thisiswater

While I can't speak to the case, I have anecdotally known PhD-level researchers who have cited "don't be evil" as part of their decisions to trust Google with potentially sensitive data. The phrase has clout.

This has been official policy. It seems like more than a motto at that point.

This is interesting, because my (more literary than scientific) understanding of ego development includes becoming aware of an 'inner tribe' or 'multiple voices' inside one's mind which simultaneously are and aren't the self, to differing degrees. Integrating these voices, allowing them to discuss with each other, et cetera has been a method which allows great insight into problems where reaching a solution was blocked by a limited perspective.

Accessing these voices is invaluable for writing fiction, perhaps the difference with a tulpa is the level of reality and influence ascribed to a single 'not-me' voice?

I also see the ability to have an internal Socratic dialogue as requiring a kind of ego-splitting, in a way that could be conceptualized as a tulpa asking (often surprising) questions.

Very abstract and hard to talk about stuff, I hope that makes sense.

Have you tried LTSC? It's a feature-stripped version of windows 10, which is far more user-friendly simply because it doesn't try to do much at all, while still providing security updates. I'm no expert and licensing is a bit complicated, but if you want a workable windows 10 environment I couldn't recommend it more highly.

While this is encouraging for further study, there are only 44 participants, the effects are mild (for the sample size), and it's very early research. Considering publication bias and that early results are often more significant than larger, later trials, I'd be surprised if there was actually any substance to this. More research will tell, but, like, this article is not compelling.

A private media company deciding which media it publishes and doesn't publish.

Can put it many ways.

It also sets up conditions by which people have no choice but to make a choice which is in their own interest, rather than having a political process built on vote suppression, non-participation and the kind of clientelism which arises when politicians are more concerned with energizing their own base than expanding their appeal.

Quoting political scientist Waleed Aly:

"In a compulsory election, it does not pay to energize your base to the exclusion of all other voters. Since elections cannot be determined by turnout, they are decided by swing voters and won in the center... That is one reason Australia’s version of the far right lacks anything like the power of its European or American counterparts. Australia has had some bad governments, but it hasn’t had any truly extreme ones and it isn’t nearly as vulnerable to demagogues"

I think your point about compulsory voting creating ripe conditions for more propaganda is not borne out by reality - the USA is just as flooded with fake news as Australia.

My interpretation of the article is that the court recognized the proceeds in terms of Swedish Kroner at the time that the BTC were seized, so was unable to account for the increasing value of BTC in terms of Kroner - they had not legally seized ~$1.7m, they had legally seized $137,000, and so had to pay back the difference.

From the article - "The lesson to be learned from this is to keep the value in bitcoin, that the profit from the crime should be 36 bitcoin, regardless of what value the bitcoin has at the time".

Enabled by a critical error, from the article:

"...the attackers made an unusual error in this case by failing to keep money moving. The $2.3 million that ultimately was recovered was still sitting in the same Bitcoin account it had been delivered to."

If that's the kind of negligence that enabled this recovery, I wouldn't put much stock in similar recoveries becoming commonplace.

To compare judges to kings in this case is so absurd as to barely be worth refuting. The court is working within within a legal framework, not wielding supreme executive power granted by divine right and inherited through a dynasty.

The consequences are pathetic. I'd speculate they wouldn't be going to the roughest of prisons either.

The content of the article is that researchers managed to get ads approved which targeted teens with cocktail recipes and gambling sites. They didn't actually run the ads due to ethical concerns

Seeing as what ads can be targeted at children is regulated in Australia, and the public health problems that Australia is trying to solve around drinking and gambling, doesn't that seem like a problem?

Psychopathic not to extract value for shareholders indeed.

It's true, there could definitely have been confounding factors and I wish there was a better record than their memories. I remain personally convinced due to knowing and trusting the involved parties, but agree that the anecdote doesn't (and shouldn't) carry much weight as objective evidence.

This seems like something which privacy researchers might be interested in, and wouldn't be too difficult to run - I wonder if anyone here can point us towards any more formal experiments that have been run on this?

Edit: The more I reflect, the more difficult the experiment seems to be. How does one recruit for an experiment, contact and instruct participants, etc., probably via surveilled email or messaging platforms, without creating data linking participants to one another?

They were camping so I think it's unlikely they got confused with an ad ID which was interested in nappies.

For the sake of good faith I think we should exclude "they broke the rules". Frankly, my friends aren't that stupid.

"One of the three deviated and searched for nappies online prior to the trip."

This is a hypothetical which was deliberately excluded when they decided to run the experiment. These are intelligent young people acting in good faith to test if they're being spied on. Why would they have googled nappies?

I'm sorry but I don't find that explanation convincing at all.

I would like to contribute an anecdote which turned me from a "google is listening" skeptic to someone who turns their phone off as often as possible, especially during any kind of sensitive conversation. I'm one degree removed from this anecdote, but I have no reason to doubt its truth.

A group of friends were on a road trip, driving for several days cross-country. These are university-aged young males, 20-23. None have any interest in starting a family any time soon.

At the beginning of the trip, they agreed (verbally) to test if google was listening by discussing "nappies" intermittently, loudly and jokingly. They would only discuss nappies in person - everyone agreed not to mention this on any digital channel whatsoever, not to look up nappies for any reason, etc. That is, they deliberately excluded nappies from their online lives.

They chose nappies specifically because they're completely irrelevant. None had ever to their knowledge been delivered an ad for nappies. None had ever purchased nappies or any baby product.

Sure enough, end of the trip - ads for nappies.

I would love an explanation more plausible than their phones were listening.

Yes, but the headline says it's a potato battery. It's not. It's a battery with a potato in it.

Article is complete faff. The potato is not the battery, it is not an energy source, and the article says nothing about the economics of the two plates which are the actual energy source. Don't waste your time.

My intuition also.

I can practically date my old passwords (for unimportant things) by this, and/or how many times I forgot it and had to set a new, unique password.

As the author puts it: "It makes me less certain that this isn't the Extend in Embrace, Extend, Extinguish."

Nonsense.

Anecdotally: I've had multiple discussions with employed, unburdened men and women (particularly women) in their mid 20s who have decided not to have children for one reason: Climate change.

The planet is collapsing. Our children are likely to die of hunger, disease, or warfare as things become more destabilized over the next 50 years.

We don't believe their lives will be better than ours, and we don't want to further deplete humanity's scant resources.

From this perspective, having children is selfish.

Tangent: Is there anything on bitchute that isn't right-wing or conspiracy theory? I've just pulled it up for the first time and by the front-page videos it's an alt-right cesspool. I'll use the alternative if it's viable, but this content isn't.

I find the public vs private debate unfolding here extremely interesting, but I have no idea about it. What are your sources? Where can I learn more about the contribution of the private sector to healthcare, the returns on their investments, and how insurance companies affect that equation?