Well, how much money did they make selling probiotic mouth wash?
I'm pretty sure if they had gone with curing all the world's cavities I would have heard of them. The brand recognition alone would be worth more than a probiotic mouth wash company.
Very unlikely there was a miracle cure that was left on the table because founders wanted to sell mouthwash.
If you can make money off open source, you can make money off curing every cavity in the world... But the company decided instead.... To sell mouthwash?
One of the findings from researchers in the book Altered Traits is that largest (positive) cerebral changes were associated with time spent at intensive retreats. This is also very much a part of Zen practice (etc) so presumably practitioners have found some additional value in intensives over the years.
This actually makes sense. A leaker is someone you've specifically disclosed info to, not just a random adversary. If you can't keep your own team from leaking, greater chance the info you're hiding is in the public interest.
A hacker doesn't even know what the information is before the attack and is likely an adversary who will use any information to damage, regardless of public interest.
The big change for me was to stop thinking of quitting as something you should succeed at on the first try and start treating attempts as trial runs for gathering data and improving your approach.
The other piece was combining many different levers: social support, replacement activities, rewards, motivation statements etc. You need as many tools as possible because addiction is tough.
For more on this type of approach check out the book Change Anything... Helped me more than any other source.
A key idea they discuss are "critical moments" - ie that time when you're buying the 12 pack. You need to figure out when and why that happens and design a plan to address it.
Capitulation rewards nuclear blackmail and invites emulation, causing future episodes of brinkmanship. It is far from clear this path is more likely to avoid "armageddon."
You can dismiss freedom from mass rape, arbitrary execution, tyranny and the rights to dignity and self-determination as "some principles"– but without these principles there is no world that is worth saving.
Seems ironic to ask this on a post where a guy's cheating device malfunctions causing him to lose. There could be limitations which prevent him from cheating completely accurately
Many people appear to be missing the point here. Cloudflare claims there was an imminent threat to life created by KF. That's a factual assertion that's either true or false (and well probably find out which.)
If true, free speech is not applicable. Blocking the walkie-talkies of terrorists coordinating
a bombing does not restrict "free speech" under any reasonable definition.
This level of tactical coordination to commit violence appears to be what they are hinting at in their post, and I take them at their word .
It may be they are lying and caved to pressure in regards to KF being generally heinous, but until we find out the specific information that caused them to assess an imminent threat to life, we can't really judge the wisdom of their decision.
“'A privatized internet will always amount to the rule of the many by the few,' writes Tarnoff, and since that tendency is hardwired into capitalism itself — not just a certain iteration of capitalism — fixing the internet requires a different strategy: deprivatization."
The problem here is that network effects and economies of scale generally make centralization more practical. Capitalism's competition between multiple centrally managed models, although not perfect, is tough to beat.
"Rather than lay out a concrete plan for a deprivatized internet, Tarnoff explains that experimentation will be key."
It's tough to clap your hands and summon a decentralized system, but Jacobin maintains typical faith something never tried will work well, as long as it's anti-capitalist.
Seems like regulation within capitalism is a much more dependable way of addressing flaws in the free market.
Market pressures can have a corrupting influence on many human endeavors, but to say "capitalism is ruining science" is incredibly reductive.
Capitalist countries, such as the US and western Europe, have had an outsized contribution to scientific endeavor, winning more than their share of Nobel prizes.
This is probably because investment in scientific research depends on a level of material prosperity that wasn't achieved in the USSR and communist China. Centrally planned economies tend to be so corrupt that researchers may have bigger issues to navigate than "publish or perish."
Jacobin takes a reasonable point (marketization can have a corrupting influence), dials up the stakes hyperbolically ("a new dark age!"), and pins it on its favorite bogeyman – "capitalism" – an amorphous, nefarious scourge (it's not clear what level of socialism we need to adopt to avert the new dark ages.)
Seems like a more reasonable take would just be to increase public funding to scientific research.