cjkaminski

If only it were so simple. Many of CBP's policies are clearly defined by U.S. Congress (most recent example, which actually establishes CBP: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/644/...). That said, Congress appears to have ceded their oversight role by allowing these rules to change without comment.

I have 20/20 vision and this presentation hurt my eyes. I'm glad my browser has "reader mode" to normalize things like this. I'm not trying to yuck someone else's yum. I simply appreciate the technical ability to read someone else's post in a way that doesn't cause discomfort.

Politicians are lazy, sure. I also believe that hearing sustained and prolonged resistance to X as a communication platform will make a difference. It's real grassroots effort.

Yes, yes! I might be old enough to remember when that happened.

Okay, how did I break the guidelines per your assessment? I'm genuinely curious.

Because they are both part of the SpaceX Company. They are intimately tied together.

Excellent question. My definition is admittedly qualitative. I spend a fair bit of time listening to commentary by people who are connected to policy decisions at the state and federal level (in the USA). An unusual amount of people admit to relying upon X as their barometer of public sentiment, despite their intellectual understanding that Elon Musk has his thumb on the scale. Most of them have admitted they understand the "water has been poisoned" but they also claim that all alternatives are inferior. This might not apply to YouTube as much as the others, but I haven't seen evidence that disproves this theory. I'm open to the possibility, for sure. This said, I believe that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok have a profound affect on large swaths of the population. The evidence I observe suggests that X is doing more work among the people who can text someone who makes decisions. Curious to know more about your POV. What am I missing?

Fair points.

I would say that classifying an argument as "silly" without any supporting evidence is borderline ad hominem because it doesn't make a substantive critique of the assertion, and instead colors the character of the opposition. But that shouldn't take away from your position.

As for your suggestion that I am being arrogant, I can see where you're coming from but I also feel as though I'm within the bounds of fairness to push for a reasoned response (instead of an emotional appeal).

All that said, thanks for replying in a way that advances the discourse. Much appreciated.

No, I did not claim "a massive percentage of the population accessed the internet (via starlink)". Try again.

I said that people in REMOTE regions, by which I mean those who are underserved by traditional internet access such as fiber or coax or twisted-pair, are served by Starlink in significant numbers.

Please give demonstrable facts that dispute this claim if you disagree.

How so? Defend your position.

(edit: I genuinely don't understand how your replies are anything other than ad hominem attacks. Your responses are about as effective as a toddler asking "why?" over and over and over again. Either deliver a substantive counter argument or stop replying.)

(edit 2: I assume you are the one who downvoted this reply. That only adds to the factual evidence that you are struggling to defend your position via legitimate means. This isn't a personal attack. I hoped you would engage in legitimate discourse. Please do better in the future.)

lololol. Obviously you don't know any Ukranians.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Let's revive RSS.

It's still good, even if it's been on the floor beyond the "five second rule".

I forgot to reply to your message last week. Thanks for this perspective. While I don't know much about the details of Russia's influence operation on Brexit, it seems highly plausible that exacerbating tensions between the UK and the EU would be in Russia's advertised interest. I'm curious to learn more.

I agree that SV's regressive culture is a problem. I've seen it up close. I don't have a solution, but I am concerned about where this trend might lead us.

Ok. Show your work.

Which social network has larger reach than X? Which social network has stronger influence on humans who make policy decisions than X?

Which internet provider can deliver reliable access to remote regions than Starlink? Which internet provider has manipulated access in contested regions than Starlink?

Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. I don't know. What I do know is that your baseless assertions are meaningless to me. Show the facts and figures that support your claims. That's the only way to avoid being a garden-variety internet troll.

Unfortunate, yes.

Futile? No.

Remember that AT&T once had a firm grip over human communication. That didn't last.

Remember that AOL once had a firm grip over how a massive percentage of the population accessed the internet. That didn't last.

Elon Musk currently has a firm grip on social media (via X) and internet access (via Starlink). This too will not last.

Why do you believe it's "just as easy to plant a seed for people to latch on to"? Please provide some basis, whether it's first hand experience or published research. I'm open to the possibility that I'm misinformed. I just need more information to work with.

You're very correct. It's much, much easier to amplify sentiment that already exists, as opposed to attempting to manufacture sentiment from nothing at all. That's been true for as long as propaganda has existed, afaik.

The issue is that "whoever" isn't a single homogeneous entity. I would presume that someone in the organization spotted the discrepancy. Having worked closely with (and sometimes for) large corporations, I cannot presume that C-Suite decision makers were sufficiently aware of the issue. Or perhaps they didn't weigh the issue properly. Or maybe they were consumed by a desire to complete the merger, no matter what. There are quite a few ways this could have gone, internally, and still arrived at this place.

IIRC, most wifi enabled televisions have internal antennae. Remove that (or otherwise disable it) and you significantly improve your security posture by ensuring the radio can't hold a connection beyond the TV bezels.

The best simple and easy answer is "Never connect your television to the internet, ever."

At the Federal level, absolutely. I could imagine that California and New York could work together to affect meaningful change. It would still be tough because specialty finance regulation is unlikely to generate the type of constituent response usually required for government action, but it's not impossible.

That said, reform would be a Herculean task under the best conditions. Effective change would never be a "one and done" operation. It would be great to have a non-profit like the Electronic Frontier Foundation to carry the mantle.

Based on my experience on the fundraising side, I'm inclined to agree with your perspective. One small nit to pick: I think policy changes can happen. However, it's hard for me to imagine meaningful change occurring before a catastrophic event. How big would the blast radius be? Obviously no one knows, but I hope it's closer in scope to "The Collapse of Silicon Valley Bank" as opposed to "The Collapse of Lehman Brothers".

There is an explicit claim in the essay that says they aren't all the same.

Third bullet point says "a handful of venture capital firms have become 'do everything' funds that combine private equity with their existing VC businesses".

A bunch of those names sound fake, like they should be from Fallout instead of Los Alamos.

But then I remember that I know someone who worked at one of those companies.

Yes, and the technology to improve the interface you described is already available to run hundreds of concurrent instances on a 1U server. The barrier to entry is getting the people who manage those systems to care enough to implement something better.

This demo makes a good first impression, but the lack of technical details makes this post feel more like an advertisement instead of a topic of discussion.

Patriotism != Nationalism

Whenever someone uses the word "fair" about taxes, I assume they mean we should reverse course on the decades-long pattern of reducing the tax burden on companies and the wealthiest individuals here in America.

Fair taxation isn't a punishment. Paying taxes is what responsible citizens do. It's an act of patriotism and pride.

I came into this thread with the same question in mind. Then I looked at the poster, who created their account less than an hour ago. I'm going to move on to something else now.