DINKDINK

Archiveis link before being memoryholed: http://archivecaslytosk.onion/mtow1

A chrome fork w/o Google "Google Chromium, sans integration with Google" https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium

The caveat with this software is that it doesn't really have good automatic update support so there's a high user spend on managing security.

Do Ungoogled Chrome next: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium

And if it's relevant Tor Browser

>My Google account isn't connected to my personally identifiable information in any way.

Which personally identifiable information?

The time of day you use your devices? Which languages you use? Which websites you visit? The type of medical conditions you search for?

Information being PII or non PII isn't binary. It's relative shades of how shannon entropic it is. You need about 33 bits to identify someone, you likely have leaked 33 bits of entropy.

EFF's Panopticlick help show this: https://panopticlick.eff.org/

The only benefit a "Blockchain" can provide is decentralized time ordering.

All other properties must be verified by the client, don't require a blockchain, and are typically some other cryptographic proof.

There are many properties of a blockchain that are an anti-feature of voting.

How would those solve the instances mentioned in the article?

>One woman claims that after spending an evening with a friend, she was “raped and sodomized” by her Lyft driver in his home. In 2016, another woman ordered a Lyft after a night out. Hours later, her friends walked in on her Lyft driver allegedly raping her in her bedroom.

Help me understand, which ideologies are allowed to be discussed? The person I replied to didn't understand why people don't vote for certain policies. I tried to help them understand the position of people who don't agree with increasing aggression.

>That doesn't explain why people who can't afford health insurance

It's because doctors et al don't want to work for less than $x/hr and there are people who don't produce enough to trade with doctors or prefer to spend their money on other things. There's no way to get a free lunch out of this.

It appears that We has a functional product they're delivering to buying customers; but at severely-questionable future profitability. Theranos claimed they had a product that achieved results it couldn't, customers they didn't have. It seems the difference is between profit viability (We) and fraud (Theranos).

One of the people referenced in this account wrote their own summary of events:

https://robertheaton.com/2019/06/24/i-was-7-words-away-from-...

Because the administration of police/defensive-forces is monopolized by the state, citizens don't have the option to hire alternative service providers that might meet their needs better[1]. Similar to a municipality selling a monopoly of ISP rights to a ISP megacorp (read Comcast, Time-Warner), the resulting lack of competitive forces degrades the service. Like most municipal-granted monopolies, the only way a citizen can get choice in those services (public schools, police, road administration) is to be wealthy enough to move, if not you're a serf.

[1] People often confuse: 1. State-monopolized administration of 'public' services. 2. Mandated spending (supplied through tax) with private administration. (This is the model Sweden uses[2])

"People Are Hiring Private Police Squads in Detroit" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pt6hnabnkU [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq3vVbdgMuQ

I have a similar dim view of "making something illegal to patch a problem". Though I wonder if there are contract structures that require customer activity to be classifiable as "illegal" for a relationship to be terminated. Given how regulated phone infrastructure is, I wouldn't be surprised if there were laws that "guaranteed access" in the name of forcing the expansion of network access but could be weaponized by adversaries / spammers.

>Proof of work is not foolproof, especially in LF where there is no intrinsic economic mechanism to incentivize the runaway growth of PoW "mining" investment. As a result a well financed or determined attacker willing to throw a lot of compute power at the problem could overcome the PoW "weight" of the records beneath a target record in the LF DAG and replace it.

This issue -- of creating equivalent proofs of work -- is what I was most interested to see if there was any novel art (which it appears there isn't).

Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment is the only well-functioning algo that deals with the economic coordination issue around how to -- without any third party coordinator -- equate the value of a proof of work made by computer's of differing computational capacities (a phone, an ASIC). All PoW consumed by Bitcoin has marginally positive contribution to the system. Sacrificial PoW (as in LF, hashcash) only has value if reorgs happen. It also results in a system with tenuous game stability properties ("When will it be uneconomical for an attacker to reorged these records out of the DaG?" "Can't say, blocks' PoW requirement is arbitrary") vs bitcoin ("When will this 50 BTC txn be uneconomical for the most adversarial miner to reorg out?" "well there's about 14 BTC of block reward per block so about 4 blocks ~40-60 minutes"

>It doesn't do anything for people who don't want their services used by bad actors, which is increasingly the case these days

My comment illustrates precisely how such an incentive structure denies high-resource demand users.

>That would only solve paying for services if you are an amoral service provider and don't care where the money really comes from as long as you get paid.

This makes no sense to me, sorry. Are you claiming that anyone who accepts cash payments is amoral because a euro/dollar bill could be stolen and equivalently people who accept bitcoin payments are amoral because they don't surveil their customer's financial history?

"Why would anyone put film in their camera, take a picture, have it developed, scan it, email it, all so that I can print it on a dot matrix? That's so complicated; I could just put it in a manilla envelope and send it through the postal service. Why do I need a new way to send information?"

If you want to continue using legacy technology, that's fine. If you're not comfortable with your bits being in a computer, that's fine. But it'll be slower, more expensive, and less transnational etc.

All the ways congestion controls are implemented on the web lead to a cognitively infantilizing UX, privacy violations, and even "skynet" enabling[1] (hyperbolic but nothing stopping it from happening).

"Are you really human? What's: 3 x 9"

"Can you click on images of buses?, hmmmm don't believe you're human still, can you click images of stores, hmmm now bikes, hmmm now vehicles, oh I didn't mean all vehicles I just meant autos and not motorcycles, here quick copy this token, oh it expired? Too bad. How about you click on images of buses for me..."

"Sorry, browsers that protect your privacy and location aren't allowed. We only allow users who are willing to deanonymize themselves."

"Well we all know /those people/ who come /that place/ are antisocial users"

"Here's your IP addresses back. Oh yeah, sorry about blacklisting them"

This is a comment about the meta issue Troy faces. If costs are rubegoldberg'ed to create a facade of "free", it's not actually free (even if user data isn't being sold). e.g. A median-wage (10e3USD/year) world worker spending 20 seconds solving a captcha has an opportunity cost of 0.03USD[2]. Further more, having to solve congestion issues by implementing requirements to use closed/inaccessible (credit cards) poorly programmable, sucks too. Additionally, if a congestion solution is ("I'd rather low-demand users have free access and high-demand users have expensive access) isn't solved by having a flat rate (which a "keep it low cost, mantra is incentivized to keep low"). There is market demand for: If your demands on my service are x, I'll give you back the $3.50 but if you consume y resources You have to pay Z.

Wouldn't it be great if there was a way machines could own money, send it over a layer-2 network, that was open, cheaper than credit cards, faster than L1 bitcoin, and get your money refunded if you didn't demand excessive server resources, all while not using game-able "good users come from here" privacy violating algos?

This is why micropayment using layer-2 bitcoin on the Lightning Network has significantly-valuable, latent, economic-coordination implications. Micropayments aren't about paying for 1/1000 of a peanut. They're about obviating all the engineering, social, product costs dealt with dealing with Marginal Value, Marginal Cost issues. BAD: The marginal cost of anti-DoS counter measures can always be above the marginal value of deploying them ("listen folks it costs to much to keep this service running, we'll have to shut it down". UNSTOPPABLE: If a price is put on service requests (Services on Demand)[3] the marginal value will never be below the marginal cost ("I can keep this AED locator map service running because I know a spamming request will incur costs above my production costs").

In a future where L2 Bitcoin payment/Lightning client infrastructure is prevalent, gone will be the days of annoying, productivity-draining captchas, attribute-discriminating access. Troy could charged a 0.01USD "bond" payment for a request (Which he could give back fast and costlessly to a low-demand user). Meaning the 14e3/min requests for 3 hours would have required the high-demand user a payment of $25,000USD[4].\

0.01USD refundable payment for honest users.

$25,000 USD penalty for high-demand "spammer"

[1] https://i.redd.it/pb5nggw3rulz.jpg

[2] 20/60/60 * 5

[3] https://medium.com/@soddiraju/the-not-so-micro-potential-for...

[4] 14e3 * .01 * 60 * 3

>The attackers also inserted code that allowed them to capture plaintext passwords as they were entered by users at the time. >Today we are resetting passwords for all accounts that were active at the time of the 2015 incident

Ok so Slack's security is still dependent on the (unrealistic) hope that their authentication-receiving process isn't manipulable and nothing has changed. I.e. "we are very sorry, we are praying this doesn't happen again"

It would be better if their authentication-receiving process wasn't dependent on being not manipulable through a "Password-authenticated key agreement" PAKE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password-authenticated_key_agr...

>irreversibly encrypted, or “hashed,” passwords

Please, don't describe hashes inaccurately as enciphering information. "Scrambled" is marketable enough.

Maybe it's denial stage but something doesn't add up about 25/"33" dead[1]. Is it possible that there's something being lost in translation? EFL People often mistake casualty to mean a death/mortality when it's also used as (deaths+injuries). I could see that easily being mistranslated by an ESL person as deaths.

[1]Seems to be corroborated by: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/18/national/dozens...

GoFundMe page for charity: https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-kyoani-heal

>contracts with unlimited time periods non-binding?

I've noticed in countries with Natural Rights frame works for their law that typically contracts that commit /an individual/ to work when it's not "bonded" in some way are interpreted as slavery and nullified.

e.g. If I agree to get paid $100k lump-sum today to work for you for 10 years at no more compensation, and at year 2 I decide to renege on the contract, no Natural-Rights framework court is going to enforce that.

But if I sell my house to you (relinquishing ownership to you for an "unlimited time period") and I try to renege on the sale, it is going to be enforced.

>asymmetry of moral expectations and entitlement.

What does morality have anything to do with the market expectation of "When I shop with firm X I want to have a good experience"?

If a consumer has to always second guess whether or not a seller will try to clawback their goods because they miscalculated their asking price, that's a horrible consumer experience. If I want to contract with a firm (say a credit provider such as a credit card network) that will defend me if I signal I'm going to default on a payment because I'm unhappy with a price, the market can sort those needs, desires, actions properly.

I'm pretty sure the free advertising Amazon is getting from this "gaff" (Was it a gaff? was it guerilla marketing?) and the customer loyalty they gain if they provide "When you shop with the Amazon firm you have a great experience" will be worth it.

Markets don't survive because they adhere to a mosaic of subjective beliefs about morality, they survive because people uphold their commitments.

>people nowadays is using IR cameras without any calibration or understanding of the physics behind the measurement

The four factors are Emissivity (ε), Absorptivity (α), reflectivity (ρ) and transmissivity (t). Emissivity is only one facet. Ideal is high Emissivity and low reflectivity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_properties

"At the core, we believe that a network that helps move more [private speech] — where a lot of illicit activities happen — to a digital network that [requires speech permits] with proper [deanonymizing] practices, combined with the ability for law enforcement and regulators [to no longer have fourth-amendment barriers to viewing the panopitcon], will be a big opportunity to increase the efficacy of [eradicating unapproved speech]."

https://www.facebook.com/notes/david-marcus/libra-2-weeks-in...

>Why would it be humid?

The hotter air is, the higher its capacity to hold water vapor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PsychrometricChart.SeaLev...

Several co-related factors affecting this:

Worker productivity increases cannot be legislated. Such productivity increases can only come from workers improving their skills or technology that increases their productive output (as simple as an electric drill to as advanced as an exoskelleton with a HUD). Minimum wage laws are effectively bans on low-productivity workers. By making labor artificially expensive through legislation, demand for it drops, total economic output decreases, production costs increase. There's no reason to believe that the home-production industry would be able to reduce costs / increase output with minimum wage increases; in fact that opposite is the case.

Legislation can only reduce the permitting costs of housing production IFF it becomes more permissive. In the regions of the US that I'm familiar with, all the areas that have high housing costs pass legislation that increases permitting costs or transactional costs to bring housing to market. This can only result in a price increase globally with some politically-connected group receiving a benefit.

Legislation and corporate-bank policies artificially increase the money supply to the greatest degree with housing loans. Typically these workers are not minimum wage and in addition to the above effects, the Cantillon effect gives an undue subsidy to these higher wage workers https://www.aier.org/article/sound-money-project/cantillon-e...

It wasn't clear to me, after a quick skim, if the public-access channel had received state funding and therefore was effectively the state but outsourced. I would assume it had, which in my eyes doesn't mean it's a 'private platform' but more a privately operative public platform.

The point was, in fact the bitcoin and bitcoin clones are not "functionally the same thing". If they were, there wouldn't be discrepancies between the two. Clearly the market punished the clone.

Is the following an accurate summary of your position:

"There actually aren't dollars that are being moved into tether's accounts but fabricated database numbers. These fabricated numbers are then exchanged for bitcoins but the other people of that trade (the people buying tethers with bitcoins) somehow never redeem these tethers. Despite the tether to dollar exchange rate not at a discount there's a mass delusion. This delusion will continue until bitcoiners buy 10 million tethers for one bitcoin. The dollar-bitcoin market doesn't affect the price/supply of bitcoin."

Because that's what it appears to be. Do you know how a eurodollar works? If not, you would learn much from just that instrument.

>all of these random tokens are functionally identical from the perspective of most users.

If a clone of Bitcoin is identical to Bitcoin then why does Bitcoin trade 25x the price of a clone? Your argument would cary weight if the protocol and price facets were similar. The market says otherwise.

>The Proof of Work "algorithm" is completely unnecessary for processing transactions

The Distributed Systems community awaits your proposal for a solution to Byzantine Fault Tolerance in open, decentralized, adversarial networks. Why would you withhold an alternative solution to PoW?

>The PoW filter is a psychological tool for "governance" (write access) to the database, granted now exclusively to wealthy capital holders.

No amount of PoW allows a block producer to write data to a node that a node operator hasn't consented to accept by their choice of consensus rules. Your argument is "capital holders" can force consumers to purchase whatever they produce. Consumers induce producers. Producers cannot induce consumers. Producers can /speculate/ that latent consumption may exist but without purchasing consumers, production will eventually end.

>why someone would design a currency system in objection to banks, that inevitably restricts control of the entire network only to existing capital?

Money warehouses and credit creators (banks) are not capital. Capital is the product of work / R&D / creation.

"Can't wait for a cryptocurrency with the ethics of Uber, the censorship resistance of Paypal, and the centralization of Visa, all tied together under the proven privacy of Facebook."

https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/11394299139229573...