The most Google thing to do would now be to deprecate Android pay, no longer support merchants who don't upgrade their point of sale systems, and provide no contact line for support.
3,191 karma · joined September 1, 2016
When this happens, I just disable all javascript on the page, and the page loads fine -- no error, no alert, just the content. In fact, the page loads faster, since 95% of Javascript is not used to improve the usability of the site.
Let's Encrypt is free and takes less than 5 minutes to set up (using certbot).
You can enable (experimental) Chrome process separation here:
chrome://flags/#enable-site-per-process
1. won't pay if you injure your eye
2. doesn't spread any risk over a population
Instead of reducing risk, vision insurance simply spreads a known cost over a period of time. If each customer would pay $240 / yr on eyeglasses, it allows them to instead pay $20 / mo. That is not insurance -- that's a payment plan!
So, why does it exist and why does it increase price? Very simply, vision insurance can be provided by a company to its employees and deducted as an expense. This allows the employee to avoid paying personal income tax on wages, which would happen if the $240 were provided directly to the worker. Thus, it is cheaper for the company to provide vision insurance than to increase wages to provide $240 in after-tax take home pay.
Because the money tied up with vision insurance can not be used for anything other than glasses (e.g. you can't cash out a vision plan and spend the money on video games or travel), there is no incentive for the end customer to spend less on glasses. They will want to spend as much as possible while still remaining below the maximum budget from the plan. As a result, this distorts the normal financial incentives in a marketplace.
As a result of the favorable tax position and lack of cost incentives, vision insurance inflates the price of eyeglasses and exploits a de facto subsidy from the taxpayer to the eyeglass company. This increases the profits of the eyeglass company (owned by Luxottica) at the expense of the consumer (and to the detriment of anyone who buys their glasses out of their own pocket)
It seems rather easy to use deconstruction to see things that aren't really there.
A third party company (funded by venture capital) created something called "Pocket", which allowed you to save any article you were reading to their service. Pocket had an extension that you could choose to download & enable on your Firefox browser.
For apparently no reason at all, in June 2015, Mozilla integrated the proprietary Pocket into their open source browser, not just as an optional extension but as part of the default installation. The only way to disable Pocket was to go into "about:config", as the option was not available in the "Extensions" toolbar. (Later, Mozilla Corporation purchased the company Pocket, though at the time Pocket was introduced as an inextricable part of Firefox, Pocket was a separate company.)
The Mr. Robot addon had some similarities with the Pocket fiasco:
1. it was pushed to users without their knowledge or consent
2. it was integration of a plugin for a private company into an open-source project
3. it was a decision by marketing, and not development
I am not quite sure how or when we can begin to trust Mozilla Firefox, and what they would need to do to regain that trust.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/05/analysis-find...
That means that Google receiving 90% of all searches wouldn't automatically imply market power or anti-competitive conduct, and I can't see how Google or Facebook can raise their prices higher than a "competitive market" if they don't charge anything for their product.
How would a competitive market in search and social networking even look?
[0] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
How does that make sense?
It's also worthy to note that moderate exercise can improve connectivity of the mPFC, so that is at least one way to avoid these troubles.
Although the editor has a tough job, I don't think anyone would say that they're doing more work than the person who wrote the piece.
A Sopine A64 compute module costs $29 and performs 15.05 OpenSSL signs / second [0].
An AMD Ryzen 1700 costs ~$300 and performs 986.73 OpenSSL signs / second [1].
So, if you spent $300 on 10 Pine64's, you would achieve approximately 150 signs / second, but for the same cost you could just buy the AMD chip and achieve approximately 6.5x better performance for the dollar.
[0] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=pine-64-...
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd-ryze...
Oh wait, too soon?
"But when we marry and start a family, we are pushed, by custom, policy, and expectation, to move into our own houses. And when we have kids, we find ourselves tied to those houses."
> I would leave my house at 8:30 in the morning with a pathetic excuse for a breakfast in my stomach: a bread roll and a glass of sugared water (milk was a luxury at the time, and all food was expensive). The dollar, which was illegal at the time, came to be valued at 120 Cuban pesos. Anyone caught carrying that currency risked a long time behind bars.
(That's about 2 lbs every 3 days).
[0] https://www.diapedia.org/metabolism-insulin-and-other-hormon...
This is the most troubling aspect to me. The process of enabling the random ipv6 address would be:
1.Click the "enable" checkbox
2. Check if it's working. (initially, it does)
3. Forget about it for the next 12 months
Somewhere between Step 2 and Step 3, the feature spontaneously turns off and the ipv6 address is leaked, and the user is none the wiser.