This isn't paid for by the government in any way, so no, that's not a reasonable conclusion.
868 karma · joined May 14, 2013
I put $10 in the hole. If such a thing existed, I'd be willing to put a lot more toward any effort that would plausibly put Facebook out of business without an equally evil alternative arising.
I can't say the same for your apps, since I don't know you or your apps, but the average app I wouldn't install for free, because I know they would collect my data and use it against my interests.
It's not tech that says "move fast and break things", it's business. Business is the reason the Internet of Things is full of insecure products. Business is the reason for Web pages made unusable by popovers and ads and unnecessarily paginated articles. Business is the reason for keeping massive databases on users. Behind every problem in tech is an MBA trying to make a profit.
And that's the irony: tech people suffer for the problems business causes, but tech people don't profit from those problems. Sure, tech salaries are good, but those who determine those salaries unsurprisingly pay themselves more. We don't get the satisfaction from making a solid product and we don't get the profit from making a shitty product.
I think the key to being happy in tech is to break that cycle. Either builds things that make you joy (CRUD web apps bring no one joy), or build things that make you money (not salary money, but owner money). Don't settle for building someone else's dream and giving them the profits.
The way I see it, the title of an article should provide the key information. The title as is tells us nothing.
Cassandra is AP with opt-in CP. This is an explicit tradeoff. You're giving up the assumption (which enables error checking) that everything is CP in order to get AP performance. This tradeoff is one of the main use cases for which Cassandra exists.
The vast majority of the time, error checking is way more valuable than AP performance, so your approach to handling the error makes sense, but if that's your situation you shouldn't be using Cassandra. There are a wide variety of ACID-compliant relational databases that do what you want.
TL;DR: Using Cassandra and expecting CP error checking is like using a hammer and expecting screwdriver behavior.
Humans have driven cars for a century now and animal-driven vehicles for millennia before that. I have yet to find a single documented case of the trolley problem occurring in real life with a vehicle. This simply is a problem which does not exist.
However, fake news is a huge problem, especially as more and more people get their news from Facebook. Even if fake news wasn't THE factor this election, it was A factor, and it's not hard to imagine a future in which fake news determined the outcome of an election.
It's true that espousing nuanced opinions and making effective arguments are often at odds, but the fact is, reality is often nuanced. Glossing over that nuance to make your argument more effective is like searching where there's light. Sure, it's more persuasive, but if you are persuading toward an incorrect idea, what are you really accomplishing?
Of course as Asimov's Relativity of Wrong points out, not all wrongs are equal. It may be worthwhile to persuade someone of a not-very-wrong given limited resources. But this sort of compromise has problems of its own. A social justice movement that ignores the nuance of handling white men's needs is effective until it needs white men's cooperation but instead generates backlash (Trump). The devil is in the details.
However, taking literally any actual security measure is a better usage of your time. So sure, when you've audited your entire server carefully and are absolutely sure, then it will be useful to add a security through obscurity layer. That is to say, it will never be.
127.0.0.1 accesses local servers that might be running code which is typically in development and insecure. There's nothing confusing about this.
Okay, but from a user's perspective this is exactly what I would NOT want--it's unintuitive to me that going onto GitHub would give them access to my machine's hardware just because I have the app installed.
The program should serve the user, not GitHub or DropBox.
> Yes, you do need to be literate.
At some level, I suppose. But there's a lot of thought that occurs without words, and the conversion into words when I'm writing or speaking happens so late in the process that is indistinguishable from the act of writing or speaking.
> But if you are, and you think, what do you hear?
If I hear anything at all, it's more like music than words. But usually, what I see in my mind's eye is more relevant than what I hear.
It actually took me a very long time to figure out that when people say "internal monologue" they aren't speaking metaphorically. It's not something I've ever experienced.
> And what did you just write, if not your thoughts?
It's more of a description of the relevant parts of my thoughts than my actual thoughts. Words feel like a crappy copy of thoughts to me.
But this isn't a sustainable business, it's basically an unintentional pyramid scam. Businesses need to make a profit in order for people to receive a return on investment, and Twitter has never, not once, ever made a profit.
> Not everyone has a gigabit internet connection--large portions of the world are still operating on 2G wireless, or even dialup.
Sure, the majority of people have moved over to 3G or better worldwide, but there are still many areas where 2G is more common. We just did a deployment in India[1] which still has more 2G coverage than 3G. Performance on 2G connections was a requirement from our Indian business partners.
It's also worth noting that your link contains an implicit bias: it's measuring connections, not people. People with slower connections sometimes simply won't connect at all if your site doesn't perform on their connection, so this is always going to skew toward faster connections. Your link is also pretty vague on the actual statistics--given their claim that the vast majority of countries have > 3G availability 75% of the time, 25% of the majority of countries could not have > 3G availability, and if the vast minority country is India, that's hundreds of millions of people.
Yes, the majority of the world is on 3G or better, but the minority can still contain millions and millions of people.
[1] http://www.sensorly.com/map/2G-3G/IN/India/Vodafone/gsm_4040...
There are a wide variety of options. One which has historically worked well in Europe is to provide an area of shipping containers converted into simple homes with a shower, toilet, cot, and padlock on the door.
> "Homeless" is a euphemism, more of a metonym for a cluster of issues that form an identifiable other.
No, "homeless" is not a fucking euphemism. It means "without a home", just like "jobless" means "without a job" and "hopeless" means "without hope" and "grasp-on-reality-less" means "without a grasp on reality".
> Rich people need permits, licenses, planning permission, and community consent to build homes. Tent dwellers, not so much.
These permits, licenses, planning permission, and are community consent are necessary to prevent people with a wide variety of options from making decisions that harm other people.
Tent dwellers arguably cause harm to others by being there, but they don't have other options. The voluntarily homeless are few and far between.
The two kinds of laws are incomparable: one seeks to limit the harm done by people with too much power, while the other tries to write out of existence the only option a group of people have.
> In fact, if the resolution doesn't pass to prevent people from camping in the street, what's to stop anyone from setting up pre-fab luxury sidewalk camps like those at burning man.
When this becomes a problem let me know. Meanwhile, maybe we can talk about current real problems that exist, like the people who we are literally forcing to rot to death in our streets.
Of course that's the compassionate solution, but compassion holds little weight in the libertarian idealist sociopathy of Silicon Valley. But even from a cost perspective housing is the only solution.
You can make homelessness illegal, but then you're just housing the homeless in prisons. If you're going to house people anyway, there are cheaper ways to do it than with a prison.
You can bus the homeless somewhere else, but there's a long history of other places bussing people back to SF. Given the homeless want to be in SF because of climate, opportunities, etc., the average is that they're more likely to end up there.
Unless there's something else I haven't thought of, that really only leaves housing.
Existing programs are intended to get people into a position where they can obtain housing, but these de facto don't work very well, because they attempt to get them other things before housing. Housing before a job works better than a job before housing. Housing before addiction treatment works better than addiction treatment before housing. None of the existing solutions are sustainable as long as the person isn't housed. It's unrealistic to expect someone to hold down a job or kick their addiction while living on the streets. Without housing, no auxiliary solution is sustainable.
So not only is the only solution to homelessness housing, but it's housing first.
1. Add government regulation that makes exclusive licensing of content to streaming services illegal. This feels heavy-handed to me. Streaming entertainment just isn't important enough to warrant the attention of government.
2. Companies self-regulate: this would be cool, but it's not gonna happen without some serious outside intervention.
3. Removal of copyrighting that allows companies to enforce their licenses. This is arguably bad for content producers, but in practice content producers aren't receiving the bulk of the profits--labels and studios are.
4. Go back to an ownership rather than a rent model of content distribution. DRM essentially breaks this, however, and again it's unlikely that content distributors will stop using this.
I favor 4, but at a personal level, 3 is the only one really available to me, de-facto.
The modern military recognizes the need for PR. Abu Ghraib was mostly still pictures because it was mostly leaks--press was allowed nowhere near the place. Contrast this with videos of Hussein's statue being pulled down or the "Mission Accomplished" press conference
If you cherry-pick specific instances, sure, there was negative coverage of the Iraq War, but the big picture of Iraq War coverage versus Viet Nam War coverage is very different.