playeren

I like free stuff too, but I like ad-free experiences even more. I feel I have to support an imperfect alternative, rather than let everything become ad financed. That said, I am unwilling - and frankly unable - to subscribe to every media that occasionally posts quality content. So, for soft paywalls I occasionally use outline.com, and hard paywalls I just ignore.

Maybe there is a business in creating groupbuys for subs. A humblebundle for subscribtion media.

Don't use biometrics for anything but convenience type features. You can't change your fingerprint if bad actors gets a hold of it.

Not exactly gait, but this helps you identify individuals based on movement patterns: https://gitlab.com/polavieja_lab/idtrackerai

Sources used in the slides: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fG-K0MwoQ4y0p_9bpMsF...

Knowing the address of three strangers isn't very valuable, and thus less likely to be abused. Knowing the address of millions of people can be very valuable, and thus very likely to be abused.

In cases like this the issue lies not in the specific datatypes, but the aggregation thereof.

> The company official said the language used and sentiments expressed in these communications "are inconsistent with Boeing values, and the company is taking appropriate action in response."

Do you think this means:

a) Change the environment that fosters those kinds of messages?

-or-

b) Punish those who wrote those messages?

> Biometrics are relatively convenient and very safe when they're used in place (not remotely) with a human agent overseeing.

In your estimate, how large a percentage of biometric security implementations follow your description?

Sure, I'm all for a key based solution. My opposition is against using biometrics for anything beyond convenience features.

That's even worse. Impossible to change fingerprints if a malicious party has your biometrics.

Not the author :)

From article:

  We have demonstrated a protocol for a perfect secrecy cryptography that uses CMOS-compatible fingerprint silicon chips, which transmit information on a public classical optical network. The system’s security is evaluated following the Kerckhoff principle. The second law of thermodynamics and the exponential sensitivity of chaos prevents the attacker from getting any information on the key being exchanged by the users. The protocol proposed is fully compatible with the techniques of privacy amplification and information reconciliation already developed for QKD. Beyond the initial communication required for authenticating the users, the system does not require electronic databases, private keys, or confidential communications. Combined with the technological maturity, speed, and scalability of classic optical communications, the results show a open pathway towards implementing perfect secrecy cryptography at the global scale with contained costs.

You misunderstand. Off-time provides benefits that are almost impossible to achieve in even the best work environment.

* PTO is not about motivation - it's about quality of work output.

As a manager I do not accept that team members skip PTO. We're not paying for it to be nice, we expect ROI. Happy, healthy people are generally productive, highly cooperative and inventive.

> than sitting idly on a beach

Or spending time with family, learning a new skill, going on an adventure.

"Off-time" is not an adversary to great work life, productivity and innovation. Some would even claim the opposite was true.

The asymmetry in mortality risk might lead to different strategies used by human drivers vs ai.

I doubt it's the lack of adrenaline being the main driver for skirting away from "white collar" crime. More likely, the analytical and time consuming work required, and perpetrators who are much more likely to evade capture and/or sentencing, through usage of lawyers, accountants et al.

Also, the victims of wage theft are less likely to be "well connected" sponsors of political careers, while the victims of larceny are naturally more often business owners whom are more likely to have a "voice".

Same reason Monsanto sues farmers in India. Protecting IP.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-seeds-of-suicide-how-monsa...

The possibility of a secret police state scares me more than any bombs or shootings ever could. It is absolutely an existential threat to freedom, because as part of its nature, it is able to quell dissent, and largely control the flow of information "in the name of freedom".

Hypothetically, of course.

I would guess that people in general are fearful of reprecussions when the antagonists are 'better connected', 'higher ranked' or 'richer'. Often the scariest threats are those implied.

I struggle to understand what points you are making. Are you saying that since these people are making life difficult for themselves, there can be no external causes behind that behavior? It sounds a lot like "their own fault, not my problem" to be honest.

Assuming your limited interface is representative, and there in fact always are more usable beds available than homeless people (I doubt this, but only have anecdotal evidence to the contrary from working with homeless people) - how does that translate into 'homelessness is elective'? I've seen a multitude of reasons that destroy peoples lives, and makes them unable to be a productive, rent-paying, law-abiding citizen.

Also, bed availability aside - I've heard many who are scared of the available shelters, due to threats, drug dealing or harassment from other ill-fortuned inhabitants.

Maybe we just define 'elective' differently.

I urge anybody who is worried about homelessness in their area, to try and dig deeper into possible root-causes for wide-spread homelessness. Maybe each and every individual homeless person have made bad or even catastrophic decisions that led them to their calamity, but if that really is the case (just for arguments sake - my experience says otherwise for most cases), why are so many making these bad decisions? Let's treat systemic problems as such, and make sure that we don't only focus on relieving symptoms, and maybe we find homelessness to be a solvable problem.

> Homelessness in modern America is to a great degree elective

How did you determine that?

Live coded by Filippo Valsorda (Google) on https://www.twitch.tv/filosottile

> without downsides

Hmm. Might be true for you.

Slack enabled "De-silo'ing". It became more efficient and convenient to ask a team, or knowledge group of something, instead of depending on specific persons. Easier to be flexible about which topics to follow or not. I.e. normally I don't interact much with the #ops channel, but Bill is on holiday, so I'm giving it attention this week.

> Slack is a productivity killer

I think that notifications is a productivity killer in general - no matter the software behind it.

Most of the Slack channels I use are used async, and I only have notifications on for 2 out of ~15 channels. Good comms culture was much easier to develop with Slack + [Something for docs] for the teams I have worked with. But I very much understand that teams are different, and different cultures work optimally for different teams.

I generally agree with that opinion, but in this case I believe communication tool feature sets are not the right setting to enforce organisational culture. You would end up with a highly opinionated piece of software, which would imply that one size fits all, when it comes to org culture.

Slack et al. (and email for that matter), can be used in a myriad of different ways to suit different types of organisations, which I strongly believe is a good thing.

We probably do need software to help us all with org culture, but I don't think comms is the right place to implement that.

All these complaints about Slack, are strangely reminiscent of all the complaints about email pre-Slack; "re:re:re:re:re:", cc all the people, 200+ non-relevant emails per day etc etc.

I worry that people are trying fix org culture problems with communication software, which is unlikely to succeed.

Oh my god. I AM SATOSHI!?

I have read a bit about Le Roux over the years, and I got an impression of someone who always seeks the short term benefit (albeit often a quite sizeable benefit) over a long term benefit. Among droves of other crazy things, the guy was trying to set himself up as a warlord in Somalia, allegedly aiming to provide mercenary services to highest bidder. It's really hard for me to reconcile someone like that with the thoughtful debate SN dealt in. But that's mostly my biases talking, and less an objective analysis.

I find the authors choice of font to be sub-optimal.