Keep in mind, indentity theft is a lie put out by scummy credit card companies. The criminal is targeting the seller and not you, they scam the seller and not you, they misrepresent themselves and trick the seller into allowing that credit purchase. Reality is, as far as you are legally concerned, the seller is trying to defraud you, cheat you, steal money from you. By law, the seller is guilty of fraudulent credit charges until they can prove they were cheated. Hence the credit card company lie, who would accept credit card if the law was properly applied, so the BIG LIE. You are fully entitled to make legally claim against all individuals and companies who accepted the false indentity, who cheated you, how falsely applied charges against you. Expect nothing from corporate main stream media, they are fully 100% in support of the lie. Honestly, lawyer and police up and demand those who accepted the false identity be charged with credit fraud until they can prove in court they were cheated. It is not up to you to prove anything, they have to prove you authorised the payment and they can not, then they are charged with fraud, you do not have to prove someone falsely tricked them with your identity.

The alternate have a globally unique name and any attempt at false use stands out immediately. Your name can not be at two places at once. Really though, going nuts with the lawyer and target everyone who defrauded you by being greedy gullible idiots, pays the price of the harm THEY CAUSED YOU (the person who used your identity did nothing to you, they tricked the seller, well at least that is the sellers claim, by law they defrauded you and illegally applied false charges to your credit card.)

(Just in case you wanted any actual information... though it's still pretty vague on some points)

https://micromaker3d.com/intro...

Laminated Resin Printing uses elements of microfabrication-based photolithography, reformatted for 3D printing.

Extreme resolution modern dry film photoresist resins are imaged a layer at a time, using a fast-ultraviolet projection system, activating a photoinitiator. After imaging, each section of the dry film is laminated to form a multilayer stack. The stack is then heat cured through a precisely controlled catalytic cross-linking reaction in the activated areas forming a structure fully polymerised across and between layers, with no need for adhesives.

The unpatterned resin provides support material for the printed structure. This means that if you can design it, you can print it. Overhangs, membranes and moving parts that make up microsensors are readily printed and well matched to the resin storage modulus. Unpolymerised resin is highly soluble and easily washed away.

Using a preformed 5-micron thick resist sheet defines Z resolution with a layer thickness tolerance of 125 nanometers. Because the resist is already dry, there is no shrinkage or distortion, meaning this resolution is genuine and highly repeatable. A 5-micron resolution is also obtained in both X and Y, defined by the pixel size from the projector at the print bed. The photoresists used are an industry standard material with excellent characteristics that enable them to withstand the harshest environments.

These processes are automated and housed in a UV-excluding, particulate free desktop machine.

Material: Dry film
Curing: UV projection (+ heat post-processing)
Print speed: 10 seconds per layer (3s patterning, 7s laminating)
Print density: Up to 100%
Ease of printing: High
Visual quality: High â" 5-micron voxel printing
Heat resistance: -60 to + 200C continuous operating temperature
Roll width: Up to 250 mm
Roll length: 100 m
Chemical compatibility: Excellent resistance to a wide range of solvents, acids, bases and harsh environments
Electrical resistivity: Highly insulating
Layer adhesion: Highly soluble uncrosslinked film
Support: Uncrosslinked prepolymer
Layer height: Customisable from 5um to 100um
Material method: Lamination
Storage modulus: 1-4 GPa at room temperature with wide operational range

The idea under discussion, quantum supremacy, is a bit subtle. Essentially the idea is that getting quantum computers to do a lot of the things we want quantum computers to be able to do that are apparently tough for classical computers, like factoring large numbers, requires large numbers of high quality qubits. Quantum supremacy instead focuses on just getting a quantum computer to do some sort of computation that we know is hard for a classical computer. This has two advantages. First, it doesn't require nearly as much fine tuned cooperation of qubits, and second this can then rely on much weaker computational complexity conjectures, which are substantially less weak than factoring being hard, and are things like the polynomial hierarchy not collapsing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_hierarchy

It turns out that sampling problems, where one cares about distributions rather than specific calculations are a natural context for quantum supremacy. In this particular case, the particular class of problems is known as boson sampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson_sampling due to Scott Aaronson and Alex Arkhipov. The idea is essentially that all one has is a bunch of photons with beam splitters and a few other very simple gadgets, but no actual interaction between photons, and one wants to know the output distribution. They showed that under very weak assumptions (not as weak as P != NP but only a tiny bit stronger), a classical computer cannot efficiently do this process. So if one can show that one really can do boson sampling efficiently one will have shown that quantum computers really can do at least some things that a classical computer cannot do efficiently.

Note that until very recently it looked like boson sampling was essentially out of the running for the first unambiguous quantum supremacy demonstration because of Google's recent work with random general quantum circuits. But this work seems to potentially put boson sampling back in as a serious contender.

Communists have never had any compunction about murdering any number of people for any reason, or no reason at all. They are utterly depraved.

-jcr

Communists have never had any compunction about murdering any number of people for any reason, or no reason at all. They are utterly depraved.

-jcr

...As opposed to capitalists, who always just do it for the money?

/All generalizations are bad

"EU has recently started labeling Jewish made products"

For an "oldgraybeard", you should have a better bullsh*t detector.

The EU labels products made in Israeli settlements that are illegal under international law. That is not at all the same thing as labeling something "Jewish".

There are fewer than two billion people living in developed countries

They are developed because they are capitalist.

The poorest countries are socialist, ex-socialist, or practice tribal collectivism.

And even amont these poverty still exists.

Capitalism is far from perfect. It is just better than the alternatives.

Generally speaking, the worst countries aren't communist or capitalist. It's those whose citizens 1) don't have a high quality, trusted, secular, public education system, 2) don't have a real choice in who rules them, and 3) do get their primary sources of wealth by mining/extracting them out of the ground.

Honorable metion: Having a government that doesn't serves its citizens first (over its own interests) - including telling its citizens the truth. (This kinda goes hand in hand with #2).

Apparently, they did not even invest into some actually competent penetration tests, let alone a competent security review. In addition, this was obviously implemented by much cheaper-than-possible coders that do not have the first clue about IT security.

It does not get much more incompetent than this.

But I may just hold off for a while... to make sure there isn't some fundamental weakness in Disney+' account management.

Although it might be an interesting experiment - load up a pre-paid credit card with a few bucks and use that to create an account, then see whether it gets taken over...

The speed at which hackers have mobilized to monetize Disney+ accounts is astounding.

The incompetent security of Disney+ accounts is astounding.

More likely:

1. Scammers are selling absolutely nothing that will work.

2. Disney+ consumers

1. 2a. Reused credentials.
   2b. Choose the simplest most guessable credentials the Disney+ password policy would allow.
   2c. Created/used their account from a compromised system.
   2d. Were phished.

3. Disney got hacked. Very distant third place.

...while in other cases the Disney+ credentials might have been obtained from users infected with keylogging or info-stealing malware.

This article must have been written by a Disney PR person because it does not even mention the possibility that Disney+ got hacked.

It reminds me of Uber claiming that many of its users were reusing passwords, that's why their accounts were hacked, when in fact, they knew the company itself had been hacked and they even paid off the hackers to keep quiet.

Other manufacturers do sometimes make improvements, but they also make mistakes... For example the Duramax 6.6 went to the Bosch CP4 injection pump in 2011 in order to improve emissions or performance or something, but it turned out to be fragile so they dropped it in 2015 in favor of a Denso pump. They also have had a tendency to break cranks, so they went to a heavier crank with superior metallurgy and larger journals in 2017. Ford used to get their light duty diesels from Navistar (nee International) and Navistar made them two lemons in a row (6.0 and 6.4) so Ford threw up their hands and made their own 6.7 V8 which is reportedly quite good.

The stuff that pisses me off is the facelifting which has gotten totally out of control. If it looks new then people believe it is new so they buy it. But it makes it hard to find body parts — especially front bumper covers, headlights and such, which are commonly damaged.

>"We bought a Model X and its quite literally the best car we've ever owned."

Every car I have purchased has been the best car I have ever owned. I don't think that says too much. As we get older, we can afford better models, and all car technology improves each year making them generally more reliable, more comfortable, more convenient, and safer.

No, that isn't why. Religious believers have founded nearly every branch of the sciences because nearly every branch of the sciences was founded long ago, during a time when nearly everyone was a believer.

There just weren't enough non-believers around to do much founding, you see. And in many places/times it was actually quite dangerous to "out" one's self as a non-believer.

Lastly, the sciences were founded before their benefits were realized. Such benefits include the widespread realization that old religious beliefs have very little foundation in fact, and therefore very little warrant for belief. Science has been a journey of discovery which has taken place over time, liberating many people from superstition. The original founders could not reap this benefit precisely because they were the original founders, and as such they were still believers for their entire lives.

You argue in bad faith. Your question is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. You are too smart to be unaware of the difference, so you must be using sophistry to entrap.

Furthermore, it is a question about history, not a question about the natural world. The scientific method is used to build models of reality, not to prove specific historical facts, so it is an obvious mismatch.

You are deliberately using clever semantics to confuse, not to enlighten.

Ah, the old Rock Method of Argument:

Dolt: Find me a rock.

Girl: Okay, here's one.

Dolt: Nope, that's not the correct rock.

Girl: (snicker) Ummm...how will I know what is the correct rock?

Dolt: I'll tell you whether it is the correct rock.

Girl: You starched your shorts again, didn't you?

Apparently it is a bit more than that. I'm more favoring the theory that all these galaxies somehow influence each other. They were close enough at the time of the expansion of the Universe. It could also be the same result as the pendulum synchronicity experiment but at scale of the galaxy (after a while all pendulums that are connected through the same semi-rigid medium are going to be synchronized)

Reflection or lensing would explain this - rather than independent structures moving at the same time, we might be seeing the same thing from different angles.

I think a lot of people mistake anti-SEO for political bias. For example one popular technique is to fine a particular phrase that isn't very popular and popularize it for political purposes. Then when someone searches for that phrase they heard used in a soundbite or on Facebook all they get are sites with one political bias, the one that popularized it.

Then Google notices it's just a synonym for some more common way of phrasing the issue and the advantage disappears, and people claim Google is politically biased and trying to help the other side.

DuckDuckGo uses Google for search results anyway so any actual political bias will be evident there too. As for bubbles, you should block cookies and site data for all sites to avoid that. Everyone should use a whitelist these days.

The needs of users change over time, hence the search engines do change to reflect these.

For example, take a simple query like "Walmart". Previously if you just returned "walmart.com" as the first result, everything was fine. Now, not so much.

Maybe you are looking for the local store. Then a maps result should be in the second place. If this is a mobile device, maybe it should even be first.

Maybe you are looking for Walmart stock information. Was it up, or down today? How many point? Why?

Maybe you are looking for a company profile. There comes the little info box on the right. All things, like CEO, incomes, number of stores could be listed.

Maybe you are looking for pharmacy hours.

Maybe there was a recent event in a store. Unfortunate that it is, there was a recent shooting. Even if the article might not have as many clicks as the other results, int that particular day it might be important.

And once you start bringing more relevant results to the first page, naturally some other older results are pushed down.

What matters first is satisfying the user's needs. They are the ones searching for the information.

[ disclaimer: I work at Google, but not at core search. This is my external observation as a user, and I see similar things at Bing, which I also use ].

That's funny, when I search for a problem I'm having with google products google usually gives me dozens of pages of people having exactly the same problem for the past 5 or 6 years, and not a single person who has found a solution, or anyone at google who is willing to even acknowledge the issue.

I suspect you are mistaken, this reeks strongly of a desire to formalize that exact previous stance so they can once and for all toss out any heretics who dare question the systemd gods. Right now they have no official policy, so some people still manage to question systemd. That won't do, and they're determined to fix that.

Say what you will about Systemd, but it has political connections like no other project short of the kernel itself (and possibly even better than those!)

Gnome depends on X windows, which depends on a stable network,

Connections to local displays do not go through the TCP stack. If only you knew what a Unix socket was.

Since the purpose of of init is to start services/processss on boot, it seems like it would make sense for init to monitor those processes and restart them if the screw up.

Until you think it through. 99% of the time if your web site is down, it's not because the httpd root PID no longer exists. It's because the drive is full or the database server can't be reached or you upgraded PHP and some code broke or any of 1,000 other things. Checking that the parent PID exists isn't what you need. You need to use something like Monit to check that the web site is up, that the mail server is delivering mail, etc. Those are very application specific things, it's not PID or process management.

A quick Google shows that one of the main questions people have about monitoring services and systemd is how to get Monit or another system designed for monitoring these applications to work again after systemd screws up the monitoring.

Heck, SysVInit could watch a pid, so if you really find that valuable (because you don't have any monitoring for your web site?), you could do that with SysVInit too.

> Let's not turn every discussion into a joke. When I talk about the useful features of systemd,

I apologise, but when you start talking about how many different features systemd has, it's hard to discuss that without systemd sounding like a joke. It's like discussing how Trump has elevated the office of president and made it an inspiration to the nation again - how do you respond to that in a way that doesn't come across as ridicule? In my view, systemd is a clown when it comes to adding more and more shit, so it's difficult to discuss that without pointing out the big red nose.

Predictability in NIC names already existed. In the past distros would write rules to fix names of NICs once initially assigned. The first one detected would be eth0, but then a udev rule is saved so that this exact NIC (by MAC address) will forever be eth0, and any future cards become eth1, etc even if eth0 is later removed. And you have the option of manually editing the file, though I rarely did.

The new system is SUPPOSED to detect if a NIC is onboard, or in a PCI slot, and give it a name suitable to that. But even that is hit and miss. Sometimes dual-port NICs don't appear as 2 NICs but like SR-IOV subordinates of each other, which is wrong. Sometimes the motherboard onboard NICs are not properly recognized as such (I presume this is a BIOS error) and get labelled as being in add-on slots. Hell I've applied a BIOS update and seen PCI slots get relabelled; this didn't affect a NIC specifically but I saw the relabelling happen.

And finally, different motherboards will have different identifiers for their slots. Is the physical port I want to use on my addon card enp5s0, or enp94s0f1 ? It depends on the motherboard and I constantly need to check what it is for this machine.

So I've traded one consistent naming scheme which depends on the order of cards being detected over the machine's life, with one which depends on the BIOS naming scheme and how the NIC vendor labels their ports. I choose option 1.

Any just to make one thing clear, every single one of these things has happened to me personally and is not "I heard that this happens". Yes, I hate systemd, and it's not just joining the bandwagon - it's personal slights that have caused it.

One of the core principles of systemd has always been compatibility with sysv init scripts. So actually it does work fine. In fact systemd will happily defer to the init script if it can't find a systemd unit for the service you're asking for.

Hardly. sysv-init scripts are entirely relegated to second-class (as was the intent all along). In fact, they're not even handled directly in the core any more, but via a shim... and this is deemed a feature.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/master/NEWS#L6741
* The support for SysV and LSB init scripts has been removed
                    from the systemd daemon itself. Instead, it is now
                    implemented as a generator that creates native systemd units
                    from these scripts when needed. This enables us to remove a
                    substantial amount of legacy code from PID 1, following the
                    fact that many distributions only ship a very small number
                    of LSB/SysV init scripts nowadays.

We're not too far removed from a time when workers would turn up at the factory, or their mid-level corporate job, and physically do something for 8 hours, then go home. The factory worker would do his bit on the assembly line, and the paper-processor would take a basket of work, perform their process on it, and send it on to the next paper-processor.

Increasingly, office jobs have shifted to being all about strategy, planning, "digital transformation", etc. Most of the "work" part of work is automated away or sent offshore. I can definitely see why some people would want to use meetings to fill in the time...they just feel like they should be doing -something-. Not everyone is wired the same way, yet we've told a whole 2 generations of people that the only hope of a fulfilling life in the US and Europe is to go to college, get some generic management degree, and take their place in the corporate world. I can imagine people who have a desire to produce something are having a tough time justifying their life choices. My job is a mix of planning, design and R&D stuff for infrastructure, and I know I'm much happier working in our lab trying something out rather than doing Yet Another PowerPoint or having Yet Another Discussion.

Taking it to an extreme, think of all the management "consultants" and how satisfied they must be with their work. I can't imagine being 24 or 25, fresh out of business school, being dressed up in an identical Accenture suit and sent to give the exact same digital transformation presentation to a bunch of bored executives 50 weeks in a row. That would be a job that requires therapy, even if it pays well. :-)

The problem is most meetings are poorly run.
They need agendas to be followed and attention to time.

Indeed. I've fortunately worked myself into a position where I can say no to a lot of meetings. The #1 reason I say no is because they lack an agenda and a competent moderator.

I almost always go to meetings run by IT, because they plan and run them like a sprint. The agenda is out a week before the meeting, the necessary participants are identified and listed on the agenda, the agenda has a rough time for each item, and there's a backlog of topics ordered by importance if we have extra time. The guy who runs them smiles the whole time but is a fascist dictator for the agenda. 1 minute over the estimated time and he's already adding the topic as the first item for the next meeting so we can move on. 2 minutes over and he's already at "Ok, we need to table this discussion at this time and move on."

Those meetings are so incredibly productive that I actually feel guilty missing them, even if I only have 5 minutes of my stuff on the agenda. At the worst I've got a great window into how my stuff fits into the rest of IT's workload, and where their pain points are. That's really helpful when it comes to advocating for what I need, and trying to creatively figure out how to get them the capacity to handle it. Due to these meetings I have solved other department's problems just to free up IT to work on mine.

I often refuse meetings with an outside vendor because they email a list of topics consisting of 3 bullet points the day before, random people seem to be in charge, and it's 90% shit that's either pointless ramble or could have been an email followed up with 10% "we need you to make a decision on the spot". My answer to that is that I'll get back to them, and I'll need more information. If you want a decision from me, send me that shit a week ago and I'll make sure the right people have been consulted and our position is clear.

It's explained in David Graeber's book, "Bullshit Jobs". The meetings are, indeed, therapy - but only for the big swingin' dicks.

Just like emperors of old, today's "executives" often have deep personal feelings of insecurity and feel better when surrounded by crowds of yes-employees. The only reason they don't have robed and turbaned lackeys waving ostrich feathers to cool their fevered brows is that they are also terrified of ridicule.

As a low-level employee who wasted many of the best hours of my life in such meetings, I can testify that it was most unwise for anyone but a big cheese to speak. If you were lucky, you would be completely ignored. Otherwise, whatever you said would be written down and added to your HR zapiska for later use against you.

as someone who does the work.

I've worked at a number of companies over the years, and found that there are organisations which know how to have meetings, and those who do not.

When you are in an organisation which does not know how to run a meeting... you're lucky to get an average of two hours a day of useful work done. Your days get gradually taken over by meetings with no clear purpose, attended by people who have been invited for no clear reason. Typically the person with the least information talks the most, and after wasting an hour (or two) no useful outcome is reached. This is where projects go to die. Any successful projects are usually due to someone getting sufficiently annoyed and skunk-works-ing the project, presenting it as a fait acompli. Alternatively, by someone on the project team sacrificing them selves to the meetings to shield the rest of their team.

When you're in an organisation which knows how to run meetings, then you get stuff done. Meetings are limited, and when they happen they have a clear purpose; typically either to share information, or to agree on a decision. There is this marvelous thing called an agenda, which gets circulated in advance to all attendees, along with what the desired outputs of the meeting are, and any preparation you need to do before attending. This lets people decide whether they need to attend or not. The person who has the information to share is the one to do the talking. The more important you are, the more of your time is spent listening to gather information to make the required decisions.

So, to fulfill the promise in this posts title:

1. Avoid meetings: If you're in a good organisation, they'll understand. If you are not, then do whatever you have to;
   • - Draw straws in your team to see which one of you to sacrifice
   • - Block out time when you are unavailable, e.g.: due to prior commitments (work is a prior commitment, right?)
   • - Collate all the meetings you can't avoid into one or two chunks to minimise lost time.
   • - Make people aware of how much time is wasted in meetings, and how much it threatens the success of the project.
   • - Try to turn it into a one-on-one call; these are much easier to make useful.
   • - Try to take it to email.
2. Make meetings useful: If you can't avoid a meeting, or worse yet, you have to schedule one, then make sure it is at least going to be useful.
   • - Make sure meetings have an Agenda, clearly listing the topics you need to discuss.
   • - Make sure meetings have a clear expected outcome.
   • - Make sure all the required information readily at hand.
   • - Send all that information out to people before hand. Sometimes you may be able to resolve things without the meeting this way.
   • - Make sure the absolute minimum number of people are involved.
   • - Run the meeting like a tyrant if you have to.
     • If people start to ramble, cut them off. This saves time, and also serves as a way to make sure that everyone who needs to talk has chance to. (Particularly those who would otherwise have trouble speaking up, inclusivity bonus!).
     • If people get off topic, tell them to take it to another meeting. You are here to achieve the expected outcomes and that is it.
     • Be polite about it if you can, but do remember: they're being incredibly rude wasting every ones time, don't let that go unchallenged. Nice and good are not the same thing.

   That is what I've figured out so far. If you've got ideas on how to survive in meeting land, please post them; I'm always looking to learn.

I am a little conflicted about this. Seems like the author is trying to justify time spent in meetings which serve little purpose at first glance. I would say that is besides the purpose, and justifies busy work. They do not have enough real work to do, so need the meetings to feel useful and not bored.

I have very little respect for this. Maybe that is because I pretty much spend all my day (more than 8 hours) in a continuous block of meetings, and every bit of time is precious. Now sure some of them are inefficient and could be better managed, and yes a 20 minute discussion often expands to fill the fully scheduled 30 min block of time (more and more however we are saying letâ(TM)s end early and get some time back). But I would say the totally useless meetings where I go âoewhy the hell am I hereâ are pretty infrequent, and even there I can just fire up my laptop and tune things out, keeping an ear open.

Some context: The title does not matter, but I am a manager-of-managers and do virtually no hands-on work anymore; I have about 50 people plus 10 to 15 contractors rolling up to me. It takes a lot of coordination and planning to keep our projects aligned together with interdependencies figured out and tracked, and with activities outside of my area but within my larger group, etc. A lot of time is spent in mundane but critical activities like budget planning, resource allocation, HR matters (people conflicts, etc), 1:1 check-ins with my directs (who themselves are line managers).

A lot of time is spent managing sideways and upwards, handling the politics and shielding my team from the corporate sh*t. Someone has to deal with it, otherwise it will flow down. Our (very large 70,000 employee multi-national) company has a very consensus driven culture (given the different countries, cultures and people who work here), and often coordination with a lot of stakeholders is required to get things moving, or on track.

I also make time to do (periodic but not frequent) skip level meetings and check in either 1:1 or in groups with people in my team. Could be a chat, discussion about career progression, or once a quarter a particular project team might present an update on their work to me, and do a deep dive allowing me to poke and prod, and learn. Not only does it keep me plugged in with my team, but they appreciate the opportunity to present, and get time with their bosses boss, or higher. I really enjoy these.

Also there is the regular hiring activity, particularly in a growth phase, and OMG does hiring take time. Interviewing, as well as job requisition negotiations, budgets, time with HR, etc. Sometimes with regular attrition, a team might end up reporting directly to me while I search for their new leader, and that increases my workload and meetings.

Often times new, large multi-million dollar initiatives, do not just get kicked off in one meeting, a bunch of meetings, or even half/full/multi-day workshops are required to figure things out, align different groups, plan, etc, and then get it really moving.

And then, while I do not normally micromanage and instead delegate to the team leads who report into me, there is sometimes a crisis, or a project is very behind schedule, or someone else in the company is pissed with one of my teams, or something, and for a few days or weeks I have to dive deeper and engage with a particular project team on a more intense and frequent level until the problem gets sorted out. That adds meetings.

For all these reasons, and more, I spend all my working day in meetings. My situation may be very different from the one presented, but I have no patience for truly useless or waste-of-time meetings. If I find myself in one, I try to excuse myself after some time. I do not entertain future meeting requests from those people. If I found out someone in my org was spending time in meetings like this, that would get focused on pretty quickly, and I would ask their line manager if the person was using their time effectively. We have a lot of work to do with a backlog of tasks, and do not have a lot of bandwidth that is just free.

There is for instance selection bias. Which data you gather depends heavily on the way you gather data. If you fish with a net with meshes 4 inches wide in a lake, you will not catch any fish smaller than 4 inches. If you use the caught fish to find out the average size of fish in that lake, the data lies to you.

And if you uncritically use the data to train an AI, the AI will show all the biases that went into designing the ways to gather the data, and how to interpret it. AI is a magnifying glass of our way to gather data and to make sense of it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Even deleting the 'non-PC attributes' isn't as easy as it might seem. Sure, you can carefully omit the 'race' field from your criminals records before feeding them into the predict-o-matic - but there are a lot of attributes that correlate with criminality. The algorithm will swiftly work out that people in certain parts of town are more likely to commit crimes, and that people on low family income are more likely to commit crimes, and that people or poor educational attainment are more likely to commit crimes... and we just run again into the most fundamental problem: We want to enjoy all the benefits that prejudice allows, declaring people are guilty or innocent based on statistical correlations, while hiding the dirty business away inside a machine-learning black box so we can pretend these correlations are objective and not feel guilty about locking people away in prison for years based on where they happen to live or how much money their parents make.

"They don't permit polite fictions like those that we often sustain our society with."

Well, and that's the "problem". Except the taboos are so strong that she can't say that the polite fictions are that certain groups aren't more criminal, that it's all due to bias, and so forth.

Analyzing data does cut through the polite fictions, but she can't even say what those polite fictions are. That does trigger a lot of cognitive dissonance and thrashing about.

If you read the bug report thread many were using the enterprise edition. Unfortunately Google reserves the right to push many flags that are not explicitly in the control of the admins such as revoking ssl certs.

https://bugs.chromium.org/p/ch...

> However, some components are exempt from this policy: updates to any component that does not contain executable code, or does not significantly alter the behavior of the browser, or is critical for its security will not be disabled.

https://getadmx.com/?Category=...

Actually this is a Google thing that has been infecting everyone. Prior to Windows 10, Microsoft Updates *never* changed a setting that the user had set. Unfortunately this "experiments" thing is also a part of Firefox, but at least in Firefox you can turn it off to prevent Mozilla from making random changes to your configuration. With Microsoft you just have to get used to it and write software to make sure that things stay as you set them (the worst offender being the Microsoft Firewall, which will adjust itself at every turn to allow all sorts of stupid little Microsoft shits (like the Calculator) receive unsolicited incoming connections from the Internet).

Shouldn't they have been using Chrome Browser for enterprise with policies to prevent Chrome experiment from being inflicted on users?
https://cloud.google.com/chrom...

You shouldn't be using spyware in enterprise anyway.

"Hey, we're a multi-billion dollar company, but can't be bothered to test our software properly. If you could just roll out this beta to your internal corporate network and test it for us that would be aces. TIA luv da Goog"

Yeah. Bollocks to that.

64

Nothing of value was lost.

We don't need more virute signaling valley people in Hong Kong, thanks, kindly fuck off, we're full.

>"More than 60% of Americans think it's impossible to go through daily life without being tracked by companies or the government"

And they would be almost correct. It *is* impossible to go through daily life without being tracked, unless you pay for everything in cash, use an open-source-based computer WITH all the apps optimized to prevent spying AND without using any sign-in "services" (such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc), and you don't have a powered-on cell phone on you, don't order anything online, and don't have a car/vehicle model that spies on you, and you don't put some stupid-ass "cloud-based" crap in your house (like Ring, or Nest, or whatever), and you protect your identity with any transaction. Soon you will have to wear a hoodie everywhere, too. It is almost possible, but nobody will do all that is required to prevent it- some of the stuff is easy and even advisable, other stuff is extremely inconvenient.

And as we have already seen, the average person will quickly/gladly/gratefully trade their freedom and privacy for security (or the illusion thereof), convenience, and lower cost. But worse, they will also trade OTHER PEOPLE'S freedom and privacy for "security" through government intervention. There is a balance- where the balance should be is hard to say, but the lines were certainly crossed a long time ago. When freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and gun rights are under constant attack, you know the problem is already extremely serious.

This is step 2 in the proces towards Social Cooling.

https://www.socialcooling.com/

Step 3 is that people will apply self-censorship in order to 'look good', which means we will see large scale data-driven chilling effects.

Cambridge Analytica showed us how all kinds of parties try to influence us nowadays. But I believe that influence is small compared to the power of self-censorship.

While we may see self-censorship as an unwanted side effect, in China they are actively steering towards this.

Since many privacy laws depend on a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, does this mean if people no longer expect privacy they lose it

Probably, but people generally still expect privacy in bathrooms, bedrooms, phone calls, private homes etc. so the threshold for when the police needs a warrant hasn't moved that much. The difference is all the rest, like if someone kept a record of you from the moment you walked out the door and in all publish establishments to the doorstep of other private spaces most would consider that an invasion of privacy. Like "Here's a record of you arriving alone at the pub. Here's a record of you two leaving the pub. Here's a record of you two taking a taxi back to your place. Here's a record of the other person leaving in the morning." If you've ceased to have any privacy in the public space a whole lot can be inferred about what's going on in private.

And you could of course say that in theory any police stakeout could have recorded that information, which is true but scale, precision and completeness matter. For example, it's probably no big deal if I see one person entering or leaving a military base. But if I had a complete log of everyone coming and going at every base and knew at any time exactly how many people were on staff right and could forecast and detect anomalies based on past patterns the military would probably not be too happy. And that's before we start talking about the data you're willingly sending out of private activities and spaces...