1,659 karma · joined July 18, 2019
For the sake of discussion, would you feel the same way if the CEOs of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast woke up tomorrow and decided they want to unilaterally block all of their customers from accessing any news sites they deem to be against their political leanings (just for the sake of discussion, let's say they block all access to MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo, and the like).
If that happened, it would effectively cut off most Americans from being able to access news unless it agreed with those CEOs' political agenda. Would we all still be saying "well it's totally fine because AT&T et al are private companies"?
It seems obvious to me that sometimes companies become so large and have so much influence that they should not be allowed to just ban/block whoever they want, even if they are private. I'm not sure if AWS in particular is at that point, but the App Store and Google Play Store certainly feel close.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think this "they're private so they have no obligations to serve you" is valid at the scale of the companies in question.
But if your point is that government officials should be held to a higher standard than random, non-official peoples, I agree... which is why it seems like an arbitrary wrong to me that the official leaders of the Taliban are still able to post videos calling for the death of nonbelievers.
If, rather, your point is that we don't care about the Taliban because the ongoing deaths of thousands of people in Afghanistan is something that our society cares less about than the death of a handful of Americans... well, I suppose you're right, but I'm not sure how I feel about agreeing with that.
This is the official spokesman of the Taliban posting a propaganda video of a militant bragging about waging jihad.
https://twitter.com/Zabehulah_M33/status/1343458261459218432
This is another video (and also see part2 of the tweet, which is posted as a reply to this one) where militants holding guns talk about their plan to kill the government leaders of Afghanistan.
It's clear that the "line" we're talking about is arbitrarily set for different groups based on some unknown criteria, and that IMO is part of the problem.
Has anyone read and have a review of the book? I'm curious to hear other's thoughts on if its worth picking up.
When using Apple Pay, Apple obviously stores your payment methods and for some cards, the Wallet app stores your transaction history. However, the Apple privacy policy for Apple Pay says they only use anonymized transaction history for their analytics.
But there is also Apple Cash. Apple Cash's privacy policy says that they do collect non-anonymized information on your transactions (and communication history from messages, email, and calls!), but they promise to only use it if they deem it necessary [1]. Take that as you will.
>To assist Apple Payments Inc. in preventing fraud when you are using Apple Cash to send, request, and receive money, Apple Inc. may provide it with approximate use patterns from your device about how frequently you communicate with that person by phone, email, or in Messages. No content of your communication is collected. This information is stored for a limited time, and in such a way that it is not linked to you unless the transaction with which it is associated is determined to require further analysis due to suspicious activity.
Again, I do trust Apple more than I trust FB to only use it when necessary... but they are still collecting it.
It's a classic "lies, damn lies, and statistics" scenario. The graphic might be technically correct but it's misleading in a way to spread a specific message. It irks me that this image keeps being spread all over.
The thing people should actually care about isn't if iMessage stores/uses this information, but if the organization in control of iMessage stores/uses it. It's just like I don't really care if the WhatsApp app stores all this info, the actual problem is if Facebook (the company) uses it for some reason. WhatsApp (the app) just happens to be one of the avenues that this data is collected.
For iMessage, sure, maybe technically iMessage isn't collecting my payment information... but Apple still gets it via the Wallet app. Maybe iMessage isn't storing my location history, but Apple still is through the iPhone location history. Maybe iMessage isn't watching my app usage history, but Apple Screen Time sure is. This applies to all of the things listed as bad under the WhatsApp label.
Secondarily, the graphic is also misleading because the WhatsApp side of it becomes artificially larger since most of the items are listed twice. It immediately causes you to think "WhatsApp collects a lot more" due to the size of the box, but in reality the box could be collapsed to half the size. It just so happens that the way Apple chose to present this information makes it seem like WhatsApp collects twice the data.
Personally (perhaps naively) I do trust Apple with this information more than Facebook, but the graphic is still misleading by implying that it isn't being collected and used in some way.
gasp, there's that evil "business" word again
You can argue all you want about who shoulders more responsibility, but Muilenberg was an executive throughout the entire program, and more importantly, was the CEO who oversaw the decision for the certification of the MAX prior to first flight, which was the critically faulty decision.
I'm not surprised at all if this is the long term game plan. I'm curious though, what are the first three flywheels? AWS, retail sales, and what? Alexa/Kindle devices? Prime Video? Advertising? All of those seem like strong contenders but I'm not sure they really rival the AWS/retail arms (yet).
I could be totally wrong, but based on the past stories I've read about Amazon's negotiations with UPS and their growth of their own delivery network, I'd be surprised if they have much spare logistics capacity to open up to anyone outside the immediate Amazon ecosystem.
It's unclear if the planes mentioned in the OP are talking about Amazon actually outright purchasing planes (which would be a first) or if they are just leasing more.
edit: Actually the article does say this at the bottom:
>Amazon launched its own air cargo fleet in 2016 and, prior to Tuesday's news, the company leased 80 planes, but the move is the first time the company has bought their own
Click on the "Motivational Speaker" template here and compare them: https://www.wix.com/website/templates
The holy grail would be a pill or lotion you could take and truly stop/reverse hair loss. There are some existing pills (finasteride) and lotions (rogaine) but they don't work for many, and have their own issues as well.
> Apple requires companies lease hardware and software "in its entirety to an individual or organization," ensuring peak performance and a one customer to one machine setup. Lease periods must be 24 consecutive hours and customers need to review and accept licensing terms for all first- and third-party software.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/11/12/apple-outlines-de...
Yes, as the other commenter mentioned, hospitals do "take it seriously" in the sense that they put a lot of importance on passing HIPAA audits... but passing a HIPAA security audit is a checkbox exercise for security controls that are a decade+ outdated. It means absolutely nothing about an organization's actual security maturity.
This is why general guidance for years was to use wifi when you are actually using your phone for browsing the internet, taking advantage of wifi's lower power efficiency when in use, but to turn off wifi when your phone is just in your pocket/idle to take advantage of cell network's better idle power efficiency.
However, the above is really only true for urban/suburban areas where you have good signal. If you are in an area with poor signal, your phone will use a lot of battery power via the cell network even when "idle" (because in reality even though your phone is "idle", the cell radio isn't actually idle, it's constantly struggling in the background to maintain the connection through the poor signal).
You must be completely ignoring the multiple comments here, not to mention the comments in every preceding thread on HN, not to mention the comments on reddit about this game. Because that is what many are saying.
Ironically, this is the same situation as the bugs in the game: just because you're oblivious to the numerous people saying the game isn't buggy doesn't mean there aren't people saying the game isn't buggy.
>It just sounds like you want to argue/be upset.
Who's upset? I've said multiple times that I'm enjoying the game. It seems like you're the one trying to pick a fight for some reason.
If people enjoy this game, then that's wonderful. Far be it from me to interfere with someone's enjoyment of something. The problem is when people insist "well I haven't seen any bugs so the game is perfect and anyone saying otherwise should be ignored!" when that is clearly not the case.
>That's in 80h so far in the game.
FYI it was just discovered that if you play the game for too long, your save file becomes too big and will be corrupted. A moderator on the CDPR forums just said that "the game is intended to be finished within 30-50 hours" and playing longer than that is liable to break your game, and specifically you should avoid using the "Crafting" function at all because it will corrupt your save even faster.
https://old.reddit.com/r/cyberpunkgame/comments/kg47yz/psa_y...
Unfortunately they're wrong... the game very cleverly designs some of the dialog or mission choices in a way that makes it seem like your choices affect the outcome, but in the end there is only one single choice in the entire game that affects the ending. And even for the side missions and other dialog, it turns out that almost every single choice will direct you to the exact same path/outcome anyway. They might give you very slightly different dialog responses from the NPCs, but that's about it.
All of the "choice" in this game can be summed as:
Character asks you to do something. Your responses are:
1) Sure, I'll do that
2) Sure, I'll do that but my response is going to be snarky
3) Sure, I'll do that but you need to give me more information first
4) No, I don't want to do that, but you're going to tell me that I can't refuse you so I'll end up doing it anyway
5) No, I don't want to do that right now but you'll message me later and I'll find out that I can't progress any further without calling you back and saying yes
It's very shallow "choice", and I personally don't get any entertainment from that level of "replayability".