Programmatic

Given Google's current track record for AOSP with bringing active development into Google Play and deprecating open source components, I am skeptical that it will be good for openness.

I was thinking the opposite - the safe withdrawal rate accounts for a 3% inflation rate for your 7% safe investment figure, so your nest egg grows over time for the same equivalent $3,333 in perpetuity no matter the year.

The $5,000 would get progressively worse over time.

I think that actually increases your exposure, as a monthly snapshot will likely be as good as any other month's snapshot and just as damaging (or not) if it got out. If all providers sell your data, that means that purchasers of aggregated data will always have up to the date info anyhow.

I would say the "better" solution would be to find a provider with a good reputation and stick with them, and leave them in a heartbeat if it appears that they've sold your data. It gives them an incentive to continue behaving well through referrals and recurring revenue.

I like seeing more awareness of this! It's always depressing to hear people say that they don't care or that it's not a big deal.

There are various third party applications that will allow you to use Exchange protocols without the OS integration: they'll let the Exchange server admins wipe the application's container/data rather than the entire phone. I think it's a much fairer implementation.

As someone unfamiliar with this, can you please elaborate? Would the host be fingerprinted on every subsequent usage of the authentication token, and using what methods?

It would require more financial resources from each individual, reducing the number of people that could make it across. From a pure threat/security perspective it's a win.

Per my other reply, the case he was dissenting about was not about being compelled to provide the combination for a lock. The dissent simply contained a supreme court judge's opinion regarding combination locks. If you can find actual caselaw for combination locks, I'll take it. Otherwise, I'll take the supreme court justice's opinion.

I am well aware of what "dissent" means. Fortunately, this is a supreme court justice talking about a case that was not about a combination lock. Unless you can show something that says that you can be compelled to open a combination lock (I couldn't), I'll take the supreme court justice's word for it.

The courts can compel you to turn over something that you have. Something that you know is protected by the fifth amendment, in particular for combination locks.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/201/case.htm...

"""

JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. But can he be compelled to use his mind to assist the prosecution in convicting him of a crime? I think not. He may in some cases be forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents, but I do not believe he can be compelled to reveal the combination to his wall safe -- by word or deed.

"""

So, the final tally is asked for $11k, jury awarded $200k in compensation and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.

The basic fact remains that there were, in fact, punitive damages.

Sorry, I was talking to the larger context:

GP: you also have punitive fines - that's why that lady got $2M or so for the coffee burning her at McDonald's.

OP: "crazy lady gets insane punitive windfall for being too stupid to know that hot coffee is hot" was a PR effort

Me/article: They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. One juror said, "It was our way of saying, 'Hey, open your eyes. People are getting burned'."

It sounded like the general idea with the "crazy lady gets insane punitive windfall" was "No, it wasn't punitive fines and it was for legitimate medical bills".

That's not the case, the jury specifically wanted to award punitive damages. The money was not for medical bills.

It's not just a PR effort.

She asked for $11k for medical bills. They refused.

"""

After four hours of deliberation, the jury found for Liebeck. She was awarded $200,000 for compensatory damages, reduced by 20 percent because Liebeck had contributed to the accident. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. One juror said, "It was our way of saying, 'Hey, open your eyes. People are getting burned'."

"""

http://academic.udayton.edu/Lawecon/Assignments/Torts/Mc%20D...

People can and do engage with others more or less, so I don't think intro- or extroverted in that sense is fixed. But the understanding of introversion and extroversion these days tends to be more whether you gain or lose energy in general from dealing with people. I doubt that feeling drained from (not) talking to people would change very quickly in someone.

There are plenty of outgoing introverts.

It is despicable to me that citizens can be denied their right to access legal remedy by companies that won't deliver services to individuals without them agreeing to binding arbitration. Access to courts seems like it should be the cornerstone of society and should not be allowed to be removed so easily.

The appeal of arbitration for a pair of similarly sophisticated entities that have the ability to vet the clauses of the contract is obvious. But the potential for abuse with one large organization picking the arbiter and a lot of unsophisticated individuals trying their luck against them is pretty obvious too.

I think the fact that advertising persists in such widespread forms is pretty good proof of its efficacy.

Study after study shows that even if you think you're immune from advertising you still gain a positive outlook on a brand just from familiarity/repetition alone, nevermind if you agree with the content of the advertisement.

But it's more than that. If it's illegal to spy, that means you can't disseminate the fruits of that spying far and wide. You need to resort to parallel construction and carefully safeguarding your sources.

This allows a massive expansion in the scope of capture and use of that information to more agencies in a "legitimate" manner. At least when it was illegal they had to contain the "conspiracy" lest it get out.

I don't believe the end justifies the means, nor do I believe that data will be as useful as meatspace intelligence. Terror will continue anyhow. The war on encryption and privacy persists despite the fact that terrorists haven't even bothered to use encryption in the last attacks.

Obviously we don't get to tell you how to run your country, but at the same time we can certainly be troubled by your country's actions.

I'll admit that I was apparently ignorant on the topic and had a misunderstanding of the ideals of the alt-right. After reading for a while, I have come to a similar conclusion given the idea(l)s of NPI, Spencer, and so on.

As with anything label-related, it's hard to determine who wears what label for what reasons and what elements of the label are made up by outsiders attempting to discredit the wearers of the label. But it is currently difficult to come to a conclusion other than yours given the facts I've been able to find.

As a small aside, I still hold a small amount of hope given the history of inaccuracy in the media's portrayals of 4chan. Hopefully this is similarly overblown and hysterical...

In a venn diagram of neo-nazi's and alt-right, I'm sure there would be plenty of overlap, if not neo-nazi's being a subset of the alt-right. But to categorize the entirety of alt-right as neo-nazis is itself not useful, as you can then not have a conversation about the actual viewpoints of the alt-right.

I'm really disappointed in the quality of the discourse on both sides this election cycle. Straw men abound.

A protocol to have the site sign a certificate provided by the browser on signup/authentication would be nice. A UI to allow signing of pending certificate signing requests would allow you to authorize additional devices on demand, or revoke certificates/access for other devices.

Some services allow you to do this today with device-specific passwords.

Doesn't that yield a whole class of problems though that we're trying to solve with obtuse solutions such as "let's make that character set in red so people don't get phished"? How is that any more international and/or easy to use?

It seems that putting the allowed character set into the tld would be a pretty user-friendly way of doing that.

Edit: As an added bonus, tlds are centrally managed, and are already western/latin encoded. So why not customize it with a localized abbreviation for the language or tld type?

I'm not sure how feasible this is, but wouldn't it make sense for .com/.net/etc to be latin alphabet only and allow other domains to be localized with unicode? I wouldn't really have a problem with 新浪首页.cn, and I doubt I would confuse ɢoogle.ru or whatever with google.com

I don't quite "get" how: "the power of decentralizing technologies to affect current and future political outcomes — and even the internal structuring of nation states — is growing exponentially." means "the establishment will ensure that blockchain voting is going to be a thing"

Traditional paper ballot voting works wonderfully. It's reliable, hard to fake, and everyone can understand it. This means that people will have more faith in the system than some abstruse "blockchain" solution that nobody understands and demagogues can use to rabble rouse based on that lack of understanding. Those basic facts won't change just because there are other people influencing the election and some of the candidates are corrupt.

Also, borders would just change if people decided that they liked to be "borderless" with other entities; see the EU passport control etc. You'll still have local representation, districts, etc. As it turns out, maintaining law and order in meatspace is still a good thing and geographically grouped people is a magnificent way to regulate that.

Do you have any hypothesis on the potential forces at work?

Pragmatically there are reasons for some people to run Windows 10 vs. other operating systems, even if you don't/won't recognize them. Tools like this allow people to run Windows 10 in a "good enough" state and spread awareness of the problem. It will always be a cat and mouse game if the black box vendor so chooses but it's still better than doing nothing.

Edit: To address your edit, aren't you trusting their black box and using a different tool to accomplish the same? Also, not everyone has access to Windows 10 Enterprise.

I'm curious about how most folks get and/or negotiate a sabbatical? I'm getting to the point that I would really love something similar but would not want to derail my career in order to take one if possible.

I largely agree with that sentiment, but it is difficult to separate oneself from the rest of a society that has made unhealthy choices. The market is driven by the masses and we participate in the market. The salad bar may be unlimited, but there sure are larger areas of it dedicated to serving the tastes of everyone else.

;)

I think the solution would be to create a system where:

1) we have a minimum amount to hit before the marginal shipping cost is $0,

2) build the shipping cost into our margins, and

3) advertise that the marginal cost is $0.

To be fair there it's likely that there's a bit of victimization there as well if it's harder to go into one field vs. another due to social norms. You get it from both sides, too! "You're a man, why do you want to be a nurse??". Going back to tech, if you were a borderline woman candidate that wanted to get in it seems that you would statistically be less likely to follow that dream.

I like to step back and just say that it's not something that has to be fixed if a cadre of people appear to "collectively decide" based on individual decisions. It sucks that if you are in the cadre and have to fight the perception that you should(n't) be doing something. But I think (as I suspect you do as well) that saying that your individual decision should be different simply because you share an identifying trait with others is broken.

Ideas that men or women are some collective that needs to be pushed one way or another are difficult. You can generalize based on the apparent preferences of the group, but then judging an individual based on those preferences is where it starts to get troublesome.