gyaniv

> "But obviously we’ll take a look at it if that’s the case.”

Take a look and what? If the app does do what everyone says it does (including the Saudis) will Apple remove the app?

I don't think the neutrality argument works here. Because by having this app Google and Apple are clearly siding with the Saudi government.

The neutral thing to do was not to allow this app, but to also not allow an app that for example, helps women get out of Saudi Arabia.

This app helps clearly helps the Saudi government, and the men that choose to oppress their women (not all of them do), control the Saudi women. It makes this task easier and so helping it (by giving it a place and spreading it in your app store) isn't neutral.

It's great to know that even failed technological attempts, can still result in scientific discovery (even if in this case, the discovery was that Einstein is still correct).

It's just a list of previous cases of money laundering and the fines to the entities (mostly banks) involved.

Would be nice if for example they mentioned the overall impact of the illegal transactions on the entire systems, or maybe changes or actions that those banks made (other then paying fines).

Basically, I feel like this misses either (or both) the overall, total impact of 'dirty money', the global scale of it, it's effect, etc. (because only the bigger cases that were caught were mentioned, it's interesting to see how big the phenomenal). And also I would like to understand what is being done to stop or prevent other and future instances.

I agree that they were probably mistaken in 'market share' when in reality it should have been market penetration. But I think they idea was to say that Facebook has data or can get data relating to 80 percent of the population, so they believe that's a good enough reason to make sure Facebook doesn't use that opportunity do to harm.

Because once they have such a high penetration rate, people would be very hesitant and afraid to leave the service if the T&C are too overreaching.

Your friend might not be poorer for it, but the chances of you (assuming that you do have an account) of rejecting a new addition to the existing Facebook T&C (and as a result quitting from Facebook) is very slim, especially since there isn't a resembling service that you might transfer to (at least not a strong service).

The did. and the result showed that their employment chances were 'no more likely to do so than a control group of people who weren't given the money.'

What they didn't do (although some wanted them to), is also check the system on already employed people and checked if that changed their likelihood of staying in a bad job/finding a better job or anything like that.

Because that's the real idea behind basic income. not just giving it to the unemployed, but to everyone, with the hope that it would encourage people to find jobs better suited to them, and to allow people to take bigger risks.

Very interesting piece on the significance and impact of science to future and present science fiction writers and creators.

There's a chance I'm mostly just being hopeful, and you're right in both that Trump would totally support doing something like that, and that the intelligence agencies aren't a single entity.

>>For me it checks out - leaking informations sounds like something that Trump or his supporters would do. Why would not they, if they have the option to? Per the intelligence agencies - are you sure that they are a single entity, where people are of uniform opinion? And every single person follows law to the letter of it? There is the example that those services employed Snowden - if the services were so organised as to avoid such hacks, we would not have heard of Snowden.

But from my experience in other government entities, I believe that doing something like hacking into someone's phone, would require approval and support from high enough officials in those organizations, and so far it seems that these organization do still seem to remain professional and not involved in political actions by the president.

I agree that there might be (and I'm assuming there are) private Trump supporters in those agencies, that for example, would do 'a Snowden' and release classified and private information that they shouldn't. But that information first needs to gathered, and I don't think Jeff Bezos has done something to warrant previous gathering of information about him. (If information about Trump for example is released this way, it would seem more likely to me, because we know they collected that information while thinking he might be a spy).

But once again, I hope I'm not just being hopefully optimistic in my trust of 'the system'.

In what way is this better then other similar apps, such as Signal, which is already an open source messaging app?

I really doubt that it was done by a US government entity. Trump is the president and all, but to hack and release (by a third party) the personal information if a citizen (not suspected or related to any crime) seems to me to be something that even Trump or his supporters can't do, the intelligence agencies just wouldn't do it in my opinion.

The Saudis seem like a much more likely party to do it in my opinion, mostly because we know they are willing to do a lot worse against people they oppose (or who oppose them).

That being said, I also think that playing the "A government hacked my phone" is a much better play on behalf of Bezos then claiming it was done by someone accessing his or Sanchezs phone (for example her brother who is supposedly a Trump supporter, like the link in the end suggests).

There was never any real democracy there. It just changed from dictatorship to dictatorship to dictatorship.

What does the "in good faith" mean?

Of course if as a hobby I want to use their patent to help me build/improve my electric car, then now they won't sue me. But the question is, what if I'm Tesla's competitor, or if I want to be, will they allow me to use their patent when I'm trying to compete with them, and "steal their business"? Because no one will use their patent if they might sue them after for "using their patent against them", but on the other hand, is using their invention against them "good faith"?

Is there no proper and legal way to share their invention that indicates exactly what can and can't be done(something like an open source license)?

Definitely agree.

I know good people working for Facebook, but it does make me think "After everything you know about Facebook, the fact you would still work there, makes me respect you a lot less"

I agree. I also think that we need a lot more regulations, because the problem isn't only Facebook, there are so many companies that hold/collect/sell our information, and that's the bigger problem in my opinion, Facebook is just the biggest one so we hear about it the most.

Just because you don't use Facebook doesn't mean that some other company isn't doing the same thing with your data, you just probably haven't heard of it.

I think you're mixing sacrifice with eating/consuming.

In most cases of human sacrifice, it was done for religious reasons, and the meat wan't eaten (or if it was then in small quantities, like eating the hearts as you mentioned). even back then, the consumption of human body parts wasn't considered healthy or nourishing, it was done only to appease the gods/give us their favor/make us stronger/etc.

I think that thoughts and stories of eating people, and especially kids that is pretty common in many societies and myths, comes as a warning or as something to fear, both because human sacrifice was common enough at a certain point, but also because it helped to easily scar people (whether the parents or the children themselves).

I think that one of the problems with eating dead humans, even recently dead people, is that those are even worst "parts" then the livings parts. What I mean is the even in the conventional meat eating industry they usually don't eat meat from animals that died naturally (and i'm assuming you're not talking about mass murder), and the reason for that is that the animal (or in our case, the human), died for a certain reason, more likely then not, from health reasons, so the chance of the meat containing disease, sickness, or even just being super weak is a lot higher then when they take a supposedly healthy animal, kill it, and harvest it.

But then the rich would just choose to use their money in a way that only benefits them, while in reality, it might be better for the entire economy if for example more of the money goes to the unemployed.

Another issue that I see is that many people are very uninformed (or wrong) and if we let them choose directly where the money goes, it might be wasted. In the current system the way it should work (in my opinion) is that people vote based on the issues and values important to them and their elected then move the money based on researching and better understanding how to do it best (since that's the elected officials job, and they have time for that, unlike some of the population).

To find new clients I think that by introducing yourselves and your product to those "brick and mortar non profits" you said turned people away, you should be able to convince them to send your way some of the people that they can't handle.

But I have to say that the idea you had about the money source sounds a bit strange to me. Your whole idea is helping people that don't have any money, so it just seems weird that you would then ask for or even want their money, because that somewhat defies the point of helping them save money (I'm sure that you probably take only small amounts, but still...). I think that working from outside donations and federal grants just makes more sense. Or maybe even excepting some money from some of the people you help after a while if they manage to get back on their feet.

What about Signal? has e2e encryption, group messaging and is practically completely open source.

I personally really want to quit all the Facebook apps (because of the reasons mentioned), but I just feel that there is too much communication I need in it's messaging apps to leave (family, friends, work chats) that leaving them would be problematic.

What I really want is a messaging app that can still receive and communicate messages from the "bad" apps, but by default uses its better way, so that as people migrate to it, you can communicate with them using the app, but still be able to receive (and send) messages using for example WhatsApp for people that haven't changed apps yet.

Pretty interesting. I haven't worked in Google, but from my experience in a startup, I totally agree at least with some of your points (my experience wasn't that great, so perhaps the other points were what was missing)