This is accurate. More often than not, trying to do something good for others will end up making you feel like an idiot. For the person on the receiving end, you are a jackpot. Instead of being shown gratitude, you're likely to be exploited.
But then again, would it really be a genuine gesture on the giver's end if they were to filter based on the receiver's character or whether they will be grateful for it?
The positivity from you is likely to be absorbed by the negativity, never to be seen again, instead of snowballing into a boulder of positivity as you'd hoped. I feel the only answer is to be an endless source of positivity. In that case you're not worried whether the drops of positivity from you end up somewhere they're appreciated or not. The negativity sponges might suck you dry, so it's not for everyone. For most of us the answer might be to constrain our positivity outlets into safer, more controllable spaces (volunteering for an organization, etc.) where it is less likely that we might feel anything negative for our efforts.
You could say it is cutting off the most accurate and cost efficient method for Facebook to track iOS users. A dozen other tracking methods still exist but they might be slightly worse in terms of cost/accuracy. Definitely something to cry about.
The US gov puts massive pressure on Apple and Google to insert backdoors into their phones even though third parties have forever been able to crack them. It's all about cost.
The first party tracking enablement was given to Facebook for free since the beginning. Now it's being taken back. Now they need to pay ISPs and invest more strongly in fingerprinting efforts.
I'm all for the move - it is a step in the right direction. But in isolation, it doesn't change much for end users - they are still being tracked at a similar level. Facebook is trying to spin it as an end to personalized ads as a whole, which it definitely isn't.
I highly doubt this blocking by Apple will have much of an impact on Facebook's tracking ability. For one, any time you use the internet via mobile data, Facebook (or any other site) will get your phone number, name and other personal data via your ISP. There have been several threads on HN regarding this in the past.
When you're not, your IP address along with data via fingerprinting techniques would be more than enough to uniquely identify you.
This is only likely to make it slightly harder to track the small fraction of users already taking strong measures to prevent being tracked.
Corona Daily 271: Pfizer Vaccine – Celebrate with Caution
In an earlier chapter on the vaccine race, I wrote: God forbid Pfizer wins the race. God answered my fears. Yesterday, Pfizer announced with aplomb a 90% effective vaccine. Editors changed headlines, stock markets vaulted, people made new Christmas plans, respectable newspapers foresaw the end of the pandemic.
The Pfizer vaccine needs to be stored at -80 C (-112 F) all the time. The ultracold logistics rule out most of Asia and Africa. In the best case, it is accessible to 2.5 billion people in 25 countries, mainly North America and Europe.
Dr Fauci called the results extraordinary, at the same time admitting he hadn’t seen the data yet. May the vaccine truly have extraordinary success, and spell the end of the pandemic.
*
When such joyous news is announced, it is in bad taste to criticize or express concerns. The critic will be termed a spoilsport, a pessimist, a conspiracy theorist, or antivaxx activist. I am none of these. I am, however, puzzled by the way Pfizer has gone about the process. I would like to voice these concerns so as to tone down the hype, if it is hype.
As I wrote earlier, in the trials, the company must reach pre-agreed numbers of Covid-19 cases, in the vaccine and the placebo groups. Since the beginning, Pfizer has been aggressively demanding more interim points, and fewer cases. Their minimum point for seeking authorization was 32. (32 patients among 30000 participants). Anybody who has studied statistics would know the number doesn’t look significant. In fact, scientists not working for Pfizer raised this concern. This was summer time, and the curve was going down. The Pfizer scientists were worried about the time it may take to reach a higher figure. But they amended protocol to look at the data at 62 cases. Not only the numbers, Pfizer’s plan allowed the mildest cases to be counted.
Most other trials including Johnson & Johnson and Oxford, even the Chinese vaccine trial currently, were paused because of adverse events. This is when a participant develops a condition that may have been caused by the vaccine. The trial remains paused until the condition is investigated. Pfizer enlarged its sample size to 44,000 but didn’t face a single adverse event, which must be attributed to its luck.
On 26 October, Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO said they didn’t have 32 covid cases yet. The interim data, when available, is reviewed by an independent board. Pfizer was once again lucky, the cases surged dramatically. On Sunday, 8 November, the independent board came, reviewed the data of 94 cases, and let the company management know the conclusion without sharing data.
*
The trial is not over. It will be over once Pfizer reaches 164 cases. The right thing was to wait till the end of the trials, and then publish the data in a medical journal for peers to review. Once it is peer-reviewed, the results can be published worldwide. Instead of that, Pfizer opted to release unpublished, unreviewed half-baked data as news.
Not only that, the news was released consciously early on Monday morning before the US stock markets open. Stock markets are like dogs who will drool and jump at the sight of a dummy bone. When the markets opened, Pfizer shares leaped by 15%, its partner BioNTech’s by 24%, and the major indexes reached new records. Such outright corruption was glossed over in the euphoria of the 90% effective vaccine.
FDA now has stricter standards after botching hydroxychloroquine and plasma episodes. Scott Gottlieb, the previous FDA commissioner, is now on Pfizer’s board. That may help in the approval process.
*
Though times are exceptional, and any vaccine may be better than no vaccine, knowledge of Pfizer’s maneuvers dilutes the joy of their 90% effective news.
Ravi
From what I understand it wasn't just this. WhatsApp's initial implementation of UPI was that of a walled garden. Payments could be sent/received between WhatsApp users but you couldn't send/receive payments to/from another UPI app user. They did this by hiding the UPI ID from the user. Along with WhatsApp's mass user base, this would have resulted in fragmenting the ecosystem.
I have enrolled in the beta program for WhatsApp via Google Play so I had the payment option In the new implementation since a very long time (can see a payment from July 2018). In their new implementation they have exposed the UPI ID so compatibility with other UPI apps is ensured. For transactions with other WhatsApp users you need not bother with UPI ID. This dual approach is the same as that of Google Pay.
The article assumes you will not be paying the import duty charged in India i.e. you're bringing an open box/you own the iPhone you bring from Dubai. If you were to start a business bringing in phones in bulk you would have to pay the import duty after transportation and logistics cost which would leave a negligible margin for you. It can only be viable if you choose not to pay the import duty in which case it's smuggling (if you're bringing in with intention to sell).
Because there's a difference between consuming something willingly and a shady corporation conspiring with the system to get unsuspecting people hooked onto their drug of choice for personal benefit?
"... the fundamental rule of technological progress: if something can be done, it probably will be done, and possibly already has been."
-Edward Snowden (Permanent Record)
Quantum effects apply even to physical objects. Only they are small enough to ignore. Trying to use quantum mechanics to justify free will feels forced. Surely, none of the people who believe in free will also proclaim that the will is completely random, or is something that can be modelled probabilistically.
In my experience it's usually the bank having an issue on their end. If you try to make a transaction late at night, say 2am, there's a good chance your bank is "down for maintenance". My account is with a public bank, not sure if this is true for private banks. Either way, reliability varies from bank to bank.
One reason behind this (communicated to me by a friend who has some insight into the banking system) is that the government has prohibited charging for UPI transactions. So every bank needs to maintain the infrastructure to integrate with UPI but don't make money off it. This leads some to not treat it with priority (a good to have, not a necessity) or treat it like IMPS/NEFT/RTGS (which only work in a fixed time window).
Overall the reliability is still quite good and with increasing reliance of the masses on it, it will hopefully get better.