This reminds me of my core mission: sterilize myself or self terminate.
Everything I've experienced and felt since youth indicates that my seed is unwanted by humanity, and it's clear suicide helps evolution by eliminating bad genes. I think about suicide constantly and have done so since youth. This is my brain telling me to help humanity by leaving. Hoping to complete that mission ASAP.
I wouldn't necessarily go along with your logic here. If you decide not to have children for one reason or another you can implement that decision without suicide. A lot of people have suicidal thoughts at some stages in their lives, then recover and are glad they didn't take a non-reversible action.
Anyway, it's too dangerous a topic for you to work things out without a bit of "peer review". So I strongly recommend to contact a counsellor.
This isn't occurring st some subset of stages; it's been steady throughout my entire life. And I've grown more and more cynical with age. It's a decision that I've long intellectualized.
People who don't survive aren't around anymore to discuss whether they are satisfied with their decision. Why would I waste my time talking to someone who intends to talk me out of something that isn't a debate to me? It's a personal decision.
Suicide doesn't help evolution. If you have bad genes, you die before you can reproduce, or your children do. If you and your children survive, those were good genes. You don't have to do anything to manage evolution, it takes care of itself by its own.
I disagree. With a high sex drive, it's probable that I would reproduce eventually, risking passing on my genes. Suicide ensures that procreation won't occur.
If you suspect your offspring (or your genes) would somehow be harmful to humanity, no one is asking you to produce any. But calling suicide your "mission" just betrays spite and resentment. What's so urgent about it?
Isn't it really about wanting to escape suffering?
In a situation like this it's safer to say that your profile is safe only if that specific identity is on a white list of known safe identities. Thus things like test will by default, Show as unsafe which is better because it hides information about who is unsafe. If designed right, random form data will simply return unsafe silently. Maybe you could try testing for that.
Paying out anonymous folks that demand ransom of copyable data is futile. There won't be incentive to not leverage the data even if the ransom were to be paid.
The reality is that BTC helps to facilitate various criminal behavior, some of which would not exist otherwise.
If 4100 were to break today, there would be greatly increased probability of accelerated downside. This is deserved since BTC is leveraged by criminals such as in this case. Don't be surprised if this ends up becoming the case as a form of public penalization of such criminal behavior.
Imo, assuming the hackers are acting logically, the payment of the random will be followed up by another request for more money or the sale of said data on the black market.
Since they are anonymous, there is no logical reason to keep their word. It's not like they have a reputation to keep up.
It's an asymmetrical game of tit-for-tat. If the hackers don't keep their word often enough the companies won't play the game again. Pay regardless of the hackers keeping their word and you make yourself vulnerable.
No, another cryptocurrency (the word crypto is already used to mean something else) can gain steam while the price of BTC goes sideways or down, and eventually win. Just saying the statement "no matter what happens" is false.
Can is not the same as Will. 500M people could download the Lyft app tomorrow and stop using Uber, but they won't. I can't predict the future for BTC, no one can, but I'm skeptical of it being supplanted. It's got a huge lead in public awareness, and the public doesn't understand crypto currencies and isn't looking for new ones.
Wouldn't it be better to ask if his position is any different, now that he has had time to research the topic? It would be helpful if you could provide material info to Mr. Schiller that he does not have, beyond the ICO revelation, so he can re-assess. You clearly have important info that he could use.
ICO's are now a core application to the cryptocurrency ecosystem and have thereby driven growth to Bitcoin. Let us know if there is anything else I've missed. Your communication techniques are exemplary.
Someone eventually is going to build an app framework that offers clean reusable abstractions for micro services in the context of a further-abstracted orchestrated and containerized provider-agnostic automatically highly available and scalable infrastructure, complete with backup, security, log analysis, and all open source and installable through a single remotely executable shell script.
