Thanks. I'll look that over and maybe use some of the stuff their to make a presentation for my team.
The job I really want is to be *teaching* security programmers while making very good money doing it. Nobody has that job advertised, so I'm creating it by doing weekly or twicd-weekly presentations for my time, with other people from the company also invited. Eventually people will figure out that whenever you need your security programmers trained in something, Ray does that well.:)
> The fact that the offered settlement is so far from what the SECs demands, suggests to me that the SEC isn't so sure about their case.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this sentence? The SEC offered a settlement, which Musk took, then changed his mind. It sounds like you're saying that what the SEC offered "is so far from what the SEC demands", which doesn't make any sense.
If you meant what the demand of people generally, they demad that people follow the law.
Are you trying to say the settlement is unusual? A very typical settlement would be "can't be a director or executive for five years", and some cash. So the person gets kicked out of the company they work for. In this case, it's only two years I think, but he has multiple companies, and he founded those companies, not just got hired by them. So on balance it's a pretty typical settlement.
Coming from using Linux exclusively for 15 years, I was skeptical of the Mac sitting on my desk at my new job a few years ago. It turns out Mac isn't just Unix-like, it's actual certified real UNIX (tm). It's more UNIX than Linux or FreeBSD are.
At work we're expanding our support for Mac in our vulnerability scanner, over the next month or two. (Last month I wrote a bunch of code to find more Cisco vulnerabilities.)
We have out usual sources of vulnerability data, but does anyone happen to know any the are particularly good for Mac specifically? We aim to cover every CVE ever issued.
A rational actor should have taken the slap on the wrist unless they have overwhelming evidence, evidence that isn't public. People aren't rational actors. Elon Musk sure as heck doesn't make comservative decisions after carefully calculating the benefits and risks - he goes all in on crazy stuff that just might work.
Literal moonshots are Elon's stock in trade. That's not a BAD thing, or a GOOD thing, it's simply Elon's thing.
The ruling was that there was NO evidence of any actual business or any intent to have a business. They spent 20 minutes filling in an online template to make that slightly less obvious.
I haven't investigated the evidence personally, but that's what the hearing officer said after hearing the evidence and arguments.
When the nurse checks your heart rate, she finds out what it is at the moment. Obviously heart rate changes from moment to moment, not to mention day to day. If the device logs heart rate over time, storing hundreds of values, that's one piece of information a doctor can add to whatever other information is available. The exact fact being "the patient's Apple watch reports...". The doc can then decide to do stress tests or not do them, or whatever else bases on the totality of all of the information available.
If the watch logged a few instances per day of your heart rate suddenly spiking dangerously high, I would hope the doctor wouldn't completely ignore that fact.
They don't poll on laptops every month. I think they generally do each major product category once or twice a year. The August issue, printed in July and probably written in June, included the the results of a poll completed before June.
You may be thinking of commercial publications that choose names to try to sound like Consumer Reports, such as "Consumers Digest". Consumer Reports is very strict about not accepting any money from any company whose products they review and not having even the appearance of a conflic of interest. In fact, even creating the appearance of such a conflict of interest is grounds to remove a director from their board of directors, and to terminate any employee, as laid out in their bylaws and Conflict of Interest policy.
Here are their full audited financial statements so you can see exactly where they get their money from. https://www.consumerreports.or...
It can be used to find out which *company* is managing the device. If your company set up an iPad for you and registered into the company's security system that requires anti-virus and such, and the company used Apple's service, that information can be revealed. So "this iPad is managed by Toyota". It does not affect personally owned and managed devices, revealing the fact that a person owns an iPad.
IF the company doesn't require authentication such as a user name and password, it can also reveal some other non-secret information that all employees of the company have. Specifically non-secret information about the name of the VPN server. Just like a https web server has a public certificate which you can view by clicking on the green lock icon in your browser, some VPN servers have a certificate. This is not a secret.
If an attacker wanted to attack your VPN server, having it's name might come in handy, but it's not secret.
Exactly. CBS could just license the project. Because the project is non-profit, it may be a good idea for the terms of the license to say CBS gets 100% of any profits in order to protect themselves in the future. (There are none.)
*Copyright* abandonment was more of a thing before the Copyright Act of 1976. Now, it requires an overt act showing intent to abandon. It's essentially the same as publishing the material under CC0 or WtfPL - explicitly allowing others to use and copy it with no restrictions.
They could license the project, and it might be a good idea to charge $1 and put some terms on it. Since it's a non-profit project, the terms could even say CBS gets 100% of the profits (which is $0).
What they need to avoid under current law is IGNORING infringement, which would imply that they don't care about the trademarks anymore amd anyone is allowed to use them for any purpose.
"100% of the profits" (which don't exist) would also further protect CBS from a future commercial infringer trying to use this as estoppel, saying "CBS acted like it's okay for people to use the trademark". The very same act that the future infringer would try to use against CBS would indicate that the infringer must pay CBS 100% of the profit.
> BUT you need to STOP trying to defend someone that rear ends another car.
Where exactly did you see me defending anyone who read-ended another car?
In fact, I sued the guy who t-boned me. The thing about suing them is that it helps to be alive while suing. It's hard for me to blame the other guy when I'm dead. So I'd rather not be killed by their fault.
I had a typo. For a high-speed crash in front of you, professional drivers often steer THROUGH the crash.
If you watch professionals you may be surprised how often they steer through the middle of a crash rather than going around it. That's because they know that crashing cars may bounce off to the left and right, but they WILL move from their current positions, so aiming for where the car is now guarantees it won't still be there two seconds from now.
I prefer to not be dead. I don't want it to be the other guy's fault that I'm in a crash, I want to not be in a crash. Your inability to think on terms of the consequences of your actions, instead framing everything as you decalring what other people should do tells me something interesting about you. More on that in a moment.
> There are plenty of situation where coming to a full stop as quickly as possible is the only viable and safe option. The situations where avoiding the obstacle by other means is safe are fewer since it often involves switching over to an oncoming lane or going into an area designated for pedestrians.
In a word, shoulder. The shoulder is where you can pull over to the side and you will neither be in the oncoming lane nor in "an area designated for pedestrians". You will be next to the car that was in front of you, rather than intertwined with it.
In more words, those who study these things, such as the school at A&M, and probably every tactical driving instructor in the world, disagree with you. The numbers are - going around the problem is safer twice as often as slamming on your brakes. If this seems counter-intuitive and you want to see it for yourself rather than read a study, watch a NASCAR race once. You'll notice the million dollar, best drivers in the world NEVER slam on their brakes when a crash is happening in front of them. They always steer.
Not sure how to go around the problem because it's a high speed crash in front of you and you don't know which ways the cars will end up going? Again NASCAR has the solution for you. Two cars crashing at high speed can move in unpredictable directions, but they WILL move. The one place they WON'T be, the guaranteed clear path, is where the cars are right now. Guaranteed they won't still be there two seconds from now. Aim for where the car is - it'll move, if it's going 60 MPH right now. This why you'll see NASCAR drivers steer "the* a crash rather than trying to go *around* a crash that's immediately in front of them. Of course if they are in the extreme left lane and the crash is on the extreme right they won't jerk the wheel to aim for the impact point.
So what we know about you: Even when in reply to me pointing it out, you're unable to think about the consequences of your actions, blaming others while insisting on continuing to cause yourself problems.
You point out what *other* people should do, rather than have any concept of your own actions having results.
What you tell other people to do is wrong - it's an objectively worse idea.
Your suggestion is simple so you don't have to think, about how to do it or what the actual results are.
FYI, that's one of the more dangerous things you can do. You're quite likely to get rear-ended or T-boned. Some people's default reaction of stomping on the brakes whenever something unexpected happens is a leading cause of accidents.
You seem to be using a different definition than I am for "slippery slope".
The Oxford Dictionary defines "slippery" as "difficult to hold on to" (not impossible), and "slippery slope" as "one action likely to lead to another" (not guaranteed). https://en.oxforddictionaries....
It would be error to assume that something WILL happen because it is MORE LIKELY to happen.
It would also be error to ignore something that increases the probability of a bad outcome, only because it doesn't GUARANTEE a bad outcome.
The slippery slope fallacy is assuming a slippery slope *when there isn't one*.
In my experience, once I "borrow" a dollar without permission, it becomes easier to later "borrow" $5, then later $20. For me at least, there is a bit of a binary choice between "I'm not a thief, period" and "well sometimes I kinda...". So there actually IS a slippery slope. It's not a fallacy to recognize a slippery slope that is actually there.
You mentioned going over a moral cliff. In my own experience, I tend to slide down a slope more often than I jump off a cliff.
Years ago, I was a serving as a middle-man of sorts collecting money daily on behalf of someone, and about once per month I'd send it to him. Sometimes it was two months in between - he wasn't worried about exactly how often it was sent. He wasn't at all tight on cash, so he didn't care if it was four weeks between payments or six weeks. One day I had to pay my payroll two days before my own funds became available. So in order to pay my employees on time, I borrowed from the "middle man" money for 48 hours. He didn't know or care. It helped my employees, who needed tonoay their bills on time, and nobody was hurt. But it wasn't the right thing to do.
The problem was once I borrowed money that wasn't mine, even though it didn't hurt anyone, and even for just 48 hours, that's a slippery slope.
In this instance, Facebook promised to not map user data from WhatsApp users. They probably made other promises to out his mind at ease. That plus a huge pile of money could be very tempting indeed.
I have observed that when you put a heavy solid object on a spinning object, such as a washing machine, it throws it off balance and makes it wobble.
I have also observed that if the washing machine is full of water, in the spin cycle the water self- balances. It's not off balance and doesn't wobble because the water automatically centers around the center of the spin.
Helicopter rotors use the same effect to self-balance, allowing each blade to move a bit relative to the others. When they can move, they self-balance.
I wonder if these researchers have ever washed their own clothes and seen that solids can throw the balance off, while liquids do not. Put a chunk of ice in the spin cycle and it'll wobble. Melt the ice into water and it won't wobble.
So far, this looks to me like something that happened with me once. The Firefox team liked the site and liked the idea of working together somehow. But then nobody really had a great idea of *how* they could work together in a way that really adds value. After the excitement of the idea of working together, what was left was how browsers work with web sites - they display them.
After I read a book called Zero Bugs and Program Faster, I really liked what the author was doing. It aligns with my mission to improve the reliability and quality of software everywhere by teaching programmers how to make more reliable software. I emailed the author, Kate Thompson, telling her I enjoyed the book and "we should work together on something sometime". She replied "play how? Work on what?" Um, I don't know.:)
I think some political ideas are like that. They sound great on a bumper sticker. Then when you try to actually put them into action, to decide exactly what to do and how to do it, it turns out the phrase is only good for a bumper sticker, there is no actual policy that makes any sense to do there. I ran into that the other day when someone knocked on my door to pitch the Democrat candidate running for the House in my district. She mentioned a couple bumper sticker slogans, so I asked "cool, what exactly do you mean by ____?â She had zero answers, no policy ideas, just a bumper sticker that sounded good until you ask what it means.
My experience with the public comment process is that some types of comments have worked, some don't. We got changes we wanted, when we used certain approaches.
Regulators already HAVE the bumper stickers. As you mentioned, saying "impeach Trump!" isn't going to inspire any edits to the regulation. Neither is "fuck Facebook", or anything else that fits on a bumper sticker. A bumper sticker slogan won't give regulators any new information or new ideas on which to base changes.
My experience is that sending well thought out, specific suggestions which take into account different people's perspectives works. How does privacy regulation affect your job? What would be good changes that make things work better for you, in your personal life and I your job? What proposed changes could create problems? Can you suggest a way to FIX the proposal to make it better?
That last question is the big one. To pick randomly regulation I commented on, the initial draft off the FAA "drone" defined the terms in such a way that it would apply to a paper airplane. You'd need to register your paper airplane with the FCC before throwing it. The foam glider toys you get for $8, those would need to be registered, under the original definition of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. How about only powered objects? That would include the rubber band powered windup plane in the toy aisle of the supermarket. The palm-sized quadcopters that can only fly indoors - do they really need to be registered with the FAA? Lots of people made comments about what a reasonable definition of an UAV would be, and the FAA adopted a sane definition.
In previous instances it's been "it's been proposed that Foo, Bar, and Baz be exempt. Suggest adding Fum to the list", or "suggest changing 'under 3 pounds' to 'under 10 pounds because...".
WhatsApp form 10-Q revenue ar the time of aquisition was about $1.5 million. Facebook doesn't officially report the revenue of each app, but a recent analysis in Forbes estimated when revenue of $5 billion when the changes are complete in 2020.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. I'll look that over and maybe use some of the stuff their to make a presentation for my team.
The job I really want is to be *teaching* security programmers while making very good money doing it. Nobody has that job advertised, so I'm creating it by doing weekly or twicd-weekly presentations for my time, with other people from the company also invited. Eventually people will figure out that whenever you need your security programmers trained in something, Ray does that well. :)
> The fact that the offered settlement is so far from what the SECs demands, suggests to me that the SEC isn't so sure about their case.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this sentence?
The SEC offered a settlement, which Musk took, then changed his mind. It sounds like you're saying that what the SEC offered "is so far from what the SEC demands", which doesn't make any sense.
If you meant what the demand of people generally, they demad that people follow the law.
Are you trying to say the settlement is unusual? A very typical settlement would be "can't be a director or executive for five years", and some cash. So the person gets kicked out of the company they work for. In this case, it's only two years I think, but he has multiple companies, and he founded those companies, not just got hired by them. So on balance it's a pretty typical settlement.
Coming from using Linux exclusively for 15 years, I was skeptical of the Mac sitting on my desk at my new job a few years ago. It turns out Mac isn't just Unix-like, it's actual certified real UNIX (tm). It's more UNIX than Linux or FreeBSD are.
At work we're expanding our support for Mac in our vulnerability scanner, over the next month or two. (Last month I wrote a bunch of code to find more Cisco vulnerabilities.)
We have out usual sources of vulnerability data, but does anyone happen to know any the are particularly good for Mac specifically? We aim to cover every CVE ever issued.
A rational actor should have taken the slap on the wrist unless they have overwhelming evidence, evidence that isn't public. People aren't rational actors. Elon Musk sure as heck doesn't make comservative decisions after carefully calculating the benefits and risks - he goes all in on crazy stuff that just might work.
Literal moonshots are Elon's stock in trade. That's not a BAD thing, or a GOOD thing, it's simply Elon's thing.
Apparently they are coming from the direction of the North Pole, through the South Pole ..
The ruling was that there was NO evidence of any actual business or any intent to have a business. They spent 20 minutes filling in an online template to make that slightly less obvious.
I haven't investigated the evidence personally, but that's what the hearing officer said after hearing the evidence and arguments.
When the nurse checks your heart rate, she finds out what it is at the moment. Obviously heart rate changes from moment to moment, not to mention day to day. If the device logs heart rate over time, storing hundreds of values, that's one piece of information a doctor can add to whatever other information is available. The exact fact being "the patient's Apple watch reports ...". The doc can then decide to do stress tests or not do them, or whatever else bases on the totality of all of the information available.
If the watch logged a few instances per day of your heart rate suddenly spiking dangerously high, I would hope the doctor wouldn't completely ignore that fact.
They don't poll on laptops every month. I think they generally do each major product category once or twice a year. The August issue, printed in July and probably written in June, included the the results of a poll completed before June.
You may be thinking of commercial publications that choose names to try to sound like Consumer Reports, such as "Consumers Digest". Consumer Reports is very strict about not accepting any money from any company whose products they review and not having even the appearance of a conflic of interest. In fact, even creating the appearance of such a conflict of interest is grounds to remove a director from their board of directors, and to terminate any employee, as laid out in their bylaws and Conflict of Interest policy.
Here are their full audited financial statements so you can see exactly where they get their money from.
https://www.consumerreports.or...
Yeah two major points here:
It can be used to find out which *company* is managing the device. If your company set up an iPad for you and registered into the company's security system that requires anti-virus and such, and the company used Apple's service, that information can be revealed. So "this iPad is managed by Toyota". It does not affect personally owned and managed devices, revealing the fact that a person owns an iPad.
IF the company doesn't require authentication such as a user name and password, it can also reveal some other non-secret information that all employees of the company have. Specifically non-secret information about the name of the VPN server. Just like a https web server has a public certificate which you can view by clicking on the green lock icon in your browser, some VPN servers have a certificate. This is not a secret.
If an attacker wanted to attack your VPN server, having it's name might come in handy, but it's not secret.
Exactly. CBS could just license the project.
Because the project is non-profit, it may be a good idea for the terms of the license to say CBS gets 100% of any profits in order to protect themselves in the future. (There are none.)
See also:
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
*Copyright* abandonment was more of a thing before the Copyright Act of 1976. Now, it requires an overt act showing intent to abandon. It's essentially the same as publishing the material under CC0 or WtfPL - explicitly allowing others to use and copy it with no restrictions.
They could license the project, and it might be a good idea to charge $1 and put some terms on it. Since it's a non-profit project, the terms could even say CBS gets 100% of the profits (which is $0).
What they need to avoid under current law is IGNORING infringement, which would imply that they don't care about the trademarks anymore amd anyone is allowed to use them for any purpose.
"100% of the profits" (which don't exist) would also further protect CBS from a future commercial infringer trying to use this as estoppel, saying "CBS acted like it's okay for people to use the trademark". The very same act that the future infringer would try to use against CBS would indicate that the infringer must pay CBS 100% of the profit.
> BUT you need to STOP trying to defend someone that rear ends another car.
Where exactly did you see me defending anyone who read-ended another car?
In fact, I sued the guy who t-boned me. The thing about suing them is that it helps to be alive while suing. It's hard for me to blame the other guy when I'm dead. So I'd rather not be killed by their fault.
I had a typo. For a high-speed crash in front of you, professional drivers often steer THROUGH the crash.
If you watch professionals you may be surprised how often they steer through the middle of a crash rather than going around it. That's because they know that crashing cars may bounce off to the left and right, but they WILL move from their current positions, so aiming for where the car is now guarantees it won't still be there two seconds from now.
> Victim-blaming much?
I prefer to not be dead. I don't want it to be the other guy's fault that I'm in a crash, I want to not be in a crash. Your inability to think on terms of the consequences of your actions, instead framing everything as you decalring what other people should do tells me something interesting about you. More on that in a moment.
> There are plenty of situation where coming to a full stop as quickly as possible is the only viable and safe option.
The situations where avoiding the obstacle by other means is safe are fewer since it often involves switching over to an oncoming lane or going into an area designated for pedestrians.
In a word, shoulder. The shoulder is where you can pull over to the side and you will neither be in the oncoming lane nor in "an area designated for pedestrians". You will be next to the car that was in front of you, rather than intertwined with it.
In more words, those who study these things, such as the school at A&M, and probably every tactical driving instructor in the world, disagree with you. The numbers are - going around the problem is safer twice as often as slamming on your brakes. If this seems counter-intuitive and you want to see it for yourself rather than read a study, watch a NASCAR race once. You'll notice the million dollar, best drivers in the world NEVER slam on their brakes when a crash is happening in front of them. They always steer.
Not sure how to go around the problem because it's a high speed crash in front of you and you don't know which ways the cars will end up going? Again NASCAR has the solution for you. Two cars crashing at high speed can move in unpredictable directions, but they WILL move. The one place they WON'T be, the guaranteed clear path, is where the cars are right now. Guaranteed they won't still be there two seconds from now. Aim for where the car is - it'll move, if it's going 60 MPH right now. This why you'll see NASCAR drivers steer "the* a crash rather than trying to go *around* a crash that's immediately in front of them. Of course if they are in the extreme left lane and the crash is on the extreme right they won't jerk the wheel to aim for the impact point.
So what we know about you:
Even when in reply to me pointing it out, you're unable to think about the consequences of your actions, blaming others while insisting on continuing to cause yourself problems.
You point out what *other* people should do, rather than have any concept of your own actions having results.
What you tell other people to do is wrong - it's an objectively worse idea.
Your suggestion is simple so you don't have to think, about how to do it or what the actual results are.
I bet I can tell which party you vote for. :)
> the car should stop moving.
FYI, that's one of the more dangerous things you can do. You're quite likely to get rear-ended or T-boned. Some people's default reaction of stomping on the brakes whenever something unexpected happens is a leading cause of accidents.
You seem to be using a different definition than I am for "slippery slope".
The Oxford Dictionary defines "slippery" as "difficult to hold on to" (not impossible), and "slippery slope" as "one action likely to lead to another" (not guaranteed).
https://en.oxforddictionaries....
It would be error to assume that something WILL happen because it is MORE LIKELY to happen.
It would also be error to ignore something that increases the probability of a bad outcome, only because it doesn't GUARANTEE a bad outcome.
The slippery slope fallacy is assuming a slippery slope *when there isn't one*.
In my experience, once I "borrow" a dollar without permission, it becomes easier to later "borrow" $5, then later $20. For me at least, there is a bit of a binary choice between "I'm not a thief, period" and "well sometimes I kinda ...". So there actually IS a slippery slope. It's not a fallacy to recognize a slippery slope that is actually there.
You mentioned going over a moral cliff. In my own experience, I tend to slide down a slope more often than I jump off a cliff.
Years ago, I was a serving as a middle-man of sorts collecting money daily on behalf of someone, and about once per month I'd send it to him. Sometimes it was two months in between - he wasn't worried about exactly how often it was sent. He wasn't at all tight on cash, so he didn't care if it was four weeks between payments or six weeks. One day I had to pay my payroll two days before my own funds became available. So in order to pay my employees on time, I borrowed from the "middle man" money for 48 hours. He didn't know or care. It helped my employees, who needed tonoay their bills on time, and nobody was hurt. But it wasn't the right thing to do.
The problem was once I borrowed money that wasn't mine, even though it didn't hurt anyone, and even for just 48 hours, that's a slippery slope.
In this instance, Facebook promised to not map user data from WhatsApp users. They probably made other promises to out his mind at ease. That plus a huge pile of money could be very tempting indeed.
I have observed that when you put a heavy solid object on a spinning object, such as a washing machine, it throws it off balance and makes it wobble.
I have also observed that if the washing machine is full of water, in the spin cycle the water self- balances. It's not off balance and doesn't wobble because the water automatically centers around the center of the spin.
Helicopter rotors use the same effect to self-balance, allowing each blade to move a bit relative to the others. When they can move, they self-balance.
I wonder if these researchers have ever washed their own clothes and seen that solids can throw the balance off, while liquids do not. Put a chunk of ice in the spin cycle and it'll wobble. Melt the ice into water and it won't wobble.
So far, this looks to me like something that happened with me once. The Firefox team liked the site and liked the idea of working together somehow. But then nobody really had a great idea of *how* they could work together in a way that really adds value. After the excitement of the idea of working together, what was left was how browsers work with web sites - they display them.
After I read a book called Zero Bugs and Program Faster, I really liked what the author was doing. It aligns with my mission to improve the reliability and quality of software everywhere by teaching programmers how to make more reliable software. I emailed the author, Kate Thompson, telling her I enjoyed the book and "we should work together on something sometime". She replied "play how? Work on what?" Um, I don't know. :)
I think some political ideas are like that. They sound great on a bumper sticker. Then when you try to actually put them into action, to decide exactly what to do and how to do it, it turns out the phrase is only good for a bumper sticker, there is no actual policy that makes any sense to do there. I ran into that the other day when someone knocked on my door to pitch the Democrat candidate running for the House in my district. She mentioned a couple bumper sticker slogans, so I asked "cool, what exactly do you mean by ____?â She had zero answers, no policy ideas, just a bumper sticker that sounded good until you ask what it means.
Troy and his site are good.
My experience with the public comment process is that some types of comments have worked, some don't. We got changes we wanted, when we used certain approaches.
Regulators already HAVE the bumper stickers. As you mentioned, saying "impeach Trump!" isn't going to inspire any edits to the regulation. Neither is "fuck Facebook", or anything else that fits on a bumper sticker. A bumper sticker slogan won't give regulators any new information or new ideas on which to base changes.
My experience is that sending well thought out, specific suggestions which take into account different people's perspectives works. How does privacy regulation affect your job? What would be good changes that make things work better for you, in your personal life and I your job? What proposed changes could create problems? Can you suggest a way to FIX the proposal to make it better?
That last question is the big one. To pick randomly regulation I commented on, the initial draft off the FAA "drone" defined the terms in such a way that it would apply to a paper airplane. You'd need to register your paper airplane with the FCC before throwing it. The foam glider toys you get for $8, those would need to be registered, under the original definition of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. How about only powered objects? That would include the rubber band powered windup plane in the toy aisle of the supermarket. The palm-sized quadcopters that can only fly indoors - do they really need to be registered with the FAA? Lots of people made comments about what a reasonable definition of an UAV would be, and the FAA adopted a sane definition.
In previous instances it's been "it's been proposed that Foo, Bar, and Baz be exempt. Suggest adding Fum to the list", or "suggest changing 'under 3 pounds' to 'under 10 pounds because ...".
WhatsApp form 10-Q revenue ar the time of aquisition was about $1.5 million.
Facebook doesn't officially report the revenue of each app, but a recent analysis in Forbes estimated when revenue of $5 billion when the changes are complete in 2020.