It appears most of the people here are not of any political spectrum or group, but of their own spectrum. Sure they agree with things of the left and of the right, but that is being a individual.  Eh. I mean the question is what stances from the opposite of your political spectrum do you support. I would still call myself a conservative, even if I do have a handful of principles that I don't agree on the Conservative side of politics. Though I think if you support a majority of the principles of your 'group' you still apart of the group in my mind. I think the list that I laid out is the majority of the policies that I cross the aisle for, the rest I align with the party on (at least most of the time) |
|
|
|
|
Don't know if anyone has actually ever had to deal with Yelp to advertise with them, but I've had the pleasure of doing this before. It's a horrible experience, as they wouldn't stop harassing me everyday asking for me to advertise on their platform and saying that they had tons of coupons for a business like mine.
Then I asked what their average CPC is, which at first they didn't want to answer but they said the average for my industry is $7-10 -- which is about 5 times the cost per click of google ads.
So not only do they try to continue annoying you in order to get you to sign up, they do it in a way that makes it seem like it's a 'deal' and that they're looking out for you and your business.
Yelp is a shit show.
|
|
|
|
Every single one of the current most popular portions of a progressive agenda, such as Medicare for All/Single Payer, Free College, Taxing the Rich/Corporations more heavily, $15 min wage. All of these policies, at face value, have over 55 percent approval in every poll that just asks about the policy itself. But once you start mentioning the price (which you would expect to be questioned in ANY poll regarding government policy) But people start to change their view on these policies when more information comes into play: Once people hear that Medicare for All would have to be financed by a tax increase by the Rich, AND THE MIDDLE CLASS, they don't seem to support the policy anymore - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/10/upshot/medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders-cost-estimates.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share and https://apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169Increasing min wage, without protections for small businesses (such as tax credits, rebates, etc) would lead to the firing of many MORE workers at an increased pace while automating these jobs forever. Free College - This is too expensive, and people think that this idea will just further degrade the 'value' of a degree. Which I think is true. People love hearing about free stuff, but don't like to hear about how they're going to have to pay more in taxes to support the free stuff. Democrats can promise the world, but once Republicans start talking about price the policy is done. |
|
|
|
hey guys, great feedback. Sounds interesting. But it cant be 100% free, right? I believe they expect to make money from this in some way. I guess they would be getting some share of the profits made by the beneficiaries or they'd make money from advertisement?
No, that was only the cost of the affiliate software to run the affiliate program. The white label casino is not for everyone. The price and terms of the white label are not on the site yet. I understand the price is actually based on the skill set of the buyer. The price is inversely proportional to the potential success of the bitcoin casino site owner. This is a serious business, not a Netflix subscription.
Though you're still going to have to bring at least 250k in marketing to the table to setup a REAL website. There's no use in them advertising the only cost at $97 a month, because you're not going to be making any money with that. You're just going to be another subscriber paying them for nothing.
You need your own advertising, marketing, support, etc.
As mentioned above. $97 is only for the affiliate program software. You are 100% right on everything else. Once you have a fully functional customized brand, you will need a budget for marketing (and skills), support, and of course the bankroll to handle any fluctuations. There are, trust me on that. You don't need 250k, but 75k should get you shoulder to shoulder with other leading brands. Eh I mean. You're going to need at least that much liquid to go through setting up your company in an offshore island, then setting up marketing efforts (campaigns, ads, partnerships, affiliate stuff with youtubers, etc) Setting up company bank accounts offshore and so on and so forth. This isn't something that the little guy should be going into thinking that they're going to make a shit ton of money off of $5000-10000, you're going to need to put some real money (and work) into a venture like this. And even then, it could all be for nothing as there are MANY established names in the industry already. |
|
|
|
"Opposite of your political spectrum" is a bit ambiguous.
I'm a libertarian. Within libertarianism, I think that the biggest division is between those who came to libertarianism from the left and those who came to it from the right. I came to it from the left, so among libertarians I have rather liberal views on virtue, LGBT issues, some race-related things, the role of selfishness, the basic justification for libertarianism, some economic-theory nitpicking, etc. But on the most divisive left-right split within libertarianism, abortion, I was actually flipped from pro-choice to pro-life due to effective arguments by right-oriented libertarians.
More broadly, the opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, including fascism and communism. I don't agree with these groups much, but authoritarian regimes often have self-sacrifice as a core value, and I appreciate this. (But I despise collectivism, which I basically define as sacrificing the valuable few for the convenience of the ignorant many, and fascist/communist self-sacrifice is often oriented toward collectivism.) Also, communists are often pro-technology, which isn't bad on its face.
It's an interesting question to think about. IMO you can find common ground with basically anyone. Oftentimes, I find dedicated centrists the most difficult to understand, since they're basically saying that the world is not massively screwed up, which is ridiculous.
I think that some of these views are views that are embraced by libertarians though. Libertarians don't really care about what you do in the bedroom, and don't think that the government should have a role in regulating this. As a side note, what was your reasoning for switching from pro-choice to pro-life? I'd love to hear that one. |
|
|
|
But the cost is not cheap, and I see the cheaper cost needed $97 per month.
I think if bogap.com can get more customer which have another website and not just from the gambling website, it will give more money to them.
But I see that bogap.com accept adult websites.
So far, I think bogap.com can be another solution for people who wants to make money with them.
This is pretty cheap in the world of creating your own casino. Though you're still going to have to bring at least 250k in marketing to the table to setup a REAL website. There's no use in them advertising the only cost at $97 a month, because you're not going to be making any money with that. You're just going to be another subscriber paying them for nothing. You need your own advertising, marketing, support, etc. |
|
|
|
Yep. It's without a doubt a thing, though you're going to want to confirm all of the numbers that they provide (for confirming that it's provably fair) on your own. As it doesn't make any sense to use the 'verifier' on their website, which could be compromised. Use your own, and check out the entire process. https://bovegas.com/blog/casino-wiki/provably-fair-slots-now-you-know-theyre-fair/https://www.bitstarz.com/provability-explainedCheck these links out. Just remember one thing though: Even if the site is 'provably fair' that doesn't mean that the odds aren't in the favor of the house. Slots are notorious for having the worst odds that are present in gambling, and you're going to get hammerd by the house edge (which is factored into provably fair, as they do disclose it) I'd recommend playing other games if you want to change the odds a tad. On average, slot machines have a house edge of about 5 to 17 percent |
|
|
|
This seems to be one of those "bot-like" posts - obviously I know, I even wrote that in my OP, there are poker strategy sites out there. For sites like pokernews I even wrote... This has nothing to do though with the fact that I would love to DISCUSS poker with some fellow (and most importantly real persons) bitcointalk members... I would argue that your post is most likely pretty botish -- which is why my response is pretty simple, as this is one google search away from finding tips that are written by professionals. I'd much rather have professionials providing me tips, then people that are (statically speaking) much more likely to be losing money on gambling. Don't really see the need to open a post like this up again, but to each their own I guess. Back to the point of the thread: My biggest point to tell you is that bankroll management and seeing the big picture is the biggest part of playing poker. Don't get all involved in each game, worry about the big picture and how you're doing as a whole. If you lose a couple (or win a couple) that's fine and dandy and all, but you need to continue making yourself a better player and continue making yourself money. Don't take unnecessary risk, and continue to have fun. Cause this most likely isn't your full time job. |
|
|
|
|
I do think certain policies from the left are pretty vital.
Environmental Regulations - I do think that certain environmental regulations are pretty vital, as companies aren't going to have a vested interest in ensuring that our oceans aren't polluted in, our lakes are clean, our springs are clean, and so on and so forth. 'The Market' isn't going to weed companies out that pollute the ground and such, as every company is going to do it if it means they make another buck and don't face any consequences. Fines from the government and lawsuits from consumers that are hurt from these practices are the only thing that stops companies from polluting like this.
Taxes - I think that a certain amount of taxes are vital to a functioning economy (I think most agree on this though) There's no way that a society can survive with basic function without these taxes, who's going to fund for your local police, fire department, libraries, and so on without this sort of local taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes. I think everyone can agree that there is a massive amount of overspending in government right now, though you can't just cut everything down to 0 for this all to work out,
Unions (in certain professions) - I don't think that there should be unions in government related jobs, such as the police force, fire department, teachers, state workers, fed workers, and so on. Because if these people are to strike, they're going to have the upper hand in negotiations because they can cause a large amount of damage to the public good. Unions should be allowed elsewhere though, not forced labor unions though -- people should willingly be joining.
|
|
|
|
|
The big reason why this isn't a thing -- where large nations just come in and steal your companies resources, then just use it as their own to benefit their own nation, is that this is only a short term plan of benefit. It doesn't provide benefit to both nations, and at some point the nation that is being looted is going to revolt. When they revolt, they're not going to want to diplomatically trade with your nation (in this case, the US) because they don't trust them in the least.
If you maintain a diplomatic relationship with countries, and trade with them fairly, you're going to have a long term benefit towards both nations and you're both going to prosper. If this isn't the case, only side will be prospering for a short amount of time.
This isn't the colonial times anymore where we just colonize parts of the world and take their stuff. We're civil, we trade.
|
|
|
|
I haven't considered this before. How much would be the minimum amount I can invest in a casino like CryptoGames?
As of the FAQ's... The minimum investment amounts are:
0.01 Bitcoin
0.25 Ether
0.5 Dash
1 Litecoin
1 Monero
0.1 Bitcoin Cash
20,000 Dogecoin
50 Peercoin
25 Stratis
15 NeoGas
5 Ether ClassicCheck it here for a well-detailed explanation of how investment there works. Under " "How do investments work?". https://www.crypto-games.net/faqThanks for providing this, pretty helpful. I'd say that for people that are going to gamble, at least in first world countries, they're most likely going to be gambling this amount anyway. So why not just put the money to work at the casino, instead of working for the casino and losing your money. Just remember that there still is risk with depositing your BTC somewhere else, not your keys not your coins. But that is still the same as when you're gambling anyway. So it'sa not like you're taking additional risk. |
|
|
|
You would think he would be against abortion. After all the more aborted babies there are, the less children there are available for him to grope.
Lmao In my country the pro-abortion feminists shout "abort the baby as long as it's in the womb for any or no reason"..... But, when a parents find the gender of the baby and finds its a girl and wants to abort it on basis of gender, they shout "that's sexist and immoral, that should be illegal"! Because in many parts of primitive India, a girl child is still frowned upon. It is because, aborting on basis of genders and girls would automatically make it harder for them to recruit more girls in their feminazi team xD Although I don't support abortion on basis of gender (I don't even support it for any reason except rape or mother's life in danger) , I find it hilarious how those feminazis changes their stances quickly to meet their own demands lol I don't know if any of you have seen the dictator, but this is pretty much the stance in a good amount of nations in the world. Having girls is frowned upon, and people only want boys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwUUD1F2IkA - "Are you having a boy, or an abortion" Pretty horrid to think this way, but this is the culture that SOME nations embrace. |
|
|
|
|
Not surprised to see this come out of a middle eastern country. This isn't about the person that they're killing in the least, they don't even care about the crime he committed, they're trying to send a message to those that are going to riot and protest against their government that they will be facing death if they continue to act this way.
It's a pretty scary thing to think about. But this is what happens in these sorts of governments.
Hopefully the international community can fight back to ensure this doesn't happen now, and EVER again.
|
|
|
|
At the start of his campaign, Joe Biden looked like a moderate on the side of the Democrats, he promised Democrats a return to normalcy. Even some Republican voters liked some of his ideas. But Joe Biden just wen't off the deep end with his new stance on abortion funding. he now thinks that the Hyde amendment should be repealed, and that Federal money should be allowed to be used for abortions. This is a change in stance for Biden that has been supported by HIM by 40 years at this point. Who knows what the hell is going to be left out of his 'moderate' agenda by the time he wins the nominations, as he's going to have to keep shifting to keep the progressive and far left side of the party happy. Any views on this? https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-flips-over-abortion-funding-11559945523?mod=hp_opin_pos1 |
|
|
|
I see, this does make some sense. Though I still do think that they're going to be profitable for sometime. It seems like they're still able to get cable companies to pay more and more for their channels, which is even listed in the pew article you listed. I think that this could come under attack if viewership continues to falter (as licensing fee increases, may not always be able to cover advertising declines) and if people continue to move away from cable at a faster and faster rate then licensing fees are going to shrink. This isn't just a problem with one news company though, this is something for EVERY channel. |
|
|
|
"Hate speech" is a really anti-freedom concept which too often amounts to just "unpopular speech". Unfortunately, a lot of people believe in the idea, on both the political left and right. In the end, YouTube may end up losing too many creators with these kinds of actions, and they may suffer financially for it. YouTube Premium's original series for example are all completely soulless corporate boardroom creations -- if that's what they envision as YouTube's future, then they're going to be out-competed eventually. If I was YouTube, I would make in-house monetization much more selective, but give creators the ability to add their own advertising using the exact same systems (eg. text pop-ups, wait-5-seconds, sidebar ads, etc.) for a monthly fee dependent on the view count. Then all creators would have the option of negotiating ads out-of-band, and YouTube could more reasonably position itself as just a platform. Are there any good YouTube alternatives? https://d.tube/ is one which seems vaguely decentralized, though its underlying steem and ipfs platforms are naïve "do the first thing which comes to mind" systems. I have zero confidence in the robustness of these systems, and it's not even a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation, since dtube is also pretty janky. It's disappointing, though I guess there just aren't enough people interested in this stuff to put enough man-hours into it. I really doubt that YouTube is bad enough at this point for any centralized YouTube clone to become popular enough to be profitable. Delivering video is expensive, dealing with copyright complaints is expensive, and YouTube has the advantage of a huge historical library, a pretty good AI, and network effect. IMO you could throw $100 million at the problem and still not out-compete YouTube at this point, unfortunately. I think people have come to notice that no one on the internet is as good for video streaming. Youtube and Google may have their flaws, but all the good content is on youtube -- it's the only place you can go if you want to make any money making content. The alternatives don't have that yet, you can't make any money at all on other platforms and their payments are shoddy at best (this is being compared to youtube competitors, not youtube live competitors like twitch) Youtube should really open up their advertising platform, and allow people to make money with their own ads on their own video -- though I don't think Youtube wants this as it opens up an issue of if they should also be censoring the ads that are on their platform which arent their ads. Should they be taking a cut of these ads as well? I would think yes, but what's a fair number. Many things to think about, and I don't think Google wants to spend the money at the moment to fix this issue -- they would rather just demonetize and move on. It's a lot easier and cheaper, less media coverage. I think both of you are largely missing the point. This is not about profit, this is about power and control. Just look at the classic corporate media. Are they profitable? Hell no. They are subsidized and exist because they serve and deliver certain narratives that give those in power more control. They do this at the cost of their reputation and their bottom line because they are now completely dependent on these subsidies. This is about maintaining propaganda, not profit. Everyone is losing their minds because Russia bought some Facefuck ads, meanwhile these companies are very openly meddling in our election process by silencing anything but the corporate mainstream narrative. I am sure it is just a total coincidence that so many of them are so cozy with China. BUT MUH RUSSIA COLLUSION! EDIT: http://www.bitchute.com seems to be the leading alternative video platform of choice so far. Related article: https://off-guardian.org/2019/06/05/youtubes-latest-purge/Not true though, a good amount of media companies in the age of Trump -- which caused a LARGE spike in ratings and people watching, were able to turn some pretty large profits. Look at a company like CNN, who racked in $600m in operating profits for the year ( https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/awful-ratings-record-profits-whats-cnns-secret/258477/) Other companies are also pulling in some pretty hefty profits as well - NY Times https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-times-posts-higher-profit-adds-223-000-digital-subscribers-11557335720 and so on and so forth. These companies aren't subsidized, they're making money. |
|
|
|
"Hate speech" is a really anti-freedom concept which too often amounts to just "unpopular speech". Unfortunately, a lot of people believe in the idea, on both the political left and right. In the end, YouTube may end up losing too many creators with these kinds of actions, and they may suffer financially for it. YouTube Premium's original series for example are all completely soulless corporate boardroom creations -- if that's what they envision as YouTube's future, then they're going to be out-competed eventually. If I was YouTube, I would make in-house monetization much more selective, but give creators the ability to add their own advertising using the exact same systems (eg. text pop-ups, wait-5-seconds, sidebar ads, etc.) for a monthly fee dependent on the view count. Then all creators would have the option of negotiating ads out-of-band, and YouTube could more reasonably position itself as just a platform. Are there any good YouTube alternatives? https://d.tube/ is one which seems vaguely decentralized, though its underlying steem and ipfs platforms are naïve "do the first thing which comes to mind" systems. I have zero confidence in the robustness of these systems, and it's not even a "perfect is the enemy of good" situation, since dtube is also pretty janky. It's disappointing, though I guess there just aren't enough people interested in this stuff to put enough man-hours into it. I really doubt that YouTube is bad enough at this point for any centralized YouTube clone to become popular enough to be profitable. Delivering video is expensive, dealing with copyright complaints is expensive, and YouTube has the advantage of a huge historical library, a pretty good AI, and network effect. IMO you could throw $100 million at the problem and still not out-compete YouTube at this point, unfortunately. I think people have come to notice that no one on the internet is as good for video streaming. Youtube and Google may have their flaws, but all the good content is on youtube -- it's the only place you can go if you want to make any money making content. The alternatives don't have that yet, you can't make any money at all on other platforms and their payments are shoddy at best (this is being compared to youtube competitors, not youtube live competitors like twitch) Youtube should really open up their advertising platform, and allow people to make money with their own ads on their own video -- though I don't think Youtube wants this as it opens up an issue of if they should also be censoring the ads that are on their platform which arent their ads. Should they be taking a cut of these ads as well? I would think yes, but what's a fair number. Many things to think about, and I don't think Google wants to spend the money at the moment to fix this issue -- they would rather just demonetize and move on. It's a lot easier and cheaper, less media coverage. |
|
|
|
i don't understand why they want to block this plan.
It seems a very nice deal, 8 billion is a huge amount of money and it will help a lot the American economics. On the other side, they establish their alliance with Saudi Arabia.
No doubt the alliance with Saudi Arabia is central to America's position in the Middle East. The problem is we know who the Saudis are using those weapons on. Israel draws flak when they retaliate when they get bombed but Saudi Arabia killing civilians in Yemen, you don't hear complaints that much. i don't understand why they want to block this plan....
Because it's a Trump Deal. Isn't there already several attempts in the past to block arms sale to KSA, especially after they attacked Yemen? This is one of the things that people miss, that selling weapons to Saudia Arabia isn't about supporting the activities they're engaging in -- it's about keeping a diplomatic partnership open with a nation that is friendly to the USA. They're a major force that is able to help the US in their diplomatic efforts. I'm not saying that I support this sort of relationship, though it is important to notice that the US has these relationships. |
|
|
|
There're so many restrictions on Huawei already and IEEE's additional restraint doesn't make Huawei worse. The more interesting thing is how Huawei reacts to them. Maybe here's the first: Huawei Buys Up Russian Company Specialising in Facial Recognition Tech - Report. Both China and Russia are on Trump's blacklist and now they come together. It's gonna be like Shu and Wu against Wei in China's famous "Three Kingdom". In a nutshell, I think not only the USA, but also European Union should act more determinantly and massively. They should recommend around 20.000 scientific and medical journals (not only IEEE) to launch restrictions on Chinese scientists to review or peer-review scientific articles. Chinese should not be easily allowed to see drafts of important articles.
EU is an important market of Huawei. The US - China trade war makes them stuck in the middle. I don't have a feeling that EU seriously wants to stand on Trump's side in this war. Unlike the US - Germany's car industry depends a lot on China. It's doubtful if they can bear the loss when playing hard on Beijing. I think Trump can see EU's dilemma and that's why he visits England. I mean I don't really think the EU has much of a choice in deciding if they're going to stand with Trump. As he's probably using the might of the US - economically, and militarily - to force them into making a decision. Plus the fact that while the EU may rely on China for many goods, they rely on the US for a great deal more of services. Plus the fact that China is also taking advantage of the EU as well, as they're stealing their goods as there are in the US, patent infrigement, etc. I don't see why the EU wouldn't support this measure. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
