"I already answered this question. Please check your inbox." Is a valid answer, you know.
Further, I think it's the right answer. If this were an occasional event then it's reasonable to just answer again, or even to do the work of finding the previous email and forwarding it again. If this happens frequently, though, I'd create a canned response that says "I already answered this question. Please check your inbox." and send it. Make her do the work of searching her mail to find the previous answer, rather than doing it for her. Eventually she may realize that it's less effort to do that before emailing, rather than after.
You do need to be sure that you actually have answered the question before, though.
Why do we have a company whose main business is selling ads controlling the software that either allows the ads to be blocked or not be blocked? Seems like an enormous conflict of interest. This only will end one way if Google is in charge... ultimately ad blockers will go away, one way or another.
Maybe someday, if Google starts struggling to grow revenues and profits. The situation now is what it's been for pretty much the whole life of the company, that Google has a money-printing machine so effective that the bottom line rarely figures in decisions made by most engineers building the products (and most of these decisions are made by the engineers, not by management)... and even from the upper management's perspective it's considered far more important to make products that people want to use than to exploit every angle to generate profit.
I don't actually know anyone on the Chrome extension team, but I'm sure their focus is on users, and that they barely ever even think about ad revenues. Performance, enabling interesting extensions and eliminating malware extensions are what they spend their time thinking about, I'm sure. In this case, they're adding a new API which seems to be perfectly adequate for adblocking, much faster (native code vs Javascript), and less prone to abuse (extensions can configure blocklists, but don't get to learn what URLs users actually visit). The controversy comes from the fact that they set an upper limit on the number of adblocking rules that can be added: 30K. They clearly thought this limit was high enough, but given the pushback have said that they'll raise it -- they want to provide a limit that's high enough to do the job, but low enough to make curators of adblocking pay attention to whether their rules are actually doing anything, and purge those that don't, to keep the lists small and fast.
Really, the goal here seems to be to make adblocking safer and more efficient, better for users, not to kill it.
(Note: I work for Google but I am not speaking for Google. And I use an adblocker, advise everyone I know to use adblockers, and would switch to a different browser if Chrome were to block adblockers.)
I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.
It should be pointed out that the new API being proposed will actually make adblocking more efficient. The new API allows extensions to configure Chrome with a set of rules that specify what URLs to block. These rules would be evaluated by Chrome, in native code. In contrast, the method currently used by adblockers is an API that simply calls a snippet of extension-provided Javascript on each network request. While this can be fast if the adblock extension author codes it well, it clearly will never be as efficient as matching rules implemented in native code.
The source of the controversy is that the new API has an upper bound on the number of rules that can be provided: 30K So an adblocker could not add more than 30K adblocking rules. The message from Devlin Cronin (lead engineer for the extensions team) implies that they think that should be enough for good adblocking, if rules are managed properly. He cites research which finds that 90% of the 60K EasyList rules aren't useful, which implies that the same adblocking benefit would be achieved with 6K rules. Clearly, huge rule lists will be slower than small rule lists. Cronin says the rule list size limit will be increased, though there will still be a limit.
You would think that older, more-experienced drivers are better drivers bit from what I've seen, most experienced drivers simply drive as badly as they did when they weren't experienced.
My conclusion: most young idiots develop into older idiots.
Your conclusion is based on unsystematic, anecdotal information. In contrast, the actuaries who work for insurance companies have, and use, extensive data on accidents, cost and fault, all correlated with many driver characteristics including age, training, history of accidents and moving violations, and more. They adjust insurance premiums based on what they learn from systematic statistical analysis of this mountain of data. So, even without access to their data, we can make conclusions about their conclusions just observing how auto insurance premiums vary. How do they?
Note to author: It was determined during WWII that repeating plaintext makes it far easier for an opponent to crack the cyphertext. Just sayin'.
This is wrong.
What you say was true of WWII-era ciphers, but with modern ciphers and constructions any system that is made easier to break by repeating plaintext is considered completely broken and discarded. We don't worry about repeated plaintext any more, we worry about ensuring that the output of the base cipher is indistinguishable from uniform random noise, and that the construction is randomized so that two encryptions of identical plaintext produce unrelated ciphertexts.
Also, your comment is off topic because encryption has nothing to do with password storage. You don't use an encryption cipher to secure passwords, you use a key derivation function, one designed specifically for passwords.
Crypto history is fascinating, and fun, but be careful applying its lessons to modern crypto.
These are the exact same arguments I remember hearing back when IE6 became the monoculture. MS even had a vested interest in keeping it going full steam ahead.
What idiot who didn't know Microsoft made those arguments about IE6? MS was still very much in Embrace/Extend/Extinguish mode back then. No one who looked at the larger picture could have thought the IE6 monoculture was good for the web in the long run.
Prices do indeed constitute communication, but they are in the open. Something done openly is not collusion.
That's not true. Collusion is defined as "secret or illegal cooperation". It generally is secret because doing illegal things openly is likely to result in getting caught, but that doesn't mean that collusion can never be done in public.
I think the poster should take the log out their eye, because the US is no better!
Bullshit. The US certainly has plenty of problems and is hardly the shining beacon on a hill it would like to think it is. But if you think China is the same, then you don't know much about China. Go read about the Great Firewall, and about social credit scores, and about the treatment of the Uighurs and the Tibetans. Learn something about how the Chinese government treats the poor rural people, especially the non-Han ethnicities. Take a look at how politics is conducted, with regular purges and disappearances of political enemies. Notice how Xi Jinping is very close to establishing himself as dictator for life, and how "Xi Jinping Thought" is being made into a mandatory doctrine not only for government officials, but for university educators, the media and even school children.
Yeah, the US has problems, but you're creating one whale of a false equivalency.
However, China has proven that a totalitarian communist system can incorporate a lot of capitalism and just keep on oppressing.
I think China has proven that a totalitarian communist system can incorporate a lot of capitalism and just keep on oppressing for a while. Xi Jinping has been seriously cracking down, true, but I think it's still too soon to count out the rising middle class. The problem is that for capitalism to work you have to give people a fair degree of economic freedom, and that makes them begin to expect quite a bit of social freedom as well.
How long will it take? That's hard to say. Chinese culture is quite different from Western culture, and especially American culture. We have a streak of independence and disrespect for authority that they largely lack (or flip it around, they have a respect for social good and authority that we lack). So it's a given that China will never mirror us. But I think they're going to move much further in that direction and that totalitarian control will be shaken off, due to capitalism.
splashing you in the face with a blast of planet-saving on their way to not-the-gas station.
You suck at everything.
Where does the electric come from?
Depends where you live. But even where it's mostly fossil fuels, the power generation produces less pollution per mile than an ICE does, because of the efficiencies achievable by large power plants. And, of course, electricity can be and increasingly is produced by non-polluting processes.
That said "planet-saving" is a phrase that really rubs me the wrong way. We can neither harm nor save the planet. We can, and do, rearrange some bits of it, and impact the biosphere, but it's unlikely that we're currently capable of destroying even that. What we are doing, on the other hand, is making the planet much less pleasant for humans to live on. So it's not about saving the planet, it's about saving humanity from massive dislocation, economic destruction, and loss of life (due mostly to famine and wars, but also some to more direct effects).
If we keep on our current course, the planet will be fine, the biosphere will recover, and even humanity will almost certainly survive. It'll just set our economic progress back by decades and make our lives very unpleasant.
If I was to build a fence inside my property, after a number of years the land would become legally my neighbours
Not true, presence of a wall somewhere on your property doesn't move the property line. Nor does the lack of a fence/wall prevent an adverse possession.
That depends on many factors. It depends on how well-defined the legal boundary is, on how long the adverse possession continues, on what use the other party makes of the bit of your property, and more.
I doubt you could find any competent attorney who wouldn't counsel you to immediately raise a complaint about the location of the fence. You might not have to insist on it being moved, but you almost certainly want to make it abundantly clear to your neighbor that you know where the actual boundary is, and make sure they and the relevant land registrar do, too.
I almost had to go to court over a misplaced fence once, but avoided the battle by quickly moving the fence to the correct location when the land changed hands. In my case the issue was further complicated by the fact that the adverse possession was incorporated into a right-of-way... but when the farmer who owned the field behind my house sold to a real-estate developer the right-of-way was removed anyway; it became part of the backyards of a row of homes and a new right-of-way, on a paved suburban street, was added. My attorney counseled me to quickly move the fence after the property changed hands and before construction started. The developer still might have tried to dispute the change, but it put them in the position of trying to move an established boundary marker that also matched the legal boundary -- an easy argument for me and hard for them. In any event the developer never contacted me and my new neighbor never knew there had been any dispute. Possibly the farmer never told the developer about it.
If I'd waited until a house was built and sold and then tried to assert my ownership of part of my neighbor's backyard, my lawyer says I may well have lost, even though the legal description of the actual boundary was clear. The nature of the use of the adverse possession (right-of-way, at first, residential property, later) and the way you go about trying to fix it matter. Grabbing it back while it wasn't used at all was the ideal solution.
In the case of a wall between the US and Mexico, that boundary has its own problems, but the wall clearly wouldn't change anything. In the area where the border is defined by the course of the Rio Grande, there have been many disputes over land that switched sides when the river moved. In 1970 a treaty was signed that settled all the previous disputes and established clear rules for addressing new changes in the river course. This is well settled, and the presence of a wall on US soil wouldn't change anything.
I think very little was GDPR-related. As I recall, 2017's big fine ($2.5B) was for putting Google Shopping ads in Google Search results, and 2018's ($5B) was for bundling GApps with Android.
You're making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions which implicitly assume that the developers of Chrome are idiots and don't care if people use their browser. You should think about whether either of those things are likely.
I'll monitor my own shit thank you. I trust YOU (Google) even less than the bad guys.
If you use Chrome, you trust Google.
You may not trust Google in the sense of "trust" that means you have a feeling of confidence that they are likely to act correctly. But you absolutely trust Google in the sense that you're performing actions that depend on their acting correctly. Anyone who is willing to type passwords into Chrome, but unwilling for security reasons to let this extension check their passwords in the careful, secure way that it does (which doesn't involve sending a copy of your information to Google, RTFA) hasn't thought the question through.
Anything you type into network-connected application or device X is potentially revealed to whoever built X. So you place deep trust in the author(s) of whatever browser you use, unless you don't use your browser for anything important.
Your 'never slow mode' should only ever be a debug tool for people making web pages.
I think the idea is that by making "slow mode" pages fail to work well, they'll force programmers to make better web pages. Chrome has had debug tools that provide all this information for ages, and the developers who make use of them can make very snappy sites. But those conscientious and careful developers aren't the problem. It's all the ones who won't do it right until doing it wrong results in user complaints that you need to reach.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google but don't know anything about this beyond what I read in the summary. I didn't even RTFA.)
It's because of insurance. No system, company, etc is perfect. Of course banks do stupid shit. But they're insured.
It's got nothing to do with insurance. Banks aren't insured against stupidity. Smallish demand-deposit accounts are insured by the FDIC against bank insolvency, but that isn't really relevant to why these kinds of things don't happen to banks.
The real reason that this isn't a problem for traditional banks is that mistakes -- and fraud -- are nearly always reversible, because the security and integrity of the systems is based on auditability, not on perfect correctness. If Chase had accidentally deleted a row in their ledger system that held $137M (I'm sure it's happened plenty of times), they can examine the transaction logs and recover the state. And even if they somehow lost their logs, and all of their backups (data that needn't be kept secret is much easier to back up), all of the parties they transact with have their own logs, and can prove what money should have been where.
BTC is an interesting case because the transaction ledger is intact (the blockchain is a transaction ledger, no more, no less), but the identities that transact are defined by the ability to produce cryptographic signatures., and in this case the keys that define those entities have been lost.
If it's true, we're heading towards a complete world economic collapse. The world's economy is built on debt we assume to paid by future generations. When the population no longer grows, the resulting social upheaval will be immense.
Nah.
We're also heading towards an automation-driven productivity boom that will make every previous boom look like much ado about nothing. This boom will require us to completely restructure our economy, and *that* will likely generate huge social upheaval, but assuming we manage to make the transition, the past "debts" won't just be trivial, they'll be irrelevant.
Until the AIs decide we're obstructing their paperclip production operation, that is.
You mean, "We don't have a free market in this case". Telcos exploit government regulation to prevent competition. If you and I could just switch ISPs on a whim there would be no need for regulation, except perhaps to protect whistleblowers from corporate retaliation.
I see lots of people claiming they know better than the study but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to be based on any rigorous research.
There's a lot of confirmation bias at work. People who enjoy grumbling about the inaccuracy of weather forecasts regularly notice every deviation but mostly ignore the correct predictions, and therefore see proof that forecasts are extremely inaccurate.
Anecdotal experience is basically useless in something like this. You'll see whatever you want to. To know anything real, you need to actually record forecasts and variance for a good period of time, and then systematically analyze the results.
Slashdot Mirror
"I already answered this question. Please check your inbox." Is a valid answer, you know.
Further, I think it's the right answer. If this were an occasional event then it's reasonable to just answer again, or even to do the work of finding the previous email and forwarding it again. If this happens frequently, though, I'd create a canned response that says "I already answered this question. Please check your inbox." and send it. Make her do the work of searching her mail to find the previous answer, rather than doing it for her. Eventually she may realize that it's less effort to do that before emailing, rather than after.
You do need to be sure that you actually have answered the question before, though.
Or, as I tend to put it, the collective IQ of a group can be determined by taking the IQ of the biggest idiot and dividing by the number of feet.
Clearly, we need to use a group of legless amputees as our leaders.
ads which are a form of DRM.
How so? This is a very interesting claim. I'm not saying it's false, just that I don't see the connection.
Why do we have a company whose main business is selling ads controlling the software that either allows the ads to be blocked or not be blocked? Seems like an enormous conflict of interest. This only will end one way if Google is in charge... ultimately ad blockers will go away, one way or another.
Maybe someday, if Google starts struggling to grow revenues and profits. The situation now is what it's been for pretty much the whole life of the company, that Google has a money-printing machine so effective that the bottom line rarely figures in decisions made by most engineers building the products (and most of these decisions are made by the engineers, not by management)... and even from the upper management's perspective it's considered far more important to make products that people want to use than to exploit every angle to generate profit.
I don't actually know anyone on the Chrome extension team, but I'm sure their focus is on users, and that they barely ever even think about ad revenues. Performance, enabling interesting extensions and eliminating malware extensions are what they spend their time thinking about, I'm sure. In this case, they're adding a new API which seems to be perfectly adequate for adblocking, much faster (native code vs Javascript), and less prone to abuse (extensions can configure blocklists, but don't get to learn what URLs users actually visit). The controversy comes from the fact that they set an upper limit on the number of adblocking rules that can be added: 30K. They clearly thought this limit was high enough, but given the pushback have said that they'll raise it -- they want to provide a limit that's high enough to do the job, but low enough to make curators of adblocking pay attention to whether their rules are actually doing anything, and purge those that don't, to keep the lists small and fast.
Really, the goal here seems to be to make adblocking safer and more efficient, better for users, not to kill it.
(Note: I work for Google but I am not speaking for Google. And I use an adblocker, advise everyone I know to use adblockers, and would switch to a different browser if Chrome were to block adblockers.)
I'd still want an ad blocker. It's optional anyways. Don't like the performance? Don't install the extension.
It should be pointed out that the new API being proposed will actually make adblocking more efficient. The new API allows extensions to configure Chrome with a set of rules that specify what URLs to block. These rules would be evaluated by Chrome, in native code. In contrast, the method currently used by adblockers is an API that simply calls a snippet of extension-provided Javascript on each network request. While this can be fast if the adblock extension author codes it well, it clearly will never be as efficient as matching rules implemented in native code.
The source of the controversy is that the new API has an upper bound on the number of rules that can be provided: 30K So an adblocker could not add more than 30K adblocking rules. The message from Devlin Cronin (lead engineer for the extensions team) implies that they think that should be enough for good adblocking, if rules are managed properly. He cites research which finds that 90% of the 60K EasyList rules aren't useful, which implies that the same adblocking benefit would be achieved with 6K rules. Clearly, huge rule lists will be slower than small rule lists. Cronin says the rule list size limit will be increased, though there will still be a limit.
For anyone interested in the technical details, here's the documentation of the new API: https://developer.chrome.com/e... and of the existing API: https://developer.chrome.com/e...
You would think that older, more-experienced drivers are better drivers bit from what I've seen, most experienced drivers simply drive as badly as they did when they weren't experienced.
My conclusion: most young idiots develop into older idiots.
Your conclusion is based on unsystematic, anecdotal information. In contrast, the actuaries who work for insurance companies have, and use, extensive data on accidents, cost and fault, all correlated with many driver characteristics including age, training, history of accidents and moving violations, and more. They adjust insurance premiums based on what they learn from systematic statistical analysis of this mountain of data. So, even without access to their data, we can make conclusions about their conclusions just observing how auto insurance premiums vary. How do they?
Young people pay a *lot* more than older people.
Note to author: It was determined during WWII that repeating plaintext makes it far easier for an opponent to crack the cyphertext. Just sayin'.
This is wrong.
What you say was true of WWII-era ciphers, but with modern ciphers and constructions any system that is made easier to break by repeating plaintext is considered completely broken and discarded. We don't worry about repeated plaintext any more, we worry about ensuring that the output of the base cipher is indistinguishable from uniform random noise, and that the construction is randomized so that two encryptions of identical plaintext produce unrelated ciphertexts.
Also, your comment is off topic because encryption has nothing to do with password storage. You don't use an encryption cipher to secure passwords, you use a key derivation function, one designed specifically for passwords.
Crypto history is fascinating, and fun, but be careful applying its lessons to modern crypto.
These are the exact same arguments I remember hearing back when IE6 became the monoculture. MS even had a vested interest in keeping it going full steam ahead.
What idiot who didn't know Microsoft made those arguments about IE6? MS was still very much in Embrace/Extend/Extinguish mode back then. No one who looked at the larger picture could have thought the IE6 monoculture was good for the web in the long run.
Thank god, I love not being able to see the edges of tabs, etc.
On what browser can you not see the edges of tabs?
Prices do indeed constitute communication, but they are in the open. Something done openly is not collusion.
That's not true. Collusion is defined as "secret or illegal cooperation". It generally is secret because doing illegal things openly is likely to result in getting caught, but that doesn't mean that collusion can never be done in public.
I think the poster should take the log out their eye, because the US is no better!
Bullshit. The US certainly has plenty of problems and is hardly the shining beacon on a hill it would like to think it is. But if you think China is the same, then you don't know much about China. Go read about the Great Firewall, and about social credit scores, and about the treatment of the Uighurs and the Tibetans. Learn something about how the Chinese government treats the poor rural people, especially the non-Han ethnicities. Take a look at how politics is conducted, with regular purges and disappearances of political enemies. Notice how Xi Jinping is very close to establishing himself as dictator for life, and how "Xi Jinping Thought" is being made into a mandatory doctrine not only for government officials, but for university educators, the media and even school children.
Yeah, the US has problems, but you're creating one whale of a false equivalency.
However, China has proven that a totalitarian communist system can incorporate a lot of capitalism and just keep on oppressing.
I think China has proven that a totalitarian communist system can incorporate a lot of capitalism and just keep on oppressing for a while. Xi Jinping has been seriously cracking down, true, but I think it's still too soon to count out the rising middle class. The problem is that for capitalism to work you have to give people a fair degree of economic freedom, and that makes them begin to expect quite a bit of social freedom as well.
How long will it take? That's hard to say. Chinese culture is quite different from Western culture, and especially American culture. We have a streak of independence and disrespect for authority that they largely lack (or flip it around, they have a respect for social good and authority that we lack). So it's a given that China will never mirror us. But I think they're going to move much further in that direction and that totalitarian control will be shaken off, due to capitalism.
splashing you in the face with a blast of planet-saving on their way to not-the-gas station.
You suck at everything.
Where does the electric come from?
Depends where you live. But even where it's mostly fossil fuels, the power generation produces less pollution per mile than an ICE does, because of the efficiencies achievable by large power plants. And, of course, electricity can be and increasingly is produced by non-polluting processes.
That said "planet-saving" is a phrase that really rubs me the wrong way. We can neither harm nor save the planet. We can, and do, rearrange some bits of it, and impact the biosphere, but it's unlikely that we're currently capable of destroying even that. What we are doing, on the other hand, is making the planet much less pleasant for humans to live on. So it's not about saving the planet, it's about saving humanity from massive dislocation, economic destruction, and loss of life (due mostly to famine and wars, but also some to more direct effects).
If we keep on our current course, the planet will be fine, the biosphere will recover, and even humanity will almost certainly survive. It'll just set our economic progress back by decades and make our lives very unpleasant.
If I was to build a fence inside my property, after a number of years the land would become legally my neighbours
Not true, presence of a wall somewhere on your property doesn't move the property line. Nor does the lack of a fence/wall prevent an adverse possession.
That depends on many factors. It depends on how well-defined the legal boundary is, on how long the adverse possession continues, on what use the other party makes of the bit of your property, and more.
I doubt you could find any competent attorney who wouldn't counsel you to immediately raise a complaint about the location of the fence. You might not have to insist on it being moved, but you almost certainly want to make it abundantly clear to your neighbor that you know where the actual boundary is, and make sure they and the relevant land registrar do, too.
I almost had to go to court over a misplaced fence once, but avoided the battle by quickly moving the fence to the correct location when the land changed hands. In my case the issue was further complicated by the fact that the adverse possession was incorporated into a right-of-way... but when the farmer who owned the field behind my house sold to a real-estate developer the right-of-way was removed anyway; it became part of the backyards of a row of homes and a new right-of-way, on a paved suburban street, was added. My attorney counseled me to quickly move the fence after the property changed hands and before construction started. The developer still might have tried to dispute the change, but it put them in the position of trying to move an established boundary marker that also matched the legal boundary -- an easy argument for me and hard for them. In any event the developer never contacted me and my new neighbor never knew there had been any dispute. Possibly the farmer never told the developer about it.
If I'd waited until a house was built and sold and then tried to assert my ownership of part of my neighbor's backyard, my lawyer says I may well have lost, even though the legal description of the actual boundary was clear. The nature of the use of the adverse possession (right-of-way, at first, residential property, later) and the way you go about trying to fix it matter. Grabbing it back while it wasn't used at all was the ideal solution.
In the case of a wall between the US and Mexico, that boundary has its own problems, but the wall clearly wouldn't change anything. In the area where the border is defined by the course of the Rio Grande, there have been many disputes over land that switched sides when the river moved. In 1970 a treaty was signed that settled all the previous disputes and established clear rules for addressing new changes in the river course. This is well settled, and the presence of a wall on US soil wouldn't change anything.
GDPR violations mostly.
I think very little was GDPR-related. As I recall, 2017's big fine ($2.5B) was for putting Google Shopping ads in Google Search results, and 2018's ($5B) was for bundling GApps with Android.
You're making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions which implicitly assume that the developers of Chrome are idiots and don't care if people use their browser. You should think about whether either of those things are likely.
I'll monitor my own shit thank you. I trust YOU (Google) even less than the bad guys.
If you use Chrome, you trust Google.
You may not trust Google in the sense of "trust" that means you have a feeling of confidence that they are likely to act correctly. But you absolutely trust Google in the sense that you're performing actions that depend on their acting correctly. Anyone who is willing to type passwords into Chrome, but unwilling for security reasons to let this extension check their passwords in the careful, secure way that it does (which doesn't involve sending a copy of your information to Google, RTFA) hasn't thought the question through.
Anything you type into network-connected application or device X is potentially revealed to whoever built X. So you place deep trust in the author(s) of whatever browser you use, unless you don't use your browser for anything important.
Your 'never slow mode' should only ever be a debug tool for people making web pages.
I think the idea is that by making "slow mode" pages fail to work well, they'll force programmers to make better web pages. Chrome has had debug tools that provide all this information for ages, and the developers who make use of them can make very snappy sites. But those conscientious and careful developers aren't the problem. It's all the ones who won't do it right until doing it wrong results in user complaints that you need to reach.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google but don't know anything about this beyond what I read in the summary. I didn't even RTFA.)
It's because of insurance. No system, company, etc is perfect. Of course banks do stupid shit. But they're insured.
It's got nothing to do with insurance. Banks aren't insured against stupidity. Smallish demand-deposit accounts are insured by the FDIC against bank insolvency, but that isn't really relevant to why these kinds of things don't happen to banks.
The real reason that this isn't a problem for traditional banks is that mistakes -- and fraud -- are nearly always reversible, because the security and integrity of the systems is based on auditability, not on perfect correctness. If Chase had accidentally deleted a row in their ledger system that held $137M (I'm sure it's happened plenty of times), they can examine the transaction logs and recover the state. And even if they somehow lost their logs, and all of their backups (data that needn't be kept secret is much easier to back up), all of the parties they transact with have their own logs, and can prove what money should have been where.
BTC is an interesting case because the transaction ledger is intact (the blockchain is a transaction ledger, no more, no less), but the identities that transact are defined by the ability to produce cryptographic signatures., and in this case the keys that define those entities have been lost.
If it's true, we're heading towards a complete world economic collapse. The world's economy is built on debt we assume to paid by future generations. When the population no longer grows, the resulting social upheaval will be immense.
Nah.
We're also heading towards an automation-driven productivity boom that will make every previous boom look like much ado about nothing. This boom will require us to completely restructure our economy, and *that* will likely generate huge social upheaval, but assuming we manage to make the transition, the past "debts" won't just be trivial, they'll be irrelevant.
Until the AIs decide we're obstructing their paperclip production operation, that is.
First, those programs do work, they raise the birth rate.
Cite?
The "free market" doesn't work in this case.
You mean, "We don't have a free market in this case". Telcos exploit government regulation to prevent competition. If you and I could just switch ISPs on a whim there would be no need for regulation, except perhaps to protect whistleblowers from corporate retaliation.
Until we get to level 5 autonomy these technologies cannot be used as a substitute for safe driving.
Level 4 or even level 3 may be good enough, depending on the car's capabilities and the route.
I see lots of people claiming they know better than the study but it doesnâ(TM)t seem to be based on any rigorous research.
There's a lot of confirmation bias at work. People who enjoy grumbling about the inaccuracy of weather forecasts regularly notice every deviation but mostly ignore the correct predictions, and therefore see proof that forecasts are extremely inaccurate.
Anecdotal experience is basically useless in something like this. You'll see whatever you want to. To know anything real, you need to actually record forecasts and variance for a good period of time, and then systematically analyze the results.
Don't really give a damn what anyone thinks of what I just said, either, so don't bother.
Welcome to my foe list. The topic doesn't really matter; anyone who thinks this way isn't worth talking to.