141 karma · joined June 26, 2015
Your sympathies for the physically challenged, however, are in the right place and I share them
PS: I'm not rich by any definition, just so you know that I'm not just advocating for my own "group"
Then I later realized that this was a chapter from a book. Whew! the tale has got my heart pumping. This is some amazing narration of an amazing incident
Websites can automatically redirect to HTTPS if the client connects on http, but many websites don't redirect
I wonder what Jeff's doing tonight :D
This might get way to dark way too fast :)
There was a person on the docker team, who had dockerized every other applications like chrome, firefox, ALSA sound server, and more. But even she found it hard to sandbox everything.
I'm using docker as a leading sandboxing tech. Do you mean something else when you mean sandbox?
If you have so much money (spit balling here), you could buy google itself I think
There are easier ways to get data on people like their social profiles, and other online breadcrumbs like yelp reviews, any digital footprint really.
Another way is to buy databases of people. People have databases of HNIs, etc that you can purchase. This of course doesn't lend itself to much analysis but if the main purpose was to market to them or something like that, then databases work best :)
PS: It's not so much the images themselves but what they mean i.e. this analysis :)
As I understand random strangers are logged on to tor and invoke each others' callbacks and give back results. Since all of them are anonymized, This is not at all similar to an exit node.
The only purpose of this is to make tor packet traffic patterns hard to follow :)
This could be a service, but not sure if this can be filtered out by the snooper. These will be one off requests from random nodes and will not affect your tor traffic pattern much because I posit the signal to noise ratio of your main activity will be pretty high. Hmm, :thinking: perhaps if we jack up this random traffic, would that hide your main traffic maybe.
Anyone who knows such analyses want to chime in? :)
I think, here, we might looking at it with the wrong lens. I'm unable to find the right words to say this. Let me say this statement feels ungrateful. Web is the largest and fastest growing ecosystem of software we've right now (refer: community size, number of projects on github, say, in Javascipt, CSS, and other web technologies).
You're comparing what is what should've been. By that measure, any human activity will fall short of not only yours but anybody's expectations.
You'd think that getting sane layout control is easy, but apparently it's not. Getting a lot of humans to agree on a fast growing technology is hard (it seems like).
PS: I'm not saying "nothing could've been better, be happy with what you have", not at all. I'm just saying this seems like complaining and a better approach is to try and make it better
I needn't have written up a long tirade for such a simple statement. I see that this is the same sentiment that's espoused by several others in this thread, and thought I'd try and provide a different perspective to look at this with
edit: formatting
All this central planning is annoying me a lot these days
Thanks for pointing this out though
Everybody is not there, even on Facebook, there is no such social network yet.
> and which makes Facebook fear the loss of it's users.
Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat. Facebook has paid premium prices for the former two and gave a pretty high offer for snapchat. They wouldn't do that if they're concerned ( of course, neither you nor I can confirm their emotional state, but we can derive useful conclusions from their actions)
> For example, give us at least one example of a service that would directly cause Facebook to think twice before making it's app constantly harass me to update my page, minimising the videos I am trying to close, and automatically sending me push notifications for someone starting a live video?
Have you stopped using facebook? Then why should they care? They will care IMO, but the point is by continuing to use facebook, you've shown that you weigh the benefits of facebook to be more than the costs/annoyances. So, you're happy enough as far as they're concerned, they might try and make you happier but that's left to them :)
Edit: Whoops! I hit submit before completing my last sentence
In any voluntary transaction, both parties gain out of it. People who are not parties to that transaction have no business in it.
> 1) Yes, it's voluntary, but the interests of the consumers aren't necessarily taken into account. Only the shareholders of the companies being bought stand to gain from the transactions
Yes of course, because they are trading their private property. When you buy vegetables from the supermarket, can someone complain that you're not taking into consideration other people's interests, namely there's less food for everyone else. And also that only you and the supermarket stand to gain out of the transaction. This is an reductio ad absurdum of your statement
> 2) Google/Fb gives these companies an offer at a moment when it still makes sense to buy them (i.e. when they can both win from the acquisition). If the company being bought decides to decline, Google or FB or whatever monolith has ways of destroying them: - By buying their competitor instead of them, and heavily investing in them - By just building the feature themselves, and potentially fighting a very expensive legal battle
Okay, I see your logical problem, you want good to be done in one instance, but you IMHO fail to see the consequences if you logically apply that concept to its conclusion.
Again, voluntary transaction. If the startup refuses, it's voluntary. If FB or Google goes and invests elsewhere it's their money, their business. Who are we to tell them what to do with their money. Would you be okay if they told what to do with money you've earned? All things you've mentioned are coercive i.e. they are all based on things people have agreed on in written documents. Concretely, if they (Google/FB) buy a competitor, it's their money, their business. If they build the feature themselves, their money, they don't owe this startup their money, they refused when offered anyway. If they fight a legal battle, it's still legitimate because both parties (Google/FB and startup) have all agreed to work with local laws (US or otherwise).
What has the majority done to build a company that they can take it away? If you say they've made transactions or buy buying the stuff the company makes, then I'd say they got their money's worth and that's it. There was no surplus. Additional rights were not part of that deal. So that can't be an objection.
Let's unpack this. As an example, I'm working at this company. I do no harm to others, neither does the company, but the society has the right to take this away because majority says so (for whatever reason)? So if you can take away somebody's job and their property, the company, because a majority says so, I don't see how that's ethical.
And you're back on square one. Instead I suggest vote with your dollar, choose a different service that better suits your needs than making more govt regulations (and infringing on everyone's rights)
If people cared about privacy that much, they should use some other network. People weigh the trade-offs of benefits vs costs and still choose to use FB and Google.
2) Besides, govt bureaucrats don't have the ability now (IMHO) to think rationally and get to the best decision
3) Govt has no business to get in the way of voluntary transactions between two adults
Why do you get a say on what their preferences are?
I think the socialist vs democracy revolution which happened last century is happening with libertarian vs democratic ideas now. You will not see it until it hits it's peak but it's well underway.