resters

51 ms·

691.
by resters 7y ago
Of course. That is the correct response once the attack is known. To most people, unencrypted traffic vs encrypted traffic seems like an obvious security oversight, but many others exist that are not so stark and obvious sounding. My point
692.
by resters 7y ago
Of course. Most Google engineers would not be involved in it, and would of course be doing their best to keep Google's customers' data secure.
693.
by resters 7y ago
Your comment reinforces my point. Google would be extremely reluctant to utilize warrant canaries because of the uncertain legal consequences of doing so. The same applies to declining to cooperate with government surveillance operations. W
694.
by resters 7y ago
Not orchestrated, but happily tolerated. All Google needs is to be able to plausibly deny complicity, but the other practices of Google (such as not offering warrant canaries on all Google accounts) indicate that Google is eager to coopera
695.
by resters 7y ago
I don't think Google has given us any reason to believe that it was not complicit. For instance, why not include warrant canaries on gmail accounts? There is not really any fundamental difference between abetting the data center breach
696.
by resters 7y ago
Considering how few developers understand the subtleties of security, it would not be all that difficult. Also, FWIW we know that Google did this with its data center breach and likely many other cases. At WhatsApp/Google scale the att
697.
by resters 7y ago
Just as many regulatory approaches don't work, outright bans is one that clearly doesn't work. They are rooted in a backward, dualistic view of the world. In the case of banning recreational drugs, the history of those laws is amo
698.
by resters 7y ago
And again, just as was the case with Boeing, the blame lands squarely on the shoulders of regulators who failed to adequately do their jobs. In the case of Boeing, the regulatory approach was a joke, and in the case of vaping, regulators ha
699.
by resters 7y ago
> You're making three assumptions: I don't make those assumptions. I'll explain: > 1) that anyone who criticizes Assange is automatically an apologist for state-sanctioned crimes; There are perhaps many valid reasons to
700.
by resters 7y ago
Your point may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. The kind of person with the courage and ambition to build something like Wikileaks is very rare, and he or she may in fact be a bit egotistical. You could say the same thing a
701.
by resters 7y ago
A lot of Americans know about Assange, what he has done, how much he has risked to help Americans know the truth about our government. Yet in spite of this nobody really cares, and most are content to let Assange be extradited and punished.
702.
by resters 7y ago
Well, the logical argument is reductio ad absurdum: Suppose the US has a trade deficit over the long term. This means that dollars flow out of the US to other countries and goods come in. How long can this continue? Why would it continue?
703.
by resters 7y ago
That sounds good in the same way that anti-vax rhetoric sounds convincing but is actually not based in reality.
704.
by resters 7y ago
Right, but the number itself is useless. If you as a homeowner hire the neighbor kid to mow the lawn, you have a trade deficit with him/her unless he/she pays you to do some task for the same amount. To say that it is somehow bett
705.
by resters 7y ago
“Trade deficit” is an intentionally misleading term. It’s meant to suggest that economic specialization via trade is a bad thing. In fact, economic specialization is the main reason we progressed beyond the simplest hunter gatherer existenc
706.
by resters 7y ago
Exactly. Which is largely what makes twitter’s attempt to police/publicize this stuff absurd.
707.
by resters 7y ago
This just changes the winning strategy to “have bots post in favor of the position you oppose, then out your human opponents as shills or having been duped by shills”.
708.
by resters 7y ago
I think that there are significant incentives for financial institutions to create financial products (derivatives, etc.) that contain (and magnify) the systemic risk that is part of their inputs. Systemic risk is very costly to hedge again
709.
by resters 7y ago
I met with SoftBank one time as part of due diligence. They had virtually no substantive questions about the tech. The person who led the deal was soon fired. I lost respect for SoftBank after that.
710.
by resters 7y ago
This stuff is normal. It is not a signal. I do think there will be a crash similar to 2008, but this is not evidence that it is coming.
711.
by resters 7y ago
Whatever you do, don't give up on it until you have tried HF in a semi-serious way, at least by visiting a functioning HF station and tuning around. In my view, VHF local FM can be great or very boring depending on where you live and
712.
by resters 7y ago
I think we have reached a point where your analysis no longer holds up. I used to agree, but: - The laws that govern legal search and seizure have departed dramatically from the protections afforded by the bill of rights. - There have been
713.
by resters 7y ago
All governments use the same playbook of tactics. China is in some ways worse than the US, but the US has caused a lot more harm and destruction around the world than China has over the past few decades. It’s absurd to spend one’s moral in
714.
by resters 7y ago
I recommend daydreaming as if your goal is a good sci fi treatment of the idea.
715.
by resters 7y ago
When I first heard about Zuck's quote I agreed with one of the commenters below who views it as an adolescent gaffe. But in the years since, it's become clear that Facebook is not a trustworthy platform. It is, in essence the soc
716.
by resters 7y ago
> YAGNI OK so then does YAGNI apply to investment? Why not let existing firms handle it in the S&P? > YAGNI (continued) over-engineering is definitely a problem, but so is hindsight bias. I think that most non-trivial tech builds
717.
by resters 7y ago
> I'd like to remind people that you are probably not a "temporarily low-scale big-data company", in the same vein as a temporarily embarrassed millionaire. This point is valid in the same way as telling a startup founder
718.
by resters 7y ago
I highly recommend the book Genius of Place, a biography of the man. He had many other remarkable contributions to American history, even in journalism and healthcare.
719.
by resters 7y ago
The real issue with FB and Twitter is the news feed algorithms, not the paid content. The inciting incident that gave rise to the concerns is simply that Trump won. Only a tiny fraction of the reach that Trump obtained via FB and Twitter w
720.
by resters 7y ago
> Let's start with the major area of economic policy called taxation How about if we start with the ones I listed in the linked comment. The link you cite is Krugman aggressively trying to signal something anti-Trump after it was al

More ›