If Mr. Musk wants to build Florida tunnels with his own, or investor's money - by all means, cheer him on. Maybe he can deliver another miracle (don't discount a guy who can land two 50 meter tall rockets simultaneously when NASA has never landed even one). I can't embed phtoos here but https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/2019/06/25/side-boosters-have-landed/
Taxpayer money, no.
Yes, Musk has a habit of picking up large sums of money the government leaves on the ground. But he's just picking them up - it's our elected officials who drop it there.
I think there are more never-Trumpers in the GOP than you think - at least 35 or 40%. Most of them are cowed into silence by the Trumpists but they're there. Plus a lot of independents have similar views to the GOP never-Trumpers.
I think the D party is equally internally fragmented and dysfunctional, tho, just in different ways.
A healthy democracy needs at least two reasonably sane parties - they have to keep each other reasonably honest.
We're in a strange period in which a largely conservative Supreme Court (nominally, anyway) is issuing a series of decisions taking what were recently considered liberal positions.
And being applauded by large sections of both Right and Left for them (including me).
There's a subset of the Left that cares about limits on police powers of the state, and a subset of the Right that cares about human rights and limiting the scope of government power.
And somehow these subsets are in agreement with each other and with the current Supreme Court. It's a strange alignment between nominally-opposed sections of the American political scene.
Given the tensions inside both major parties (liberals vs. woke in the D party, Trumpists vs. never-Trumpers in the R party) I wonder if we're approaching a major restructuring of US politics.
It would be a good thing if both major parties broke up and reformed into a pair of new parties with less internal tension. It seems we're closer to that happening now than any time since the Civil War (when the R party was born).
"standardization of weakened encryption by the RSA"
What? RSA is a private firm, founded by some of the inventors of public-key cryptography. RSA doesn't standardize anything. Nor does the NSA, if "RSA" is a typo for "NSA". Not sure what you were trying to say here.
Suppose there's a big enormously obese woman walking down the street, with dozens of overstuffed pockets filled with $20 bills, which randomly fall onto the street.
You follow along behind and observe this. People go up to the woman (who looks remarkably like FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel) and try to tell her she's dropping money on the ground, but she angrily brushes them away and continues as before.
Wouldn't you, at some point, start picking up those $20 bills and putting them in your pocket? If you don't, surely other bystanders will.
This appears to be a part of Elon Musk's modus operandi - he did it with EV credits, he's doing it with space launches and CO2 credits, and now with RDOF money.
I find it hard to criticize Elon for this - it's hardly his fault. At least he spends the money doing important stuff.
For those wondering, the awful Hilter quote in the yearbook was “It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them.”
Yeah, it's kind of Snidely Whiplash-y (evil snicker) but also worth a second thought.
We're in a strange period in which a largely conservative Supreme Court (nominally, anyway) is issuing a series of decisions taking what were recently considered liberal positions.
And being applauded by large sections of both Right and Left for them (including me).
There's a subset of the Left that cares about limits on police powers of the state, and a subset of the Right that cares about human rights and limiting the scope of government power.
And somehow these subsets are in agreement with each other and with the current Supreme Court. It's a strange alignment between nominally-opposed sections of the American political scene.
Given the tensions inside both major parties (liberals vs. woke in the D party, Trumpists vs. never-Trumpers in the R party) I wonder if we're approaching a major restructuring of US politics.
It would be a good thing if both major parties broke up and reformed into a pair of new parties with less internal tension. It seems we're closer to that happening now than any time since the Civil War (when the R party was born).
As long as Google (or Apple..., etc.) is running an app store, and to any extent at all exercising discretion about what apps are offered, they're - to that limited degree - endorsing the apps and app developers in the store.
I guess they need to have a firm policy about the grounds for excluding apps - is it ONLY about security, or are there other factors involved?
Suppose it was a KKK app, to help you find local KKK meetings and communicate with your fellow Klan members?
Suppose it was an app that "cleans" your phone of all apps developed by Black-owned companies? By Jewish-owned companies?
Lots of people would complain if Google allowed such apps to remain in their store.
I don't see this as any different - it removes apps from Chinese companies, solely because they're from China. Not because there's anything known to be wrong with the apps. Demand for it is driven by anti-Chinese nationalism.
If the prosecution really paid for testimony, somebody should be going to jail for that alone, whether they told the jury about it or not (of course, yes they should)
Many companies (esp. larger ones) have "data retention policies" that make them erase/destroy all data older than X years - mostly so if they get sued (a) discovery will be less costly and (b) the data can't be used to prove they did something wrong. I'm kind of amazed Hertz still had 7 year old records at all.
But this case will be fun to watch. I hope everyone gets what they deserve.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
There is an alternative to censorship
Instead of "removing" content, you can just label it and offer filters based on the labels, so that those who aren't interested don't have to see it.
(Of course accurate labelling is a difficult problem in itself; but it's not the same as the censorship problem.)
On the post: Elon Musk's Pointless, Subsidized Tunnels Head To Flood-Prone Florida
Re: Re: Let him build it with his own money
"people like Musk" <> "Musk".
But perhaps you already knew that. If so, I apologize.
On the post: Elon Musk's Pointless, Subsidized Tunnels Head To Flood-Prone Florida
Let him build it with his own money
If Mr. Musk wants to build Florida tunnels with his own, or investor's money - by all means, cheer him on. Maybe he can deliver another miracle (don't discount a guy who can land two 50 meter tall rockets simultaneously when NASA has never landed even one). I can't embed phtoos here but https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/2019/06/25/side-boosters-have-landed/
Taxpayer money, no.
Yes, Musk has a habit of picking up large sums of money the government leaves on the ground. But he's just picking them up - it's our elected officials who drop it there.
On the post: Fuck This Cheer In Particular Says The Supreme Court In Decision Upholding Students' Free Speech Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberalism vs conservatism?
I agree more parties is better. With first-past-the-post that's hard, tho. I'm just saying that ONE is really scary.
(Godwin wins again...)
On the post: Fuck This Cheer In Particular Says The Supreme Court In Decision Upholding Students' Free Speech Rights
Re: Re: Liberalism vs conservatism?
I'll accept your nitpick - that's fair.
I think there are more never-Trumpers in the GOP than you think - at least 35 or 40%. Most of them are cowed into silence by the Trumpists but they're there. Plus a lot of independents have similar views to the GOP never-Trumpers.
I think the D party is equally internally fragmented and dysfunctional, tho, just in different ways.
A healthy democracy needs at least two reasonably sane parties - they have to keep each other reasonably honest.
On the post: Researchers: 2G Connection Encryption Deliberately Weakened To Comply With Cryptowar Export Restrictions
Re: Re: "standardization of weakened encryption by the RSA"
The algorithm discussed in the article is GEA-1, which was defined by ETSI in 1988. (ref: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2021/06/intentional-flaw-in-gprs-encryption-algorithm-gea-1.h tml)
As far as I can tell, RSA had nothing to do with it. A private organization can propose a standard, but it can't enact it.
The article refers to "the RSA", which is not the usual way to refer to a private firm - in the singular (think "the Apple", "the Google").
So I'm still not sure what Tim was trying to say there.
On the post: Fuck This Cheer In Particular Says The Supreme Court In Decision Upholding Students' Free Speech Rights
Liberalism vs conservatism?
We're in a strange period in which a largely conservative Supreme Court (nominally, anyway) is issuing a series of decisions taking what were recently considered liberal positions.
And being applauded by large sections of both Right and Left for them (including me).
There's a subset of the Left that cares about limits on police powers of the state, and a subset of the Right that cares about human rights and limiting the scope of government power.
And somehow these subsets are in agreement with each other and with the current Supreme Court. It's a strange alignment between nominally-opposed sections of the American political scene.
Given the tensions inside both major parties (liberals vs. woke in the D party, Trumpists vs. never-Trumpers in the R party) I wonder if we're approaching a major restructuring of US politics.
It would be a good thing if both major parties broke up and reformed into a pair of new parties with less internal tension. It seems we're closer to that happening now than any time since the Civil War (when the R party was born).
Too bad Justice Thomas isn't on board.
On the post: Researchers: 2G Connection Encryption Deliberately Weakened To Comply With Cryptowar Export Restrictions
"standardization of weakened encryption by the RSA"
What? RSA is a private firm, founded by some of the inventors of public-key cryptography. RSA doesn't standardize anything. Nor does the NSA, if "RSA" is a typo for "NSA". Not sure what you were trying to say here.
On the post: FCC Gives ISP $8,000 To Deliver Broadband Five Feet From Apple's $5 Billion Campus
Big fat woman
Suppose there's a big enormously obese woman walking down the street, with dozens of overstuffed pockets filled with $20 bills, which randomly fall onto the street.
You follow along behind and observe this. People go up to the woman (who looks remarkably like FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel) and try to tell her she's dropping money on the ground, but she angrily brushes them away and continues as before.
Wouldn't you, at some point, start picking up those $20 bills and putting them in your pocket? If you don't, surely other bystanders will.
This appears to be a part of Elon Musk's modus operandi - he did it with EV credits, he's doing it with space launches and CO2 credits, and now with RDOF money.
I find it hard to criticize Elon for this - it's hardly his fault. At least he spends the money doing important stuff.
On the post: FCC Gives ISP $8,000 To Deliver Broadband Five Feet From Apple's $5 Billion Campus
Never attribute to malice...
...that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
On the post: High School Responds To Student's Prank By Asking Local Law Enforcement To Step In And Investigate
Hitler quote
For those wondering, the awful Hilter quote in the yearbook was “It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them.”
Yeah, it's kind of Snidely Whiplash-y (evil snicker) but also worth a second thought.
People these days...
On the post: Supreme Court Says The Community Caretaking Exception Doesn't Apply To Warrantless Searches Of People's Homes
Liberalism vs conservatism?
We're in a strange period in which a largely conservative Supreme Court (nominally, anyway) is issuing a series of decisions taking what were recently considered liberal positions.
And being applauded by large sections of both Right and Left for them (including me).
There's a subset of the Left that cares about limits on police powers of the state, and a subset of the Right that cares about human rights and limiting the scope of government power.
And somehow these subsets are in agreement with each other and with the current Supreme Court. It's a strange alignment between nominally-opposed sections of the American political scene.
Given the tensions inside both major parties (liberals vs. woke in the D party, Trumpists vs. never-Trumpers in the R party) I wonder if we're approaching a major restructuring of US politics.
It would be a good thing if both major parties broke up and reformed into a pair of new parties with less internal tension. It seems we're closer to that happening now than any time since the Civil War (when the R party was born).
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Google Removes Popular App That Removed Chinese Apps From Users' Phones (2020)
Mixed feelings
I have mixed feelings about this.
As long as Google (or Apple..., etc.) is running an app store, and to any extent at all exercising discretion about what apps are offered, they're - to that limited degree - endorsing the apps and app developers in the store.
I guess they need to have a firm policy about the grounds for excluding apps - is it ONLY about security, or are there other factors involved?
Suppose it was a KKK app, to help you find local KKK meetings and communicate with your fellow Klan members?
Suppose it was an app that "cleans" your phone of all apps developed by Black-owned companies? By Jewish-owned companies?
Lots of people would complain if Google allowed such apps to remain in their store.
I don't see this as any different - it removes apps from Chinese companies, solely because they're from China. Not because there's anything known to be wrong with the apps. Demand for it is driven by anti-Chinese nationalism.
On the post: Salesforce Asks Appeals Court To Say It's Protected Under 230; After Its Own CEO Said We Should Get Rid Of 230
There really needs to be an "edit comment" option
Some sites allow it for 5 minutes. That's usually enough.
Title about should be "It's not hypocrisy to benefit from laws as they are".
On the post: Salesforce Asks Appeals Court To Say It's Protected Under 230; After Its Own CEO Said We Should Get Rid Of 230
It
People criticize one another for hypocrisy far too easily.
It's perfectly reasonable to advocate for a change in the law, while benefiting from the same law.
Do you think tax rates should be higher? Do you pay more than you're legally obligated to?
We're all entitled to benefit from the law as it is, even if we think it ought to be changed.
Of course, Section 230 is pretty important and shouldn't be changed. But that's another matter altogether.
On the post: China Pushing Explicitly-Biased Facial Recognition Standards And Local Tech Companies Are Pitching In To Help
Re: mandate all homes to have the gov's cameras in all the rooms
Hm. I recall a novel where they did that... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
On the post: Nike Sues MSCHF Over Its High Profile Satan Shoes, Claiming Unsafe Blood May Dilute The Exalted Nike Swoosh
Um. They didn't say it was *HUMAN* blood, did they?
On the post: Man Sues Hertz For Not Turning Over A Receipt That Would Have Cleared Him Of Murder Charges Until After He Spent Five Years In Jail
Re: I'm probably naive
If the prosecution really paid for testimony, somebody should be going to jail for that alone, whether they told the jury about it or not (of course, yes they should)
But this case will be fun to watch. I hope everyone gets what they deserve.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Google 'Removes' German Residences From Street View By Request (2010)
Re: Re: Re: Likely being mistaken for license plate
Maybe. Or, perhaps the areas you're looking in were simply processed with more recent (smarter) software.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Google 'Removes' German Residences From Street View By Request (2010)
Re: illegal to film anyone or anything in public
In most countries this is settled law - if you can see it from a public place (street, sidewalk) - you can take and publish a photo of it.
As it should be.
(Don't like it? Build a fence.)
Next >>