You're right, my mistake.
2,120 karma · joined June 5, 2012
The quotes in the title should be around "world's largest" only (since they're about the inability to fully know what's happening on the dark web)
That's the key move, it takes guts
That is not a fair framing. Labor is not the sole cause of profit. Imagine a company that spent billions to automate every process requiring only a single human to push a button every 10 minutes to produce its output. This company would be making "billions per employee", but it wouldn't make sense to pay that employee billions for that job.
It might be the ultimate endeavor. Right now we live in relative scarcity, so resource gathering dominate our culture. But imagine a thousand years from now when robots produce everything, and material is plenty. What do we do then? What's our purpose as a species? A good candidate is striving to maximise healthy and dignified earthly life across the universe.
> "Ms. Jones refused to come to the door for 20 minutes and hung-up on agents. After several attempts and verbal notifications that law enforcement officers were there to serve a legal search warrant, Ms. Jones eventually came to the door and allowed agents to enter,"
I doubt this is true. To me it is clear that their demeanor and behavior increases the liklihood of escalation and an incident.
> Uber is handing over its equity in ATG and investing $400 million into Aurora, which will give it a 26% stake in the combined company
Everyone always asks that in every language at every interview and it is rarely used in practice - ahhh interviews.
If it is useful then it won't be secure because it would be free to "hash". The mechanism has to be costly. Proof-of-work is in many ways proof-of-waste. If tomorrow we find out that hashing is profitable then everyone can start hashing and be able to attack the chain for free (subsidized by the usefulness). Only the hash power above the useful level can add security.
apple: invented modern computing
google: makes the internet
amazon: earth's store
facebook: like button
Additionally it seems like you could design proper super warnings that get adhered to. Do you know of any interesting examples of really severe/gated warnings that are consistently ignored? If you try to visit a website with a bad certificate, for example, it's almost impossible to get to it.
Ungoogling is a fine step but the whole thing needs to be rebuilt:
- Sharing Contacts: Should be illegal and removed as an option. Apps shouldn't be able to trick/coerce/incentivise people to harvest and sell other people's private information. When people give out their phone numbers and addresses they do it with some expectation of care, not with the intention of having it immedietly uploaded to Flappy Bird. The most that should be allowed is perhaps some sort of hash of contacts to be able to bootstrap some friend graph, but that's it.
- Sharing Files: There should be a single general default "file manager" app that acts as the intermediary between your files, and other apps, giving them only the files they need for the specific task at hand. Permission for the filemanagers themselves can be given with multiple ALL CAPS permission warnings not to do it.
- Camera/Mic/Location: Trusted intermediate app should capture and provide the data needed for the task at hand. At the absolute minimum, permissions should default to only recording while the app is open (like android location now). Persistent background recording should only be allowed after multiple ALL CAPS stern warnings and suggestion to reject unless absolutely necessary.
- SMS/etc: Have intermediate trusted apps select and share the specific messages you need to share for the task at hand.
In short, data access should be handled by few, trusted, vetted, intermediary apps, with heavily gated permissions for those apps themsevles; and sharing other people's private contact information should be illegal.
Are they able to change the bg in the browser?