I believe the article is about ritual sacrifice, to a deity, and not what you describe that to me just sounds like the misery of no practical means of contraception or abortion.
True. This was to show that child death was no big deal. That was being disputed and compared to modern sensibilities. Just illustrating how vastly differently ancient people viewed this.
He has cred, but I also felt that this was from someone outside the finance industry because we have seen this all before.
After the FX scandals with the 'Cartel' chatroom, the libor scandals, we've seen compliance digging through all your Bloomberg chats and mails to find just about anything that sounds dodgy.
Crypto is new to this game, the other players have seen it before.
Of course not everything other than bitcoin is a security. My private blockchain no one knows about is not a security. It's not a universal law of the universe.
What they mean is every coin/token they looked at. If asked to evaluate litecoin for example probably they'd say it's not a security as well. They don't need to pass judgement on each of the thousands of coins individually because definitions and common sense exists.
I’m just trying to understand the context. I hope it is as you say and it would be my baseline assumption that it is as well. But it’s not unquestionably obvious given history and what relatively little context is present in this thread. The SEC used to think all crypto is a security to the point where honest miners are instructed to declare blockchain rewards as income (I have, and TurboTax even asks you if you acquired crypto in the last year with no nuance as to how you acquired it or which one you acquired). It may be obvious to you and me but my question was more about how far the SEC’s understanding has evolved.
I'm not aware of that. I've seen the video of the chairman of the SEC recently, and for five minutes he refused to tell whether Ether is a security or commodity.
They can retaliate of course, they just do not have the moral highground to complain about them. They occupied and installed a racist apartheid system in Palestine that continues to this day. It's like complaining that Ukraine defends itself from Russia in unconventional or unexpected ways: war doesn't have to be symmetric.
On 29 November 1947 the UN General Assembly voted on the partition plan, adopted by 33 votes to 13 with 10 abstentions. The Jewish side accepted the UN plan for the establishment of two states. The Arabs rejected it and launched a war of annihilation against the Jewish state.
The attacks from Gaza are targeted at civilians with the intention of killing civilians. They are also launched from civilian areas inside Gaza.
The Israeli retaliations are targeted at the militants with the intention of killing the militants. The strikes are incredibly surgical and despite needing to happen in civilian areas usually only kill the targeted militants.
But not always.
Still much much better than any other military that's tried to do surgical strikes in civilian areas.
Everybody knows that everyone lied, that there were no WMD, that all is an excuse to kill and profit, that the real culprits got await scot free.
It all comes down to the US being a failed democracy. It does not matter if it's all lies, the people in power cannot be prosecuted, the secret agencies cannot be shut down. The beast is too big, we just have to live with the tyranny hoping it doesn't turn on us next.
"Winner writes the history" is largely bullshit. 90% of the narrative about the third reich and WW2 right up until recently came from the very Nazis responsible.
I look at history as what the world thinks rather than just one country, and still Armenian Genocide history was a close call. Took a long time for other countries (over 100y for the US) to recognize it due to fear of retaliation, and Ottoman Empire was debatably not even a "winner."
