan of proof of stake myself (to earn some, you need some is kinda silly).

Proof of capacity is way more efficient. I can spin a disk for a few watts and store millions of hashes. As opposed to having to grind hashes every day, all day.


You're an idiot. The sun produces more energy in a second that what the earth can produce in a hundred years.


That's not how energy production works. Are you planning on burning those complex hydrocarbons for heat energy that you're gonna convert into electrical energy through a steam turbine? If so, the efficient of that is so low you'd spend more energy collecting the micro-plastics.

You have a lot of misinformation in your post. Statically speaking, states that have legalized marijuana has seen a decrease in teen usage. That argument is entirely nil.

Obviously there are health concerns regarding more illicit drugs, but those can be reduced with proper and safe dosages. Also, if the counter-agent is sold OTC, there'd be way less chances of overdoses.

I believe people should have the right to choose what they put into their own bodies.

Bleach is already legal my dude.


Meh, alcohol's been around for a couple of millennium. Tobacco = taxes.

Much better than my suggestion here; https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.msg28914391#msg28914391

Good job. Didn't know you worked for Microsoft (that windows.net link >_>)

We have peer reviewed evidence that proves that marijuana is a carcinogen. It's a drug that literally causes cancer. Cancer could definitely take someone's life.

At what point do you think drugs should legal? (should coke be legal? Should stimulates be sold otc? Can I walk into my local walmart and buy weed?)

Yeah, valid point. See I've revised. It's just after the first line... yeah, I've already typed most of this. Hope ya come back my dude =D


Exactly my line of thinking.


Bums already do heroin in the streets, however you rarely see them because as far as it knocks you the fuck down.

That's assuming a free market rather than a regulated market. FDA exists my dude.

There's a ton of arguments to be made against the post though... nearly every single line can be argued.

>the reason you will not believe it is that you have not seriously considered the matter.

Really motherfucker? Who are YOU to tell me about how much time I spend fucking considering it. You're who again? A blog writer? A medical researcher? A stats expert? An economic genius? Because I could be any of those. How would you fucking know?

>The main problem with the efficient functioning of a free economy is that if you can then.

This was the line that made me actually start thinking about arguing. There is no free economy. Governments are tied into everything already.

>In a market that evaluates on the basis of price, the subjective choices and the moral values ​​of the participants do not matter at all.

Well, price includes actual manufacturing and safety concerns. I'm not sure that moral values of anyone in any industry really matters. Do you care that you're given the option to effectively make your computer MORE unsecure by disabling the default protections?


>You're wondering how grocery makers are acting as if they're falling in the head, adding all the crap in all they do, then spending money to convince the people to eat that shit. You may find it inexplicable and somewhat aberrant that the world is starting to spoil the hen with a kind of chainsaw, after which the resulting paste is washed in ammonia and pressed into the form of McNuggets. However, what these people have in their head, you may be wondering. They have experience in food production, they understand, they understand the problems, it's in the mind of the cock that such a mess is not suitable for human consumption, why do they produce it?


I don't even understand this? We're talking about drugs.

>Well, it's true, they have experience, they understand and understand that what they sell is not really food.

And regulation forces them to disclose this. Marketing however is pretty shady, but freedom of speech is pretty powerful.


>But they do not have it. If you can, you must. If you do not produce the ammonia-washed chicken paste that you give it at ten cents, another will produce it, and it will give it at ten cents and three quarters.

Alright dude, this is like straight up lies. Pretty sure that'd be a regulatory violation in my nation.

>And you, a gentleman and principled producer of good quality chicken, will sit on the bar, sell at no time and go bankrupt.

Nah, artisan people are making bank now-a-days. That unique experience is what drives people forward.

> That's the real meaning of the competition on the price, it's a competition to find out who can make the cheapest and the worst thing that the market still accepts as a fried chicken, or as a book, or as a car.

If this were a true statement, everyone would be buying RollADeathy200. We have regularity standards that create a bare miniumium requirement for safety.

>What do you think brought the US banking crisis? Are these bankers so busy that even one did not understand that it is a bad idea to lend money to people who have no way to pay them? Well, here's what you see, everyone understood . Perhaps there are some bums that have not been caught, but in general, by the way , as the Englishman says, the profession knew that he would be able to collect it by 2006. Just for the simple reason that you can not give credits to guys who can not pay, such a move is bankruptcy clean.


Dude, we're fucking talking about drugs. Not those scum. Fuck you for wasting my time with this serious thread.

>So why did they do it? Simple. If Bank X makes a stupid thing to write a profit, Y Bank has a very acute problem in front of her: either she does what X does, and she writes a profit, or stays and waits, that is, wait and wait the value per action falls. Because shareholders, faced with a profit-making company and a Y profit-making company, do not begin to analyze whythis difference appears, but it simply moves with a puppy with a piglet to X in the garden. So, between bankruptcy on the spot, because you opposed the market, or go bankrupt with the whole market, the healthier strategy for management is, from their point of view, to go with the market and give all bankruptcy together . The policy known by most people in the primary classes, too , is " too big to fail " that means "it just does not expel the whole class ."


Oh, I see why you wasted my time. Yeah, GM [Ford / whoever does what, idfk cars] makes shit cars. I understand.. oh wait, they don't because those regulations I was talking about earlier.

>What's the solution? Oh, more stringent regulations, I say witches from the SU today. Fix fis. Stringent regulations will be deplored by the same in five or ten years when it "prevents the flexibility" so necessary ... competition.

Oh hey, he called my argument. Shit, he's smart. Except his argument is flawed. Telsa exists, true competition was born.


>Well, market empowerment. Correct. People will even start studying seriously the issue prospectuses and investment policies of the banks, spending as much as ten to twenty thousand dollars in the form of skill and effort to invest a thousand or two. Sure you do. Ala who is too stupid to make him a home-baked chicken will spend tens of hours to study which fastfood producers are using healthy methods. Sure you do. Afer.



DUDE! Bad argument. Not only did it cause the banking crash in the first fucking place, it also caused the great depression. Reducing regulation prevents markets from boom and bust. If social welfare was better, we'd be able to handle the bust cycles better. However, as we're not entirely united as a world, we can't handle many busts in a row without the world shitting on us.

>And now we can come to the matter. Amphetamine and derivatives (such as that known as meth in the state) have the advantage that two to six hours after consumption adds a significant added energy and attention to the consumer. With long-term harmful effects. As a result, between a third and a half of US TIR drivers use meth during their service. Why ? Well, if I can, I need it.


Yeah, meth is pretty fucking easy to manufacture, but it's pretty fucking dangerous. I'm fairly sure there's already prescription medication that give the same stimulate effects as meth that could be produced cheaper than meth itself in its current state (which is pretty fucking cheap already afaik). If it takes a pill, how many people do you think would smoke some powder that rots their teeth?
.
>Because the job is hard, it requires a lot of effort and a lot of attention, and people compete with each other.

Not everyone competes my dude.

> The employer is not interested in how you did to fulfill his job duties. And if one-third of drivers drive meth and give "good results," it's raising the "standards" for everyone, and the shift boss is not willing to tolerate your needs simply because you have them.

Illegal to drink at work because OSHA. I don't see why being on an illegal drug (or prescription drug that prevents operating machinery) would change that.

>So do good and get some meth. As a result, the percentage of users is on the rise for twenty years, and probably soon will become the rule.

Yeah, because it's not the ultra rich that are ruling. They become upper middle class (and maybe 3 generations later rich) at most.

>Going to school is an exercise in boredom because the school has a funny joke, and it will become more and more fun and fun as wages continue to drop and the quality of teachers crashes (let's say once a group has lost its intellectual prestige, it can never recover it again). What can you do to get the bad guy out of Romanian and head it up? Bugging a joint, brother, calms you. How to resist 6-7-8 hours of uninteresting, badly presented and misinterpreted times when you needto stay at school, even if you'd prefer to do another thousand things before you slung your ass in the chair? Get with Mari Ioana, the most faithful girl. Everything's funnier, more tolerable, girls do not get excited to get up on the walls, it's good.


I told you my school prohibits drug use. Minimum wage should be tied to cost of living?

>If drugs were not illegal, drugs would be mandatory.

Yeah, I gotta get wasted every single night to keep up. I drink my self to death because I can drink alcohol. /s
(I hope you know that /s is a sarcasm tag).

That's a slippery slope if I've ever saw one.

So why are you reading this propaganda my dude and not thinking critically?

Valid points.

However, that's the individual person's choice. My university has a strict no drugs policy. Work place rules could still be set to prevent drug use (especially while on the job). Also, considering no insurance provider covers you while under the influence now, I don't see why they would in the future.


As long as the people know the consequences of their actions, they'd be responsible for their own bodies. Just because you don't want to doesn't mean they don't want to.


Most of those problems are caused by the black market effect. If it's illegal to even seek treatment for the condition, of course the condition is going to become terrible.

If heroin was sold in safe needles and doses, you'd have less problems with a lot of those propaganda images. The problem isn't the drugs themselves rather the conditions surrounding the drugs.

Do you really think people would be taking something someone cooked up in their shed if there was a safer, more effective, over the counter drug that's just as cheap (if not cheaper [mass production])?