Not sure what I'm missing. If I click on Madagascar in the left box, the map zooms into Madagascar, but all the other arcs are still visible and not filtered out.
I couldn't figure out from the UI but is there a way to filter the map? Say, I only want to see things going out of Cusco or I only want to see where things end up in Berlin?
It would also be nice to have some directionality to the lines to indicate source and destination, perhaps a colour or lightness gradient or something.
With a free service it's given because they have to monetize end of the day. For paid services different businesses will have different strategies. Some have a solid business model and are content with it, some want to differentiate themselves using privacy, some simply don't want to take the reputation risk that comes with moves like this. Will there be some sleazy bastards who take your money and your data (cough cough gith*)? Sure, but they will get found out eventually and astute people will be able to steer away.
The readme is confusing. You say it has bubblewrap, but you also have an FAQ saying why not to use bubblewrap? Another FAQ says why not to use sandbox-exec for mac, yet the link for mac goes to sandbox-exec?
I doubt they are doing it. You just have to get on a VPN to and see yourself being flooded with captchas despite browsing the web like a normal human and solving dozens of captchas along the way.
I wonder if the same can happen from dental implants. While not subject to the same levels of mechanical stress, the mouth can be a very acidic environment which can be corrosive to metals.
I think they're more talking about systemic effects resulting from such a concept. When you have unchecked power concentrated at a single position, that position will inevitably use that power for their own personal gain, which in the case of pardons happens by enabling crime.
The problems with social networks is pretty widely understood. Simply acknowledging them as problems, with a promise to tackle, is not enough to attract people imo. It would help to go into detail how exactly you propose to solve them, what is it you would do different where others have tried and failed?
Why content-addressed storage? I'm assuming this is mostly for auditability after the fact? Wouldn't it make sense to use some business identifier to be able to refer it back easily?
Money in this context is just proxy for value. You have exchanged cash for an equal value of stock. After this either could go up or down in value as the market determines. Sometimes the market doesn't like one kind of cash even and that value can reduce. On the other hand, if everyone is invested into a certain kind of cash then it's unlikely that cash would ever lose its value. Stocks have to work the same way fundamentally. The difference so far has been the volume at which these transactions happen. But since 2008, the volume of stock transactions has been growing exponentially. Has it crossed a critical mass ensuring its value will be propped up for a really long time?
All these media people who write about markets need to adjust their perspectives on what a sell-off means. A 2% reduction for a market cap of 80 trillion dollars still leaves about 78 trillion dollars in the market. The way the market behaves when there's 78 trillion dollars would be very different from how it would if there were 20 trillion dollars. With volumes of these kind, the instrument becomes a currency in itself causing a sort of runaway effect that will keep it going. When everyone's money is in the market, would the market ever fall?
Astroturfing is the biggest problem for online forums now. Bots can hide behind residential IPs and AI can generate tonnes of innocuous slop to overwhelm all other content. No human moderation will be able to keep up with it. Anyone building an online forum should think hard about this, I don't think it'll be easy to solve.
I think you misread my comment, I might've been lazy in constructing it. I don't mean to mentor anyone, rather I'm putting out my read of the situation so there's a common ground over which to discuss.
For me, raising $100m when it's not needed doesn't add up. Nobody lends money with the idea to "keep it, just in case". There are always commitments and expectations and obligations to meet those expectations. So when they said they didn't really need to raise, while also not talking about investor expectations, feels there's more to the situation than is being let on.