First, the reason we aren't getting paid relative to our productivity is because of crap like the postal system above that allows cheap 3rd world child labor to produce and ship things overseas for less than just shipping the item locally costs
You think shipping costing $1 instead of $3 is sufficient to have stopped all productivity-based wage increases since 1978?
We make double the stuff per hour that we did in the 1970s. We use 1/3rd the workers of the 1970s to do it. If productivity and wages scaled like they did up until about 1978, then inflation-adjusted US wages should have gone up about 6x (1/3rd the workers, making 2x the stuff). Instead, inflation-adjusted wages are flat or negative.
It isn't shipping that's the problem.
Those tariffs were applied precisely to have the greatest effect on Trump supporters, since Trump instituted the tariffs
They also happen to be the main goods we export to China.
But there's good news! We used to utterly dominate things like the soy market. Nobody could compete against us on price, so nobody tried to build a significant soy industry. Thanks to Trump reverting to trade theory that was disproven in the 1600s, Brazil is competing with us now. And they're able to sell soy at the post-tariff US price. And that's going to drop as they continue to build their industry. In other agricultural products, Brazil can sell at the US price, so soy will get there too.
So this isn't something that's going to be "fixed" if there is some sort of trade deal with China. We've given away a monopoly that we will never get back. US soy farmers are going to make less money forever thanks to Trump's tariffs.
An eBay seller in Shenzhen pays less to ship a package to an American than an American pays to ship to his next door neighbor.
If the package from Shenzhen is 1 lb or less, and the buyer doesn't mind waiting 9 to ~21 days to get it.
If an America company wants to send a lot of small packages to American customers, and is in no particular hurry, it can be cost effective to load them all in a shipping container, ship them to China, and then mail them back to individual addresses in America.
If the buyer doesn't mind waiting 42-ish days for delivery instead of 2 to 10 days for regular mail, or 2-3 days for priority.
But look at the amount of terrible UX in closed source software
The difference is I can find good UX in closed-source software. Obviously not all UX is good, but there actually are some good ones. Everything in open source is bad until you've learned the random paradigm that the developers thought of (and broke several times in other parts of their product).
For example, vi(m). If you've taken the time to read a ton about it and memorize a series of obscure commands, you can do great things with it. But if you're a novice who just launched it for the first time, you can't even quit the program.
That doesn't make the Ribbon a good idea, it too is an example of shitty UX that is only good once you've learned it.
The dissonance is caused because this article is written by an "automotive consultancy" that is being paid by companies with no EV in their lineup. So, they're going to reeeeeeealy emphasize the bad parts of an EV and play with the numbers as much as they can to make those bad parts appear worse.
Germany is installing a massive number of solar and wind farms, which is where that "world leader" claim comes from. They still use coal for a lot of their energy and import electricity from coal plants in Poland because that's what's available at this moment. It'll shift as the renewable installations continue.
I have switch my home to wood pellets, and to keep my home warm for the winter I need 4 tons of pellets. Over the year at best I probably have 10 lbs of Ash. the rest is exhausted out of my home and polluting the air.
In terms of CO2 from your pellet stove/furnace, it isn't pollution.
The CO2 was in the air a year or so ago, became part of a tree, and you released it back into the air. Net result: A slight reduction in atmospheric CO2 from the carbon in the ash.
How much monitoring you're expected to do (vs waiting for somebody to report) will depend on local laws and judges.
[Citation Required]
You are rarely going to overestimate a politician's understanding of what computers can and cannot do
And because of that, they're not going to understand a keyword search is nearly useless. Nor even a far more sophisticated scan that theoretically determines context, since that is useless too.
By the way, that future law is in the process of being made in the EU.
Great! Point out in the draft legislation where something trivial like a keyword search wouldn't comply.....Oh wait! A keyword search is exactly what the EFF is worried about.
On the other hand, it lacking end-to-end encryption and having the server able to read everything in DMs certainly suggests a good route of attack, and it also would suggest that those running any given server cannot make a strong claim of not having a clue about the content of DMs. "We promised not to look and didn't" is a lot stronger when you can point out that you couldn't have looked anyway.
Except the context here is Slack running in a business. They aren't promising to not read your DMs, in fact they usually warn you they are reading your DMs.
If the context is a random person chatting with someone via DMs over a random server they find on the Internet, then Slack isn't your best choice....and never was.
End-to-end encryption would also harm the ability to scan messages for malware, which companies really, really love to do.
Sometimes, the point of security is not to protect against hackers but your own rear from having the legal system decide that having them in plaintext where you can see them means you should totally be reading it.
There's not going to be many situations where "we couldn't read the message" is going to excuse a company from liability. Let's say it's sexual harassment or similar interpersonal harm. The victim prints the DMs, takes them to HR who does nothing and there's a lawsuit. Monitoring the DMs would not have avoided the liability, since the problem comes from failing to deal with the harassment once it has been reported, not over detecting the harassment.
Let's say it's theft of trade secrets or other company-to-company lawsuit. Subpoenas can get the messages from the recipients just as easily (or not easily if they've been deleted).
If you're imagining some future law where businesses are supposed to magically find terrorists or similar, I really don't see any companies deciding not being able to read their employee's messages is better than a dumb keyword search that lets them pretend they're complying with the law with little to no effort.
what did internet access cost when it was de-regulated in 1996?
Mine cost $15/mo.
Also, what the hell are you talking about with "de-regulated in 1996"? Which specific act do you think "de-regulated" ISPs?
2006?
Around $30/mo, IIRC.
Today?
$50/mo
was that due to regulation or de-regulation?
Neither. It's due to the natural monopoly that is created when one utility has already installed coverage of an area. I'd be paying a lot less without that.
Only if your requirements include DMs not being able to be read by the server.
Security-wise, end-to-end encryption would only protect against a very narrow set of attacks where the server is compromised, but not so compromised that it won't serve up a fake key as the recipient's key. I can't think of a realistic way to get into that state.
End to end encryption means the server can not decrypt the messages. Only the recipient can. Think PGP-encrypted email body, where the recipient is the only one with the private key to decrypt the message. Any intervening servers can not read the message.
Skype encrypts the communication with the servers, but does not encrypt the messages. So the server can read the messages, but third parties can not (assuming the server has not been compromised).
That poster proposes a key-escrow-like system, which would allow the server to decrypt the messages as needed....just like Skype's server does now. It would provide no real security boost since in both cases the server could read the messages.
What is a possible scenario where their customers need end-to-end encryption right now.
And keep in mind that's end-to-end encryption. Not "encryption". Communications between the client and server are encrypted. The reason it isn't end-to-end is the server decrypts the messages before re-encrypting them for the recipient's collection.
Assuming your Slack server is running on a properly-configured host, that's compliant with things like HIPAA that "pop up out of nowhere".
It's not trivial, but I don't buy that unencrypted communications are the alternative for the reasons they state.
The client-server communications are encrypted. The reason it isn't end-to-end encryption is the server decrypts the messages before encrypting them for the recipient's connection and sending them on.
Basically, they do what you propose. But that isn't end-to-end because the server (aka "centalizing their archival") can read the contents of the messages.
1) Because then the breathless article would be talking about how the end-to-end encryption is "flawed".
2) The communications between the client and server are already encrypted. They're just decrypted on the server, re-encrypted for the recipient and sent on. End-to-end encryption with IT having a copy of your keys is functionally identical (assuming the server isn't compromised).
net neutrality had nothing to do with what an isp charges you,
Since the point of ending net neutrality is to charge consumers more, this is a lie.
it said isp's could not charge netflix more for using up all the bandwidth
This is lie number 2. Netflix's ISPs have peering agreements with your ISP. Those agreements can include financial compensation if Netflix actually "used up all the bandwith".
The reason to end net neutrality was so that your ISP could get paid via peering agreements, and get paid again by charging you.
rates charged you are set by the local government who signs an exclusive contract with the local isp
This would be yet another lie. Local governments set up monopolies for cable TV service. ISPs are not cable TV service. And if you are particularly dense you can figure out there is not a legal monopoly because more than one company is offering you Internet service in most areas. Spectrum can't have a ISP monopoly at my house if AT&T is also offering Internet service, right?
Also, the overwhelming majority of these monopoly agreements expired decades ago.
It's interesting that you'd say it's FECKLESS to NOT try to assassinate our dictator-in-chief.
It's interesting that you are completely unaware that it is possible to oppose someone politically without killing them.
We've got 3 equal branches of government. You guys are in charge of all of them. Congress can easily reign in the vast majority of the Trump shitshow. They don't, because you do not want them to.
Also to note, Climate change in term of agriculture will in general shift production locations (further north in the norther hemisphere) So total output will in general remain constant.
Nope. As you go further from the equator, the total sunlight landing on the ground is reduced, as well as a shorter growing season just because of the larger difference in daylight hours between summer and winter.
There's also less land area, but that's probably not going to have an effect since there's a lot of fallow farmland.
That completely orthogonal point doesn't change the fact that regions of agricultural use expanded. Why would it?
Expanding population and advances in agriculture technology.
It's not like overall yield was limited by temperature before.
Also, your terrible analysis forgets one teensy-tiny little detail: The medieval warming period ended in 1250. Yet Europe kept continuing to expand agriculture. Kinda hard to do if the warming period was required to expand agriculture.
Slashdot Mirror
First, the reason we aren't getting paid relative to our productivity is because of crap like the postal system above that allows cheap 3rd world child labor to produce and ship things overseas for less than just shipping the item locally costs
You think shipping costing $1 instead of $3 is sufficient to have stopped all productivity-based wage increases since 1978?
We make double the stuff per hour that we did in the 1970s. We use 1/3rd the workers of the 1970s to do it. If productivity and wages scaled like they did up until
about 1978, then inflation-adjusted US wages should have gone up about 6x (1/3rd the workers, making 2x the stuff). Instead, inflation-adjusted wages are flat or negative.
It isn't shipping that's the problem.
Those tariffs were applied precisely to have the greatest effect on Trump supporters, since Trump instituted the tariffs
They also happen to be the main goods we export to China.
But there's good news! We used to utterly dominate things like the soy market. Nobody could compete against us on price, so nobody tried to build a significant soy industry. Thanks to Trump reverting to trade theory that was disproven in the 1600s, Brazil is competing with us now. And they're able to sell soy at the post-tariff US price. And that's going to drop as they continue to build their industry. In other agricultural products, Brazil can sell at the US price, so soy will get there too.
So this isn't something that's going to be "fixed" if there is some sort of trade deal with China. We've given away a monopoly that we will never get back. US soy farmers are going to make less money forever thanks to Trump's tariffs.
An eBay seller in Shenzhen pays less to ship a package to an American than an American pays to ship to his next door neighbor.
If the package from Shenzhen is 1 lb or less, and the buyer doesn't mind waiting 9 to ~21 days to get it.
If an America company wants to send a lot of small packages to American customers, and is in no particular hurry, it can be cost effective to load them all in a shipping container, ship them to China, and then mail them back to individual addresses in America.
If the buyer doesn't mind waiting 42-ish days for delivery instead of 2 to 10 days for regular mail, or 2-3 days for priority.
But look at the amount of terrible UX in closed source software
The difference is I can find good UX in closed-source software. Obviously not all UX is good, but there actually are some good ones. Everything in open source is bad until you've learned the random paradigm that the developers thought of (and broke several times in other parts of their product).
For example, vi(m). If you've taken the time to read a ton about it and memorize a series of obscure commands, you can do great things with it. But if you're a novice who just launched it for the first time, you can't even quit the program.
That doesn't make the Ribbon a good idea, it too is an example of shitty UX that is only good once you've learned it.
The almost universally-terrible UX in open source projects would indicate otherwise.
The dissonance is caused because this article is written by an "automotive consultancy" that is being paid by companies with no EV in their lineup. So, they're going to reeeeeeealy emphasize the bad parts of an EV and play with the numbers as much as they can to make those bad parts appear worse.
Germany is installing a massive number of solar and wind farms, which is where that "world leader" claim comes from. They still use coal for a lot of their energy and import electricity from coal plants in Poland because that's what's available at this moment. It'll shift as the renewable installations continue.
I have switch my home to wood pellets, and to keep my home warm for the winter I need 4 tons of pellets. Over the year at best I probably have 10 lbs of Ash. the rest is exhausted out of my home and polluting the air.
In terms of CO2 from your pellet stove/furnace, it isn't pollution.
The CO2 was in the air a year or so ago, became part of a tree, and you released it back into the air. Net result: A slight reduction in atmospheric CO2 from the carbon in the ash.
How much monitoring you're expected to do (vs waiting for somebody to report) will depend on local laws and judges.
[Citation Required]
You are rarely going to overestimate a politician's understanding of what computers can and cannot do
And because of that, they're not going to understand a keyword search is nearly useless. Nor even a far more sophisticated scan that theoretically determines context, since that is useless too.
By the way, that future law is in the process of being made in the EU.
Great! Point out in the draft legislation where something trivial like a keyword search wouldn't comply.....Oh wait! A keyword search is exactly what the EFF is worried about.
On the other hand, it lacking end-to-end encryption and having the server able to read everything in DMs certainly suggests a good route of attack, and it also would suggest that those running any given server cannot make a strong claim of not having a clue about the content of DMs. "We promised not to look and didn't" is a lot stronger when you can point out that you couldn't have looked anyway.
Except the context here is Slack running in a business. They aren't promising to not read your DMs, in fact they usually warn you they are reading your DMs.
If the context is a random person chatting with someone via DMs over a random server they find on the Internet, then Slack isn't your best choice....and never was.
End-to-end encryption would also harm the ability to scan messages for malware, which companies really, really love to do.
Sometimes, the point of security is not to protect against hackers but your own rear from having the legal system decide that having them in plaintext where you can see them means you should totally be reading it.
There's not going to be many situations where "we couldn't read the message" is going to excuse a company from liability. Let's say it's sexual harassment or similar interpersonal harm. The victim prints the DMs, takes them to HR who does nothing and there's a lawsuit. Monitoring the DMs would not have avoided the liability, since the problem comes from failing to deal with the harassment once it has been reported, not over detecting the harassment.
Let's say it's theft of trade secrets or other company-to-company lawsuit. Subpoenas can get the messages from the recipients just as easily (or not easily if they've been deleted).
If you're imagining some future law where businesses are supposed to magically find terrorists or similar, I really don't see any companies deciding not being able to read their employee's messages is better than a dumb keyword search that lets them pretend they're complying with the law with little to no effort.
Perhaps you could first try to explain why I should follow you off the rails when you try to distract from your lies?
what did internet access cost when it was de-regulated in 1996?
Mine cost $15/mo.
Also, what the hell are you talking about with "de-regulated in 1996"? Which specific act do you think "de-regulated" ISPs?
2006?
Around $30/mo, IIRC.
Today?
$50/mo
was that due to regulation or de-regulation?
Neither. It's due to the natural monopoly that is created when one utility has already installed coverage of an area. I'd be paying a lot less without that.
s/Skype/Slack/
Only if your requirements include DMs not being able to be read by the server.
Security-wise, end-to-end encryption would only protect against a very narrow set of attacks where the server is compromised, but not so compromised that it won't serve up a fake key as the recipient's key. I can't think of a realistic way to get into that state.
End to end encryption means the server can not decrypt the messages. Only the recipient can. Think PGP-encrypted email body, where the recipient is the only one with the private key to decrypt the message. Any intervening servers can not read the message.
Skype encrypts the communication with the servers, but does not encrypt the messages. So the server can read the messages, but third parties can not (assuming the server has not been compromised).
That poster proposes a key-escrow-like system, which would allow the server to decrypt the messages as needed....just like Skype's server does now. It would provide no real security boost since in both cases the server could read the messages.
Alternatively, you could realize not having end-to-end encryption is not the same as not having encryption.
The client-server communications are encrypted. You just can't send a DM that the server can not read. At least, not directly through Slack.
What is a possible scenario where their customers need end-to-end encryption right now.
And keep in mind that's end-to-end encryption. Not "encryption". Communications between the client and server are encrypted. The reason it isn't end-to-end is the server decrypts the messages before re-encrypting them for the recipient's collection.
Assuming your Slack server is running on a properly-configured host, that's compliant with things like HIPAA that "pop up out of nowhere".
It's not trivial, but I don't buy that unencrypted communications are the alternative for the reasons they state.
The client-server communications are encrypted. The reason it isn't end-to-end encryption is the server decrypts the messages before encrypting them for the recipient's connection and sending them on.
Basically, they do what you propose. But that isn't end-to-end because the server (aka "centalizing their archival") can read the contents of the messages.
Two reasons:
1) Because then the breathless article would be talking about how the end-to-end encryption is "flawed".
2) The communications between the client and server are already encrypted. They're just decrypted on the server, re-encrypted for the recipient and sent on. End-to-end encryption with IT having a copy of your keys is functionally identical (assuming the server isn't compromised).
When you look around and see a world you do not like, remember one thing: You made it.
We were the kids. You were the adults, making all the decisions. So that shit you see strewn all over the place? You and your generation put it there.
So either pick up a shovel and help us clean it up, or get the fuck out of the way.
net neutrality had nothing to do with what an isp charges you,
Since the point of ending net neutrality is to charge consumers more, this is a lie.
it said isp's could not charge netflix more for using up all the bandwidth
This is lie number 2. Netflix's ISPs have peering agreements with your ISP. Those agreements can include financial compensation if Netflix actually "used up all the bandwith".
The reason to end net neutrality was so that your ISP could get paid via peering agreements, and get paid again by charging you.
rates charged you are set by the local government who signs an exclusive contract with the local isp
This would be yet another lie. Local governments set up monopolies for cable TV service. ISPs are not cable TV service. And if you are particularly dense you can figure out there is not a legal monopoly because more than one company is offering you Internet service in most areas. Spectrum can't have a ISP monopoly at my house if AT&T is also offering Internet service, right?
Also, the overwhelming majority of these monopoly agreements expired decades ago.
It's interesting that you'd say it's FECKLESS to NOT try to assassinate our dictator-in-chief.
It's interesting that you are completely unaware that it is possible to oppose someone politically without killing them.
We've got 3 equal branches of government. You guys are in charge of all of them. Congress can easily reign in the vast majority of the Trump shitshow. They don't, because you do not want them to.
Sure it does. You're not disinfecting. You're restricting growth. Doesn't take much alcohol (and competition from yeast) to do that.
There's plenty of dangerous bacteria that can survive the alcohol concentration of beer.
Yes, and they're not as common as other dangerous bacteria the alcohol kills. So the alcohol still acts as a preservative the majority of the time.
Just like there's dangerous bacteria that can survive pasteurization, but they are not as common as the other dangerous bacteria found in milk.
Yeah, but yeast is an animal. So this would be stopping eating animals so that you can drink animals.
Also to note, Climate change in term of agriculture will in general shift production locations (further north in the norther hemisphere) So total output will in general remain constant.
Nope. As you go further from the equator, the total sunlight landing on the ground is reduced, as well as a shorter growing season just because of the larger difference in daylight hours between summer and winter.
There's also less land area, but that's probably not going to have an effect since there's a lot of fallow farmland.
That completely orthogonal point doesn't change the fact that regions of agricultural use expanded. Why would it?
Expanding population and advances in agriculture technology.
It's not like overall yield was limited by temperature before.
Also, your terrible analysis forgets one teensy-tiny little detail: The medieval warming period ended in 1250. Yet Europe kept continuing to expand agriculture. Kinda hard to do if the warming period was required to expand agriculture.