greycol

At least the same concrete harm as someone spying on their neighbor without getting caught.

I do think the more compelling reason not to connect it is because as a general rule the updates they put out make the user experience worse over time and it's better to have a connected device that's easier/cheaper to replace when the cumulative security/compatability updates cause a slow down (Without getting in to anti user features like devoting more screen space to ads each update).

Some hypothetical concrete harms that are technically possible when the data is being collected:

Targeted advertising outing someones behaviour because they watched a video related to that topic on the tv.

The TV reporting you for piracy for playing a home video of your kids dancing to copyrighted music.

Reported to the government for watching speeches from an oposition party.

As an example lets pretend a majority of reports say a vehicle is moving forward and going to hit someone but the reports differ on the speed. Someone puts out a video with the vehicle moving backwards and an object in the video falling upwards. The correct response is you don't say "ha! all the reports are wrong, no one will be hit" because of the video. Even when a report says the vehicle is moving slightly to the left when moving forward is contradicted by a report saying the vehicle is moving to the right while going forward does not mean you dismiss both reports and assume that the vehicle is moving backwards or stopped.

If you don't want to expend the effort to evaluate the reports within the context of the greater body of work yourself that's fine (and absolutely sane) what's not a great idea is then going on to ignore the majority of experts on the subject saying this is happening and it is a problem.

Also your citation is poor. It's from someone who doesn't even understand partial pressures of gas (as evidinced by his claims CO2 participates out of the air in Antartica! He even sticks to that claim after having multiple people (including climate change skeptics) try to explain this basic principle to him) and a quick google search shows actual analysis on many of his other claims and debunks them.

I mean it is the perfect expression of what a lot of us hate about modern apps. The constant sucking up of all data for advertising.

Lets be honest to follow best practice on security/privacy is a constant schlep of tweaking options and compromising on functionality. Then to have a base tool just throw in your face that "We've added a feature and even though you've got 'send do not track' ticked this is not at all the same so we'll turn it on by default". Yeah I understand the need to vent especially if he chose IE as a minor way to get away from google tracking[1].

I mean, sure, we probably won't ever reach verification mountain dew, but that meme first came about in 2012 and not surprisingly we've slid closer and closer to that in the mean time. People have had years of getting sicker and sicker of the slow visible decline.

[1] After seeing the comments about who the author is it's more likely he defaults to Microsoft products.

Sure now your only recklessly endangering those who can't get vaccinated and those who opt in. So maybe at steady state the numbers do work out in favour of it being less dangerous than driving proportionally(excluding the people who opt in to this danger). But you realise we're talking about driving, an activity that actually accomplishes something, as opposed to not getting vaccinated which accomplishes at most nothing. If driving accomplished nothing you can bet you wouldn't be able to do it in the city were you are involving others it'd be relegated to tracks.

If we have 100 people responsible for a bad thing happening to 10 people in that group that is proportionally the same as 10 people being responsible for a bad thing happening to 1 person in that group and having 90 unrelated people to the side when we are divvying up blame.

WHO confirmed cases so using your numbers that does change it to just another 1.2 million dead americans assuming no change in death rate due to other strains the vaccine rather than another 5.5 million.

You'd bet wrong 1.3 million traffic deaths in a year. double it to 2.6 m for 2 years.

In the 2 years of covid we have had 4.25 million deaths with still 90% us and 97% of the rest of the world left to catch it.

You only need a unmasked person to have an R value 1.64 times higher than a vaxed/masked for the proportional deaths to not reach parity even with 90% people vacinated.

That's completely ignoring the fact that driving is actually a productive activity with a goal. Where as most of the reasons people give for not wearing a mask are either easily debunked or work just as well as a retort to someone asking you "why are you continuously punching yourself?".

Just to clarify for those worried about what looks like legitimate numbers. The 6000 (unverified though there are legitimate reports) deaths on VAERS (down from the 11,000 when those that were posted from overseas sources were removed) means that the death rate for the vaccine using this number is 0.0018%.

To put that number into context, you are 944 times more likely to die if you catch covid than if you get a vacine in the US. That's right the anti-vaxer take on the VAERS numbers say getting a vaccine is 1000 times better than not getting a covid vaccine. Even in the country with the lowest reported (0.1% which is not necessarily the actual) death rate per covid case you are 100x better off getting the vaccine.

If I was a PR person and I had the choice of not doing my job and agreeing with toxic boss that "California is forcing businesses out by not ignoring my type of toxic behaviour, put that in!" or being bullied and possibly fired for raising the point that they are maybe not 100% right...

Not that this is what happened, still bad bosses reap bad behaviour.

Yeah, with the additional punchline that "the lucky ones were the half that got shredded as they didn't need to deal with the hiring manager."

If health care wasn't covered publicly in Europe you'd be paying out those larger amounts more often which would cause rates to rise and then differentiation with cheaper lower capped offerings.

And people could ask to be delisted from it. Many celebrities and public figures exercised this option.

The problem is your clear and measurable points don't actually point to a god. If you see some meaning in them that enriches your life that's great but they don't really count as evidence to those outside your religion (except perhaps when they also claim it as 'evidence' of their flavour of goddess).

1. Your brain/body evolved to interpret this richness in a universe that is unintelligible to us a conscious brain that evolved in that universe would almost certainly view those unintelligible to us rules as intelligible lest there be no purpose to that consciousness. Our brains also quite demonstrably processes unintelligible (to us) things as intelligible when they are not.

2. This is true in any universe where someone is around to point out that something exists and is a priori with or without creator beings.

3. Our will is either deterministic (happens with a cause) or it is not. In the case that it is deterministic we can ignore this example (which personally is my view). In the case it is not then the non deterministic part is reduced to the result of quantum coin flips altering the result in the larger scale world. Assuming so there are two possibilities either everything else is also happening at that level without a cause (which is counter to your point that it is only will that behaves this way) or the quantum coin flips are in some way deterministic which means so is will.

With short term outages like this your probably right that a single point of failure doesn't matter.

It's the longer term outages that are the problem. That's because we start talking about knock on effects.

It's not really a problem if your supplier (and all others) have a short term issue (assuming you don't run super lean). It may be a headache if your supplier has a longer term issue while you set up another supplier (or use your less desired one) but it's not a disaster. It's a big problem if all suppliers are down for more than a short time.

I'd assume people seeing this as a market failure are talking about it in the "this highlights the problem" kind of way, not the "this event was a true disaster" way.

So there are a lot of negatives to trying to set up your home as a smart home, the constant fight against entropy is the most annoying. These kind of service shutdowns are way to common.

If you are just getting into it you should ironically try to get smart devices that are as dumb as possible (or flashable to be) and do all the thinking and control on the hub.

For the hub it's worth looking at openhab or home assistant and running it on your own hardware.

I definitely enjoy the benefit of having everything be voice controlled. To stay offline you can use mycroft ai though will require a bit of set up to work like that. The utility of having a voice assistant connected to the internet is pretty great though so might outweigh any privacy/security concerns either leaving mycroft connected or using amazon/google/apple options.

Follow that advice and you can have a stable functional smart home. I wouldn't call it a consumer friendly experience, though if you look at it as a tech hobby there's a good helpful community and you can definitely end up with a pretty awesome environment set up.

>Think of walking into a restaurant and they have a sign that says "Employees Only Behind Counter". Even if there was no technical/physical control preventing you from going behind the counter (eg there was no locked door or anything like that), I think it would still be understood that you as a customer do not have "authorization" to go back there.

But if a customer was invited back there because they said they wanted to thank the chef? They're told not to touch anything, they touch something. Do we view that touching something as breaking the same rule as someone who just walks back there uninvited or is it another rule they are breaking?

I can definitely see arguments for both views. Especially compelling to me based on the analogy is once you've taken the first unauthorized by policy action no other actions other than leaving would be authorized though this interpretation would lead to its own absurdities.

I bet there's also more than a few people who work at places where work surges up to or beyond a full day but other days there's not much to do. If they're not empowered to actually treat their salaried job as a salaried job working from home is a great way to side step that issue.

You can use a 15 minute break to be with family if you WFH. You can't use a 15 minute break to be with your family and complete a >15 minute round trip.

If you believe being in the office is required, fine, but if that's your criteria for what a "very high dedication" employee is then you'll need to pay more remuneration(or offer other perks) than a business that requires the same skill set and dedication without requiring the employees to be in the office.

But it will only be a few of them that view it as an identity.

For them it'll be a chance to talk with people from different walks of life such as bankers, lawyers, doctors, artists, entrepreneurs, business owners, or COs. Since so many have wide breadths of opportunity they'll be able to talk to people who have had novel experiences from themselves.

I mean the default experience seems to be a sheltered(maybe insular is a better word?[1]) one, but I can't say I'm not similar in my own social circle. I haven't purposefully gone out of my way to mingle with people in other groups outside of my normal social circle except at work/hobbies/sports and really only talk to those I already know at Friday drinks.

[1] Really I'm kind of looking for a word to express diverse sameness. Something you'd use to express "European countries are all the same except of course each is a unique culture". Maybe talking about untraveled Americans(US) except a word to contrast one who only lived in their rural town vs one who worked and lived from New Orleans, to Detroit, to New York, to Nebraska, to Hawaii and Alaska while not having left the US.

What is the downside of the police lying? Assuming they didn't have a warrant then they either lie and it doesn't make the situation worse as police are allowed to lie or they don't lie and guarantee a lawsuit.

I'd understand the argument for why they're incentivized to get a warrant in the first place (even assuming parallel construction is a viable alternative to getting a warrant as they may be caught) but that doesn't mean they wouldn't lie after they got caught screwing up.

I didn't downvote it but the tone does seem quite adversarial to me.

You could ask "what was the fallout?", "Did the client get compensated?", or "did you make procedural changes afterwards?" without being as confrontational.

Less people will post about their mistakes if they know they're going to be lambasted for them. We can learn from these mistakes if they're shared or they can be a timely reminder of stakes if we're slipping into complacency. So we probably don't want to discourage such posts (especially since it's rarer for people to want to talk about failures that successes).

Basically the whole term Gain of Function Research is referring to any research that involves deliberate alterations to pathogens to make them more transferable(including the ability to infect other hosts) or deadly.

The volatility is the problem as it makes calculations unreliable but a year to cover your costs on a 2 year (if you upgrade to the latest graphics card every generation) or 4 year (if you go every second gen) life is a reasonable investment.

It's literally a ROI of 100-300%.

Or to put it another way it's similar to a risky stock with a compounding yearly return of 41% for four years.

Using a graphics card for mining that you have anyway is just gravy (apart from externalities which are another big problem).

It's around 15% of the population (48 mil) of us population for marijuana. So yes the traffic stops were positively correlated with drug possesion.

NB: The most optimistic reason for this correlation would be: 'Drug possession' correlates with 'drug use' correlates with 'driving while impaired' correlates with 'driving in a way that gets you pulled over'.

As a sister to my comment I'll also add you can effectively (though not legally) short more stock than you can buy. This is because to short you pay for a stock at the current market price with the promise to sell it back at the same price to the lender at a future date. If you then immediately sell the stock you can use that money to immediately pay to borrow another stock.

This means with the cash it takes to buy 1 share you can short as many shares as someone will lend which can multiply your loss to more than you have.

If you need to cover your short and there are no shares being sold you effectively must keep offering higher and higher prices until someone will sell you a share as you are legally obligated to buy a share[1]. To end the unlimited downside (of raising the price you'll pay by more and more) you need to have enough sell orders on the books to cover your short or have raised the price enough for someone to sell. During the time you are trying to buy your loss is increasing (as you raise the price to get a seller) and is unbounded.

If you have a stock you have to sell and there are no offers to buy on the books you can't offer to sell then keep raising the price, instead you would need to keep lowering the price. The price is either limited by what's on the books, or you need to wait an indeterminate amount of time for some one to buy at the price you are selling. During this time you are trying to sell your profit is decreasing (as you lower the price to get a buyer) and bounded by $0 (for a limited liability company).

So while it's true that if you hold a stock indefinitely the value you could get is unlimited with a short the value you could lose could be unlimited over a much shorter time frame.

[1] Whether you actually need to cover your shorts may be a matter of some debate if you look at the wild rumors around GME

It does apply in the EU and that's the point, if a US company can't engineer a legal or technical work around then they can't operate in the EU without breaking either US or EU laws.

If the US believes that it's in a strong enough position that these companies can remain competitive while ignoring either US or EU law (and dodging enforcement) then it's welcome to not make amendments to the CLOUD Act. Otherwise it can have US companies lose market share(or suffer EU enforcement actions) or employ diplomatic lines to neuter or work around the law.

You can of course note that the same issue will arise going the other way (EU company operating in the US) but the cost for the EU is obviously judged to be less than what's gained by protecting their citizens (or that it's at least a good drum to beat to trade for other considerations from the US).

In the same spirit it might be worth noting that 'earn about 20% of annual income" could also be considered a bit misleading 'receive about 20% of annual income" would be a less controversial term.

The way I avoid that (forced questions) is to enter no password during setup. Then add the password later in settings. This was also how you avoid setting up a pin in a previous version of windows.

This was for windows pro, I believe they are more pushy on online accounts in windows home.

Not sure when they'll inevitably change install again to try to force more issues.

I'll just point out: if you need 60 hours of income to survive you actually increase risk by having it split between several jobs. That is because having a portion of enough rent to not be evicted is equivalent to having not enough rent to not be evicted. You only need one of your jobs to collapse for you to only have a portion of your rent therefore the more jobs you have the more likely you are to have one fail and to be in that position.

In other words diversifying your income only decreases risk when you don't need all of it, you'd be hard pressed to argue that that group includes those earning minimum wage.