This is a horrible straw-man of the situation which somewhat conveniently manages to sidestep any real acknowledgement of the genuine harm and its scale.
I might be missing something obvious but there only appears to be the option to draw something in predefined places - where the bubbles appear on the map.
I'm trying to mark up somewhere new that doesn't have a bubble and I can't see how I'm supposed to do that.
2006, sat in a job interview. Interviewer says he'll Bluetooth over a file to me - what's by phone's name?
2006, the year that Tool's 10,000 Days had been released, which I was enjoying and, being a bit of an Edge Lord, I'd named my device after a lyric from Vicarious - which, IIRC fit perfectly into the name space and made me very happy:
As the default simulation played out beautifully on-load, I immediately started to question: "hang on, I thought there wasn't a solution for 3 bodies, but this looks stable".
Before I could complete the thought, it fell apart magnificently :)
We've recently come to this conclusion with our Cockapoo. His mother was a working Cocker Spaniel.
When the weather is poor we have often tried to get shorter walks in dry spells but augment it with as much ball time as possible to make sure he's getting enough exercise (since he generally dislikes bad weather).
It's become apparent that there's no possibility of satiety through chasing the ball though. He will simply go forever, however tired he looks.
I joked that as a Labrador will seemingly eat itself sick, a Spaniel will run itself lame.
Something that isn't seemingly being commented widely on either is that Vance started hitting Zelenskyy with bursts of multiple questions and as soon as he started answering the first there were immediate challenges and redirections.
English isn't Zelenskyy's first language. Imagine how tough this must have been.
At that point the questions weren't questions anymore - they were statements that were left unchallenged.
> Europe's defence should not be entirely on the American tax payer
True. However.
The US has wanted to play a major role in Europe for 80 years because it meant they controlled the narrative. This, co-incidentally was favourable to European countries because they could spend their money elsewhere.
Over the past few years the US has decided that it would prefer to play in the Pacific rather than Europe and so has been edging away.
It's true that Western Europe has been slow to respond, but it's also important to acknowledge that Trump just changed the pace of this redirection and so it's not entirely on one or the other side.
Speaking as a worker this seems like a positive move.
Stepping outside that though - how is this going to impact the wider economy? The UK is in a tough spot. Partially self-inflicted, partially political, partially just the way things are now.
Cookie Clicker taught me this about Destiny and Destiny 2 as well.
I got a lot of enjoyment out of those games - and they were partly the backdrop to socialising online with IRL friends who didn't live close to me - but at some point the absurdity of them became too obvious and we stopped.
The problem is you’re simultaneously arguing two points and relying on whichever point gives you the most leverage at each juncture.
If .gov == bad guy then you’re screwed whether or not you leave a digital trail on social media because you’re already leaving one anyway (unless you’re a marginal outlier that isn’t worth considering for this “problem”). If that’s your threat model then you’re either super-important or I worry you’ve been sold a scary story by social media algorithms.
On the other hand, the idea that this is an impossible tech problem to solve is also disingenuous. My point is that it could be solved. And quickly and easily too. If the incentive model were there. And whilst I’ve not given the solution a huge amount of thought (I’m not actually that interested in solving it) I’m certain that an authenticated assertion could be made that wasn’t directly attributable to an individual - i.e., a mechanism could be developed that would solve for both problems.
Which brings us back to the fundamental point here: the people who would need to implement the solution have no incentive model in place to motivate them to do so.
The card you might have paid with is though. I can’t remember any instances of a card hack revealing transactions of customers though (I might be wrong, just doesn’t ring a bell).
It’s not a given that digital record must lead to compromise.
>Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's social media usage.
I guess we should stop checking age when buying alcohol in pubs (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's alcohol purchases_)
And stop checking age when buying cigarettes (_Parents should be the ones that should be controlling their children's tobacco purchases_)
etc.
It's illuminating that your post is both "tech can't solve it" and so brazenly pro-tech with manifestations of its laziest arguments each way.
Of course tech can solve the ID problem. It could solve it in a way that doesn't need to give ground to your slippery slope argument too. It just doesn't have the incentive model to do so. Any "control" in this space would reduce the marketable headcount and so it's not in tech's interests to solve - without government intervention.
Totally agree with this - when it popped up asking me if I wanted to use my fingerprint to do ..._something_... I felt like I was at risk and noped out.
Gong back about 20 years we had to introduce a "pre-screening" interview for infosec roles because of the calbire of candidates we were getting through.
They'd made it through the HR "sift" by having the right words on their CVs but we found that a huge majority of these candidates didn't know even entry-level basics.
There was initially a "quick fire" round where we did some real basic definitions - Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, risk, etc, etc.
I think this is probably correct on the balance of probabilities but I have 2 concerns with it.
Firstly the “it would be illegal to listen” argument feels absurdly naive. Whilst almost certainly true, it only “matters” if the penalty for the crime is meaningful in context. Jail time for Zuckerberg? Probably don’t do it. A fine? Probably do it because it will likely be immaterial to the upside.
Secondly the parody-like definition of what “listening” actually means. No one is thinking a warehouse full of humans with headsets transcribing conversations and picking matching ads. An AI is perfectly capable of transcribing at scale and near real-time and linking this to keyword matching and ad-serving.
Terrible article.