gyaniv

I don't think proper research can be done based on answers from only 4 interviewees. I think I know some people who belong to this group (although it's hard to tell seeing as I don't point blank ask them), and while they do fly quite often, they basically never fly private, which would instantly cut the amount of emissions mentioned in the article.

In addition, carbon taxes, and environmental taxes will specifically target this group as their main source of carbon emission, is transportation.

I don't think the 'space race' notion can really apply here, since at least in some of the plans for their mission, they planned on doing it in a joint effort with several other space agencies (including the Russian).

I agree that it really does seem like at least the official objective of the current administration (mostly the white house) only care about showing the world/the country/someone else that they're the best, that they have done everything, etc, etc, etc. Just like I think it's clear why they wanted to land on the moon specifically until 2024.

I would like to believe that at least for (most of) the people actually working in NASA, they view their work in a more focused way (science, global cooperation and improvements), and it can be seen by the projects that for example are currently being researched by the NASA astronauts in the ISS.

The problem is that since there's always a switch between Republican and Democrats, each president has a different perspective on the overall NASA mission (plus each one wants to leave a big mark), so they keep changing.

I think what the people actually working there try to do (as it can be seen here) is find a way to fit what they have already done, with what the new mission statement is, so that they won't have to scrap everything they have done, only the limited amount. That's good is some senses (less wasted work), but the result is then usually not the most fitting solution.

Yes, Google isn't untrustworthy and doesn't care about the users privacy, we knew that, but the general public that isn't as aware (at this point it's hard to be completely unaware) also doesn't read this private company blog, so it doesn't really help much (except advertise the company).

We should be thinking of ways to improve the situation for everyone (not saying I have the solution), but personally (and unfortunately) I don't think this would have any impact.

You seem to forget that a lot of the refugees are coming from the sea (by boat), so that adds those that border with the Mediterranean, including Greece, Italy, and oh yeah, France.

I have to say I'm not I would call someone that creates something that doesn't work (and will never work) and inventor.

If I just jump from a building and throw a bottle on the way down, saying that the bottle will 'throw me back up because physics', and then I die (obviously), I'm not an inventor, I'm just an idiot.

I think the fact that it isn't cheap shouldn't be that much of an issue (although I know it currently is) because the price we (not even our children) will pay because of climate change would be much higher (in pure economic costs, before we start talking about more moral and environmental costs like animal extinction).

But I think the problem is that people care about today a lot more then they care about tomorrow, or next year (and definitely more then their potential future descendants).

Actually some places are already working in those solutions as well, like basically painting roads white, and it has been proved that in those areas it's not as hot in the summer so there is less power consumption for AC. (see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/los-angeles-is-painting-some-of...)

However, that is still very expansive, and you need to paint a lot of surface areas (counting those that you can even paint) for it to make a significant difference (in world-wide terms).

I don't see the problem with that, because it would require me to convince you to vote for Y although you want X.

And in addition, seeing as this is an anonymous (I'm assuming) vote, then I could lie to you and vote my way (to get more votes for Y), but then if everyone will do it, the colluding wouldn't work, so we need to be able to trust each other and work together, which is exactly what we in the end, for people to work together and not against each other.

I have had so many discussions with people about finding better ways to vote and hold elections.

It's nice to hear when there's a new approach that is actually being used, even if it was only in a small community, although I would be interested in seeing something like this used in large scales elections.

> This is why I'm ashamed to be an American.

Then don't be. No one is forcing you. Just leave.

Yes, terrible things were done in the founding of America, but terrible things happened all over the world throughout history (including between warring native tribes). But what we need to take from this isn't that our ancestors were horrible human beings, but that they did wrong things and more importantly, we need to strive to learn from it, not repeat their mistakes and generally be better people.

> the current property "owners" are criminal trespassers in my view.

Then pretty much every single American is a trespassers because basically the entire United States (or North America in general) was settled by native American before the Europeans "discovered" it, and in most cases, they didn't sell them their land.

That's the mentioned exercise.

Whenever they want to actually damage a company they just don't fine them. They pass a new bill, create new regulations, or take action against individuals in the company in order to "send a message" without hurting the business as a whole, to avoid scaring off other companies. which is exactly what a serious fine would do, as it should, and as everyone (but the investors) want.

I think the whole sector of meat-substitutions would be very successful, can't speak about this specific IPO, because of the state of the entire market right now.

But if many big companies, highly invested in meat are investing in substitutes as well, they are not doing it from moral/humane/environmental reasons, they are just doing it for the money, so for those that are dedicated to this, it seems promising (if they can just survive the punches that "big meat" will send their way)

I sort of feel that if the worst thing you can find is that someone stole your registration or OAuth documentation, you're a bit over-exaggerating.

And to say that someone is cloning your startup when they only (supposedly) stole the documentation is extreme in any case, especially when they're not really a very new startup, so it's not like you can claim everything they did was just copy from you.

> I don't have any data to back it up but majority of Israeli startups have one goal: to be acquired...

As someone that worked for one, and knows enough people that work in other Israeli startups, I can tell you it isn't true.

True, some startups get acquired, but no more then any other place (the only difference I see is that in some tech areas Israeli talent is considered very good, so when looking for an acquisition, big corps are probably more likely to go for the Israeli options)

What does is mean in "indigenous people"? where did the other Japanese people come from?

I think they should definitely be considered a minority, while still continuing with the actions mentioned in the article, like recognizing their culture and trying to help them after suffering discrimination.

But I always find the term "Indigenous" weird, because we all came from somewhere, so will American from Italian descent be considered "Indigenous" (just to Italy and not America)? I feel like that word is always used to describe non western culture, things and customs that are considered "less advanced", less modern, that we need to preserve, when in reality I think it's just another culture that we need to respect and except, and that by calling that group of cultures "Indigenous" there is some racism involved (by all participants)

Can't someone file a class action lawsuit against Facebook?

I mean, it's nice that they are deleting the information now, but they clearly did something wrong, and by basic standards, they should be punished. And the deleting the stolen information isn't punishment, and since they probably won't delete any new ad targeting information they gathered as a conclusion from the contacts, they are still profiting from it, so the punishment should be more then just a small fine (that I hope they get).

I'm just sick of them (and other companies) "accidentally" doing something wrong, and barely get a slap on the wrist.

I would actually think the smaller ones would detect the issue faster, simply because they would see ad clicks and recognize no new business, as opposed to bigger ones, that this would be an insignificant change they wouldn't notice.

In addition, I don't see the companies paying for ads getting hurt the most, in the end, if they would recognize that these types of ads are inefficient, they just wouldn't use it as much (they would use other outlets) or lower how much the value (and pay) for it. Which would help me (by getting rid of something I dislike), and at the same time hurt those that maintain and support that part of the business in the adtech world (another plus for me).

I'm not entirely sure I have that much of a problem with ad fraud, doesn't it only hurt the ad companies and companies like google (which I have a problem with anyway), by basically scamming them into believing that I interacted so that company should be compensated.

I do object to collecting and sending my personal information, but I feel they just mixed it, as that probably relates to more then just these Chinese apps.

And I really don't like the fact that it seems that Google only cares about abusing the users, and breaches of trust and privacy when it hurts the advertisers (and themselves), and not when the normal user gets hurt.

Not surprising though, but still annoying.

Yes, if you look hard enough, you can find anything. But I think the idea is to make it so that the bad things don't just continue to float around where people not looking for it might see it.

Just like terrorist content (how to make bombs/attack infidels and such) still exists, and those looking for it would probably find it, but the governments are trying to make it so that innocent people that have no inclination to perform horrible acts don't run into it by "chance". And just like they did to Muslim extremists and violent ideas in that front, they are now trying to do in other areas.

The (original articles) title is a bit misleading. They only verified the importance of a specific protein and then found compounds that for mice helped the boost protein production in mice, they still need a lot more research to find something that would help human skin look youthful.

> More false positives wouldn't be a problem if CIA or NSA could predict even ONE significant international uprising before it happens.

Just because it's not in the headlines doesn't mean they didn't do anything. It's just that if the successfully stopped a terrorist attack for example, you wouldn't hear about it, both because it's no longer big news (nothing happened), and because those agencies would want to prevent the lose of assets as much as they can, so they wouldn't publish the information either.

I think the CIA and NSA have probably done a lot for the safety of America and US citizens (especially in times of peace). However (based on no evidence, just a hunch) I think that most of those cases, they just needed the basic tools already in their disposal (like monitoring suspects based on actual evidence and following a court order approval), and that the extreme means they use don't have a big impact when it comes to the security of lives (US or global).

They were former members in those organizations, like army vets, and as far as I understand they face a lot of criticism from the Israeli public, if not the government.

I think they are basically like those vets that go and work security for private contractors, and some of them end up working for some really bad people.

About the backdoors, I can't tell, on the one hand, I would assume you're correct, that they do provide access to the Mossad+friends, but on the other hand, if it was discovered, they would lose credibility, and all those basically bad people wouldn't work with them, and any normal entity probably aren't working with them already, so they would lose their entire business.

They are only the tool, but they are also almost completely under our (judicial systems) control, as opposed to the foreign power (that is just trying to maintain it's control).

Just like if someone spies for a foreign country, then while that country might be acting in an unfriendly way, and we should be wary of them in the future. Their agent is a traitor, and should be handled as such.

I have to say I'm happy for this, I don't see much bad that can come of this, and I also agree that a lot of his suggestions are correct.

But I also agree that because of how powerful Facebook is, they can just do many of those things without fear of losing business to competition (like adopting the GDPR worldwide, or just not fighting certain governments when they do press them for privacy issues).

I think for him to blame the governments is a bit (or a lot) an escape from responsibility.

It was rather obvious even back then (or at least when Bezos first published his piece) that it was the Saudis that hacked his phone, I'm not entirely sure the significant of this message by De Becker.

Furthermore, at least the way I see it, the more important party at fault here is AMI. I mean we can't really be surprised that a dictatorship is using their powers against powerful and influential people (especially those that have publicly opposed and blamed them of crimes). But we should be outraged when an American corporation cooperates with them, and we should do what we can to stop and punish them, both the Saudis (in whatever way we can), and more easily, the entire AMI group, it's executives and everyone involved.

>The US never EVER helped Saudi to spy on a journalist...

Israel didn't help them either, it just didn't stop an Israeli company from selling certain products to the Saudis. Do you think the US is stopping all companies from doing business with the Saudis, or even just stopping them from selling tools that can be used by the regime against the public?

because they aren't, they are however supposedly doing that with Iran and to a certain extent, with Russia, so it's not like it's something they can't do, it's just that they choose not to.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are.

I think Facebooks reach is just to big to actually force it to become good. Sure, you might make it change certain practices, but at the end of the day, they would still find 'problematic' ways to develop their business.

Other, similar companies as well (did someone say Google?)

> Whose side is Facebook on? The side of advertisers? It cannot be the side of users, at least not ones in Belgium. They cannot claim they are "neutral".

Facebook is on not on the side of the "users" (or what you would describe as it's users). If you look at Facebooks business model the ones actually paying them for a product are the advertisers, which is why FB is on their side.

'if you're not paying for the product, you are the product' - which means we are the product that Facebook is selling, or more precisely, our data.

Of course, I'm sure if Facebook is asked directly, they wouldn't admit and find a way to say they care about the people, and all that. But from the business side (and probably the investors side), Facebook shoudn't and doesn't care about privacy or other concerns of it's users (the citizen).