justsee

11 ms·

31.
by justsee 6y ago
There's a demonstrated lack of understanding around important details of this case in your responses. The accusation you raise is a key part of the interview with Melzer. The original witness statement was intentionally destroyed, and
32.
by justsee 6y ago
Melzer goes into detail about how the women didn't accuse him of rape. It's worth engaging in the facts on this issue, rather than gripping onto a received narrative in dismissive fashion, and the interview really goes into signif
33.
by justsee 6y ago
Actually it's clear from Melzer's thorough investigation, where he reviewed the entire case material, including original Swedish documents, that this was an operation to frame Assange and extradite him to the US – and nothing to d
34.
by justsee 6y ago
It's important to remember the Swedish authorities were never interested in testimony from Assange. It's worth reading this interview [1] with Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, which reveals in shocking detail the
35.
by justsee 6y ago
Exactly. It's a perfect example of crony capitalism. A political party in a symbiotic relationship with Murdoch (whose press outlets operate as the communications wing of the Coalition) eagerly pushes a rent-seeking law and claims it&#
36.
Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd on the proposed 'News Media Bargaining Code'(youtube.com)
1 points by justsee 6y ago|0 comments
37.
by justsee 6y ago
This is the right move by Facebook (and Google) in the face of naked crony capitalism. It's an effort by the Morrison government to engage in rent-seeking on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's News (which essentially operates as the commu
38.
by justsee 6y ago
Good to see this move from Facebook, not because Facebook is without issues, but because the proposed scheme is truly awful. Google seemed a little hung out to dry going in hard with the messaging across its products with no announcements f
39.
by justsee 6y ago
It looks like you've responded to the wrong thread. (I posted one comment on this article, and a few follow-up comments to people who engaged with it.)
40.
by justsee 6y ago
Again, I did not state "WebBundles = a blackbox". That is your misinterpretation of my comment which I took the time to clarify: "I am hardly claiming any one initiative takes us straight there [to a black box of the web]&quo
41.
by justsee 6y ago
That claim comes from you, as a Google employee? I didn't say that, and I would assume most HN readers understand I was moving from the specific concerns content blockers have with your 'WebBundles' proposal to commentary on
42.
by justsee 6y ago
The blog author summarises the core issue here [1]. WebBundles are an attack on user agency: the right to filter content on the open web. Google putting forward a proposal which directly attacks the ability of general-purpose blockers to op
43.
by justsee 6y ago
Things like AMP and WebBundles clearly appear like a self-interested attack on the open web by Google, all the while making reasonable-sounding noises about efficiency and speed. With the inexorable rise of ad-blockers, allowing 'User
44.
by justsee 6y ago
1. Yes we haven't heard yet whether they will appeal, but the law as it currently stands creates a legal context where you can understand publishers wanting more information about Facebook users who comment on their posts. There are so
45.
by justsee 6y ago
When you consider the wider legal context, this also makes sense* . This is because Facebook requires page owners to assume all liability for comments. This has resulted in publishers losing defamation cases based on third-party comments ma
46.
by justsee 6y ago
Yes a good point. It's also worth remembering Foxtel demanded it get paid to retransmit ABC and SBS content, which was reduced to some lesser, unknown figure last year [1]. Apparently content is worthless unless it is privately funde
47.
by justsee 6y ago
Google isn't in the wrong here, and framing this as just an honest consumer-first regulator doing their job omits critical context to help people understand what's happening. The party in power federally is the Coalition, and they
48.
by justsee 6y ago
In the above comment I'm advocating for honest debate, not HCL. That debate has of course not been particularly honest: amplifying the weakest proponents, fabrication of negative data with the Surgisphere scandal [1] and fixating on st
49.
by justsee 6y ago
It was disappointing to see that segue from Gates. Consider that the pile-on of that doctor - an African from Cameroon where Christianity is blended with traditional tribal superstition - happened around the same time as the Professor of Ep
50.
by justsee 6y ago
We aren't recapitulating the e2e debate, Gates is in his interview. Someone like Gates pushing for the end of private speech at scale is always going to be of interest to the HN crowd.
51.
Review of Ferguson et al. “Impact of Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions ”(necsi.edu)
2 points by justsee 7y ago|0 comments
52.
by justsee 7y ago
Very happy to engage in an ethical debate on this one. This line about 'swapping ads with their own' has been an attempt to imply in the reader's mind that Brave was / is nefariously replacing actual ads with their own,
53.
by justsee 7y ago
As a privacy-minded, ethically-motivated technologist I support Brave for their strong position on privacy - a position in which they are peerless amongst other browser vendors. I am always open to changing my mind, yet when I see the same
54.
by justsee 7y ago
Next.js positions itself as a hybrid framework, and is recommending SSG (static site generation) by default over SSR. See this discussion [1] with the response from rauchg (framework author and Zeit founder) outlining where they are heading
55.
by justsee 7y ago
Your first criticism demands people ignore Hanlon's Razor ("never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity") and buy in to a most bizarre business model: that the Brave team had a plan to defrau
56.
by justsee 7y ago
I followed that episode closely. To claim it demonstrated intentional fraud rather than poor UX and rewards architecture in an early beta (which was immediately fixed) is simply not credible. The only funds flowing through the system at tha
57.
by justsee 7y ago
Surveillance capitalism simply describes the business model of spying on users to build hidden psychological / behavioural / demographic profiles which are then sold through opaque backroom market mechanisms, all with zero regard
58.
by justsee 7y ago
Recent cross-platform options with surveillance capitalism: * Google Chrome: mandatory * Firefox: opt-out [1] * Brave: blocked That's the primary issue. It's great that Brave is pioneering a new opt-in, privacy-respecting fu
59.
by justsee 7y ago
People can't suddenly start sending you BAT. They can attempt to send you BAT in the browser, but it shows that you're an unverified creator, so the browser essentially 'holds' the BAT and attempts to send to you for a p
60.
by justsee 7y ago
Actually because Brave aggressively and efficiently blocks ads and trackers by default it has a much better battery & performance profile. They've blogged about this in detail. One recent post was : https://brave.com&#x2

More ›