They are not lying when they say that they cannot read your messages at rest or in transit without actively changing the code so that you start trusting a new key. The keys sync between devices in ways that Apple cannot read.
This is not bulletproof, because they can potentially change the code to do this - this is what the FBI vs Apple thing was a few years ago was all about.
This is based on a faulty understanding of the underlying systems. The risk with this sort of E2E encryption is not that the service provider pinky promises not to decrypt what they have, it's that they promise they will not insert a new key into your circle of trust to subsequently start decrypting things.
It's not even just wanting jobs for family; it's wanting to be around services that I think people don't always consider. Sure, you could plan on doing everything yourself if that's truly your hobby, but most remote workers will want to be able to call a plumber or an electrician when something goes wrong, and even finding tradesmen in those locations can sometimes be challenging.
The article does not include the word "density" at all. Switzerland has 2.5x the population density that the US does.
I absolutely believe that US regulation choices encourage telecom monopolies and suppresses service in the US, but it's impossible to make a credible argument for that without acknowledging the density challenges that the majority of the US (geographically) faces.
> Rightly or wrongly, homeopathic products are considered medicines, not supplements, and people in general are very mindful of spending money on medicines that don't work.
[Citation needed].
People spend enormous amounts of money on junk "cures" and have done for centuries. Homeopathy is just one of the many current such scams.
The problem with making claims about the chiropractic practices is that it spans such a huge range of "absolute bullshit" to "physically grounded adjustments". Joints and vertebrae (especially) really can be out of alignment, and you can absolutely see that on imaging. Muscles in constant tension can be self-reinforcing in ways that don't easily correct themselves without an external force. My wife has significant back issues as a result of various injuries -- one leading to an SI joint that frequently pops out of place, one due to an injury that fractured most of the spinal processes -- and you can absolutely feel the "pop" when an adjustment helps something slide back in place. This is validated by imaging and sports medicine, not just chiropractic quacks.
At the same, adjusting your back isn't going to cure your cancer, no matter what idiots with fake degrees say.
The challenge is that the latter is just as stupid as homeopathy, but whereas homeopathy really has no redeeming qualities beyond the placebo effect, at least chiropractic practices actually do sometimes have groundings in reality.
Is it? Or is it a 65% chance of a resume getting ignored before a single human sees it, reducing your pipeline's likelihood of catching qualified candidates by the same?
Gates that reduce resume flow-through are only useful if their reduction is correlated with quality. Otherwise they're just dragging out your hiring process or unnecessarily causing you to ultimately lower your hiring bars.
You're not wrong at the high level, but learning a particular language to the point of fluency is still an investment if you're interested in being productive while writing it. Sure, once you have the experience, reading most new languages is easy -- but learning the idioms and particular syntactic choices of a new language to that point that you can reach for them without having to constantly search or consult references isn't something that's instant. There's also a mental cost to how many of those languages you can have "ready to go" in your brain at any given time, and for languages that are evolving -- most of them, at this point, honestly, even old languages like C++ -- there's a cost to keeping up with the language as it changes.
All of that is investment, and not all languages pay off that investment.
There's a referrer header, if the client wishes to send it. If they don't, the "courtesy to the web host" is done at the expense of the client. This particular web host takes umbrage at other sites taking advantage of their clients that way, which seems reasonable to me.
> It doesn't matter if men are being left out of jobs (statistically) — they're [according to the ideology] the eternal benefactors of invisible, omnipresent systemic privilege.
This implies a contradiction that doesn't exist.
Centuries ago, the aristocracy was statistically left out of jobs and also the eternal benefactors of (quite visible!) omnipresent systemic privilege.
There are multiple potential reasons for men to, statistically, be taking fewer of a set of newly created roles. It could certainly be some systemic bias against them, but it could easily also be that they are choosing not to take them for what are surely good reasons for themselves. It could be that fewer men are interested in new jobs right now period, relative to women. I'm sure there are many other potential explanations as well.
I haven't yet made a single claim. I've asked a question about alternative hypotheses. For instance, that DEI initiatives allow qualified candidates who otherwise would have been overlooked to achieve positions they otherwise might not.
You are asserting that DEI means that unqualified individuals are being put into positions from which they should have been excluded. That is a statement for which you have yet to provide any proof.
You're making a claim about it - twice now - that you haven't actually yet justified by any data. I'm suggesting there are, in fact, alternate explanations.
Does it? Or does it mean that we got rid of those people who would otherwise likely be rejected due to inalienable characteristics and who could have helped avoid groupthink, leading to an improved chance of solving problems?
This is either an overly pedantic take or a disingenuous one. The very first line that the parent quoted is
> uv is fast because of what it doesn’t do, not because of what language it’s written in.
The fact that the language had a small effect ("a bit") does not invalidate the statement that algorithmic improvements are the reason for the relative speed. In fact, there's no reason to believe that rust without the algorithmic version would be notably faster at all. Sure, "all" is an exaggeration, but the point made still stands in the form that most readers would understand it: algorithmic improvements are the important difference between the systems.
The tragedy of the commons is a real thing. People focus on their own personal short term economic gain at the expense of long term sustainability and gain - even for themselves - because people in general find that longer term outlook difficult to reason about.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried. This short term thinking is one of its classic failures, because in many ways you're codifying the tragedy of the commons.
This is not bulletproof, because they can potentially change the code to do this - this is what the FBI vs Apple thing was a few years ago was all about.