My link isn't a study it's a layman's terms explanation, but there are lots of studies. Your link mentions a meta analysis of 7 studies concluding that up to 90% is genetic.
Yes environmental factors are there too, otherwise it would be 100%, but there's enough evidence pointing to genetics that it is really disappointing when people try to find spurious links to false causes instead.
Misuse the trademarks licensed to one of their competitors while relying on that competitor to provide them infrastructure for software updates and provide product improvements.
Adjusting their product names sounds like a small change they could have made to avoid antagonising a close partner.
Running their own plug-in mirror infrastructure is something companies often do to reduce the risk from relying on a third party.
Similarly having some stake in the development of WordPress reduces risk of them being shut out if there is a license change that necessitates a fork.
Less about caving in on wishes as more that it's risky to choose both to rely on a third party and wind them up at the same time.
I had a similar experience in 2015: a doctor was trying to prescribe a choice between Venlafaxine (Effexor) and Duloxetine (Cymbalta) as third line ADHD medications. I was astounded that they didn't know that brain zaps were a common side effect and brought up some papers to show them. They apologized and indicated that they would likely stop prescribing them.
I was skeptical when they mentioned that other doctors had been promoting these drugs at gatherings, but what irritated me most was that they didn't have access to the research discussing the known side effects because the journals were behind a paywall. A willingness to pirate / use Google scholar to bypass paywalls shouldn't have been necessary to know about safety issues for a drug.
Battery life is significant worse with 32GB ram and laptop reviews often place heavy emphasis on battery life. By offering an 8Gb base model for reviews the manufacturer ensures their laptop will score well in reviews, even if users end up buying a higher spec laptop. It also allows users who want to multitask less to get more out of their laptop.
On desktop the impact of power consumption is lower, so it is better to offer a slightly higher spec base model.
Unlocking the password manager means I need to type a master password in while in a public place. Feels higher risk when it is an unimportant website but potentially gives access to all websites. Still better than the passwords being accessible on disk but having individual passwords would reduce the impact of any password leak.
Our machines always had Cookie Pal [0] installed on them, and it allowed per domain settings for rejecting cookies and control over third party cookies [1].
> Cookie Pal includes the following features:
> Automatically and transparently accepts or rejects cookies from all or specified servers without user interaction.
> Cookies received from unspecified servers can be automatically accepted or rejected without user interaction, or the user can be asked for confirmation.
> "On the fly" adding of servers to the accept from and reject from lists, allows you to manually accept or reject a cookie the first time it is received and then have it automatically accepted or rejected every time it is received thereafter.
One of the founders listed elsewhere on that page was a mentor on an accelerator I took part in. We went over our business in depth, he eventually became a supplier to us, then we became his largest customer. One day he abruptly stopped providing the service, and then relaunched his business trying to copy us instead.
We out executed, but I'd advise caution with mentors. Some were great help, this one was malicious.
It doesn't have to be malicious for it to harm privacy, help them track users for advertising and to be anti-competitive.
The implementation details around cookie recreation don't matter if users are still being tracked. Especially bad if this lets them track you on third party sites that contain Google Plus buttons or advertising iframes.
By ensuring users always remain logged in to the browser they gain a strong advantage over other companies that track users. Users attempting to remove tracking cookies shouldn't find Google ones permanently bundled with the browser.
The intent was likely to aid convenience and avoid users being unexpectedly logged out, but combined with Google automatically logging users into the browser this is a sign that the Chrome team is paying less attention to user privacy than they used to.
Perhaps users who regularly clear all cookies will start using guest accounts instead. Myself I'm more concerned about the general trend of unexpected behavior.
Chrome lost all my browser history, bookmarks, settings and extensions when I let someone else log into chrome and log out again. I now try to use Firefox for non Google services but still use multiple gmail/docs accounts in chrome for performance.
Even if I hadn't already had a terrible experience with their login feature, it is a privacy violation. I haven't agreed to have my browser history and other private data uploaded to an advertising company. The argument that most users want this is flawed: many would object to giving Google access to this without permission. Maybe the EU will step in?
You can add a webhook on GitHub and have it point to our Pull Mirroring API [1], followed by manually setting up the integration to send status updates back [2].
First thought was that people would protest this by flooding the relevant department with product updates, maybe triggered on each commit. Then I noticed the caveats:
- Updates don't count: only significantly large changes need disclosing.
- Can't be forced on companies with fewer than 10,000 users. Maybe commercially led open source products could claim that users are spread across many forks each with fewer users.
- New product disclosures only applies to communications companies already forced to backdoor existing products. Maybe we'll see companies akin to Alphabet evading the need to backdoor new products by forming separate companies.
Overall I'm more worried by
the requirement to backdoor communications than having to disclose new services. Security shouldn't be sacrificed. Additionally the gagging order would prevent companies from being honest with their users as well as making it harder for them to fight against it.
The Xkcd would go "We thought we sanitised our input but we still lost this years student records.
Did you really name your son Little Bobby Drop [DOS/STONED]{16 byte malware Signature}?"
The OCR still tells us more about the target than the actor, but I guess they are suggesting the choice of target itself is the indicator.