> Actual riots, insurrection, disruption of government, assaults on law enforcement, damage to government buildings, theft of government property, violence, and deaths, have occurred.
This describes the past half-year in Portland, Seattle, and more sporadically in many other cities.
I believe that no accounts on the Left: organizing, not merely advocating - have been permanently shut down.
So, I'm very skeptical that anything legitimate has changed. It feels very political.
This "experiment" is a sham in many ways, both in design and the reporting:
* The researchers call it "guaranteed income". That's somewhat accurate, because it's $500 extra payment, no questions asked. But it's not in any way "basic income", or "universal basic income" which is how it's being reported.
* It's paid for by an organization (SEED) which claims the thing it's seeking to prove. (That no-questions-asked welfare improves peoples moods.) The result is pre-determined.
* Just 120 low-income people are receiving an additional $500/month. This is far from Universal Basic Income: No income test, enough money to survive on, and no other gov support.
* SEED is making unsupported claims about how the money is getting spent (only on wholesome, necessary items). They can't assert that, however, because they're not tracking the _rest_ of the subjects' spending. They also did not track the subjects' spending before the intervention. Thus, they cannot rule out "lifestyle inflation".
* The study methods specifically allow for 25 subjects to be used for "political" purposes during the study, for interviews on TV, etc.
Absolutely. The title isn't just sensational, it's misleading. OP's browser is opensource and uses a P2P-like architecture. It sounds incompatible with current rights management.
OP sounds like he feels entitled to others' work and efforts. If he wants to play videos in his browser, he can make them. Or find people who will make videos for free for him.
A very misleading title. But the content is nothing to get upset about. Reasonable people can easily disagree:
* Google didn't can can't block a new web browser from working.
* OP is making an _opensource_ browser
* OP's browser is specifically made for showing videos in some kind of P2P architecture.
* OP is upset because he can't play some other peoples' videos in his new browser.
The R in DRM, standing for Rights is relevant: this isn't your content, OP. Thousands of creatives, artists, and investors put time, sweat and blood into these. They've chosen DRM as the way to get paid. You have no right to their content. If you don't like DRM then vote with your feet - watch others' content, and find another way to compensate them.
Taken literally, the article only highlights a correlation - introduction of the physical keys + absence of phishing. But Google may have introduced other security changes as well. The article doesn't go so far as to say that the switch to physical keys from SMS 2FA actually solved the problem on its own.
> ...thieves can intercept that one-time code by tricking your mobile provider into either swapping your mobile device’s SIM card or “porting” your mobile number to a different device.
Are these theoretical attacks? Has this ever actually happened?
The article only correlates the end of phishing with introduction of the physical keys. I'm wondering if it's really necessary - if typical 2FA via one-time pw to SMS is easily sufficient.
I really doubt that's actually happening. For a long time there was a Vine forum, and the culture was definitely about reviewing as honestly as possible. I'd posted many positive but also many negative reviews before being selected for Vine.
It also seems like there are many more products needing reviews than reviewers. I've never worried about being negative.
And finally, the item is definitely not free:
* Amazon displays the tax value of each item we're offered for review, and reports it to the IRS if we choose it. So literally, the product is taxable income.
* Some items, like books, take a lot more time and effort, compared to their monetary value. But all items require time.
* Some items have collateral costs. Just a couple of examples: I once reviewed an AC/DC converter for the car which blew a fuse when I tried it out. That cost me a trip to the repair shop. Another time I reviewed a floor lamp which arrived destroyed in the box and left my living room speckled in glass shards and styrofoam pieces.
tldr; To me, it's a contractual relationship that I'll continue doing as long as it makes sense to me.
I've been one for years. It's an odd insider culture, which is pretty hard to talk about with anyone else. There's a lot of competition among the "Viners" as we call ourselves. And there's also a lot of decision-making. E.g., is the tax-value income and time required actually worth it to me? Many, many times, it's not.
> we're trying to take a stronger stance on harassment
Do you believe it's possible for Anti-GG people as well as GG people to harass?
I ask because the prevailing culture at Twitter and Github is that harassment only comes from one direction: from white men. They don't want to act on claims of "reverse-discrimination".
However, many other people like myself believe that there is an equal or greater amount of harassment and threats from the Social Justice world.
I'm genuinely interested to know your attitude about this.