Fuck all this regulation. The best way for a democracy to work is to have a free market of ideas.
Nonsense. "Free markets" don't exist, first of all, and unencumbered commercial behavior is anathema to democracy.
Um, no. The only thing that encumbers commercial behavior is regulation by the state (bad), and competition (good). It is always better to have options, rather than instructions.
Why undo the revolutionary war?
The revolutionary war was not about democracy, it was about exchanging one aristocracy for another. The Founding Fathers were very careful to limit the democratic impulses of Americans and make sure that the wealthy elite, who they believed know better than everyone else, could rule without being encumbered by democracy.
Um, no. They established a democracy, rather than an aristocracy specifically for this reason. Go read Thomas Jefferson. It took almost 100 years for everyone to get the right to vote, but they laid the bedrock of this great civilization. We have the free'est people because we are allowed to express ourselves. There are going to be bad ideas and bad opinions, like the Westborough Baptist Church. That's the price you pay for freedom. It is a price many have and will fight for, and die for.
Don't you want the freedom to decide who you want to believe rather than have someone make the choice for you?
Did you grow up somewhere that history is not taught?
I was taught history. What does that have to do with anything? Besides, history is taught by the victors. Decide for yourself. Unless you need this Democratic Senator to decide for you. I will be deciding for myself, thanks.
Fuck off ivan? He has a very valid point. Fuck all this regulation. The best way for a democracy to work is to have a free market of ideas. The day you decide someone has the right to declare info as good or bad on behalf of you, the citizen, is the day you trade your freedoms for the tyrant of a king you just made. Why undo the revolutionary war? Don't you want the freedom to decide who you want to believe rather than have someone make the choice for you? Isn't that your right?
1. I own no Tesla stocks. Those that do either short them, or see such valuations, that they are prepared for that to happen. Running out of funds isn't something that's going to come as a surprise to anyone, much less shareholders who actively watch the news cycles. Also, that's assuming they don't sell enough to satisfy their debt, a big IF.
2. If you have disdain for the CEO, that's one thing. But your just throwing shade at the company. You run dangerously close to the sort of guys we heard throwing shade at Steve Jobs for firing employees in elevators, scream at journalists, and blasting Adobe. The history is pretty much settled on Jobs. Like his products or hate them, Apple is the cash printing machine other companies can only dream of. Their products (even the product rumors) guide industry trends.
Wait and see how many companies come up with full-screen display-only electric vehicles with aesthetics following in Tesla's foot steps for the aerodynamic efficiencies Tesla vehicles have, with some component of self-driving in them. Tesla is like Apple circa 2001, more than it is like Amazon. I agree. Staving off bankruptcy, and having supply-side challenges, while garnering a Cinderella story the media can't get enough of.
Plus, Tesla is an underdog now, much like Apple was in 2001. Tesla just released it's iPod. The Macs were always out of reach of most consumer PC shoppers, but everyone had an iPod. First they were FireWire only, then they were made USB, and made to work with Windows. That's akin to the $35k vehicle when it finally ships. And since they are cash starved, it's only smart business to use your limited supply to fulfill the most revenue and marginal products (the more expensive versions). That is what helps you climb out of that mess. If I was a shareholder, and you told me you had 100,000 55k orders, and 200,000 35k orders, and you decided to fill the 35k orders first, and you were in a cash-crunch; I'd fire you or vote you out for fiscal meal-practice. The company is supposed to operate in a way that gets cash-flow in as fast and quickly as possible.
But, think of what they are doing. Pioneering all-electric cars, helping transition us to solar, providing power walls, democratizing multi-kWh battery packs with large facilities, and pioneering self-driving. Why wouldn't you want to wish them the best and cheer them on as they try and change the world?
Eg: Enron? Yeah... so typical (you are grasping at straws if that's what you use to defend your argument).
Tesla is not lying about it's numbers, or they would look better. Tesla is delivering on their agenda, and continuing to develop products and refine their business WHILE short on capital (Roadster, Model 3, Semi, Model Y).
That demonstrates management's commitment to the vision. Elon will get the money. They fact that there is a story about Tesla in papers every third day tells you that love him or hate him, he is going to be sticking around. Sheer will power of people who believe his vision will keep him around.
Besides, Amazon didn't turn a profit until very recently. Financials aren't the only way to value a business. The prospective future is a strong motivator for investment, and if Tesla delivers; their future is very bright.
No, capitalism is the most generous form of governance there is. You want to enforce charity of others by mandating fees and taxes be placed upon them, and if they don't comply, jail, and if they don't comply. Death. Don't come here pretending socialism is kind and just and like a "wider family". Socialism is enforced charity with others who you may or may not feel charitable for. That's coercion, any way you put it.
What the hell are you on about? Why would you raise taxes on the rich to support a minimum wage? The minimum wage isn't subsidized by taxes. Lowering business taxes and employment taxes would support higher wages, since it comes from the coffers of companies. Also, slavery is involuntary. The employees at amazon can quit at any moments notice.
I agree they should earn more, and they can. Every bank in the US has a trading account product. They could simply procure shares in the company they work. Had they done so at Amazon, they'd be pretty happy right now.
It would be corrosion to force the employees to work for amazon if they were unhappy with the terms. But it would also be coercion of all the stock holders and of amazon to force them to pay a certain wage.
Now, not with all companies, but certainly a lot of tech stocks are in many portfolios, which back 401k's, union pension funds, retirement investment accounts, and many retail investors who earn not much cash but who are trying to invest in their future. Let's not hurt them to forcibly help the amazon employee. Especially when the amazon employee could save some of their income and purchase stock, joining the former group pretty easily.
But it is a violation of free speech to mandate I write code specifically saying something.
If I write a virus that causes damage, then that damage is on me. But if I write a virus and I do not release it, but simply show people; then that is not a crime.
Based on that thought, you can not force me to write code to make a bot identifying itself. At best, you would have to write a law preventing anyone from deceiving a person. Best of luck with that. You cant write a law that forces one group to adhere to something a separate group is not.
Also, any good attorney would argue the bot was acting on behalf of its creator, much like a voicemail box that says "Hey, its me!". You think it is the person. Where does the distinction end?
Best to leave these things out of the law. It will only get messy.
Lol. The funny thing is, given what we see in virtual space: more and more applications are jumping onto the internet, giving up their isolated and independent infrastructure.
In the past, radio, TV, police communications, telephony, and even telegram/telegraph has their own infrastructure. This was radio bands, dedicated hardware, and dedicated lines traversing the country. The internet makes better use of that infrastructure by allowing all applications to leverage all mediums and all hardware. Want radio? You no longer need to dedicate huge swaths of channels of spectrum to transport it, and you don't need a specific device to "tune" it. You also don't need a separate device (that has a tuner and speakers) to watch TV anymore. Your internet connected device can do it, and talk on the phone, and send a picture message. The use of the infrastructure became more efficient and utilization went up.
That's the same thing with transportation. The ubiquitous device is going to be the thing you use to travel, be it short distances, long distances, underground, everywhere. All the existing infrastructure will eventually be used to move you or your goods ubiquitously. The subways will be replaced with those Tesla/TBC skates. Same with rail lines. You could have the same skate move a shipping container. The only place I see this not working is in air travel.
But other than that, yes. Once these things become autonomous, and cooperate, and can go everywhere. Efficiency and utilization will increase.
Socialism isn't workers owning the means of production, that is capitalism. Socialism is stealing from the more productive workers, and those who save up to own a larger share of the means of production, and giving it to those who are less productive. This makes being more productive and saving not all that worth it, for those who would otherwise work harder.
It ensures equality of outcome, regardless of the effort, rather than equality of opportunity.
There's a French saying: "A career, open to the talents."
This guy, Montana Skeptic was out in full force trying to down Tesla stock and bolster Oil stocks. He is a manager of a hedge fund. Isn't that manipulating the market? SEC?
He turned a child's rescue vehicle into a pseudo-dildo, suggesting Elong shove it up where the sun don't shine. Let's not forget this guy was not mahatma ghandi over here. Call him a pedo? No. He's innocent in all this? No.
These computers only have USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports, which aren't proprietary. If that's what floats your boat, and your biology fits.... actually never mind
Yes, but iPhones have more user engagement. People will reach for their phones more often than do androids. They also update more often, since updates are not dependant on the carrier and OEM. So, it stands to reason that iPhones hit their data caps more often.
If you want real results, throw out the speeds that fall under the data caps, only include results from the IP blocks of the wireless carriers (to rule out WiFi and VPNs), and analyze those results.
Also, maybe give a breakdown for the top 1% of results as well, so we can see best case scenario. Everything from housing size and construction material, to population density can affect these results, and it has been well documented that more affluent people buy iPhones, who tend to live in more sparsely populated areas like suburbs.
Yes, but the environmental factors argued are more trucks and planes, more packaging, more fuel burned, etc.
Those aren't free for amazon or it's logistics team. They pay for them somewhere. Either in the prime subscription fee or in the profit of products. Those are included in the price, not free as the article insinuates.
Should child pornography be banned on the internet? No. Should people who produce and consume child pornography wherever it resides be prosecuted, and in my opinion raped and tortured, yes!
If you wanted to write a history book on Child Pornography, and some state deemed that illegal, that's an infringement of free speech. I don't mind prosecuting for doing things. I do mind prosecuting people for saying things.
Making child pornography is wrong. Consuming it is wrong. But those two don't justify the wrong of keeping people from having the freedom to speak.
Remember, at some point in the US, interracial marriages were outlawed as indecent as well, and let me be clear here: I'm not saying that child pornography is the same thing or should ever be legal. I just don't want the government coming and saying what I say is illegal. I don't mind if the government says what I do is illegal. But what I say is not illegal. Just because I said it. Ever.
Mind you that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Just that it's not the speech your going to jail for.
Fuck off. If I got a rope, I'd Lynch you with it for suggest I hang myself.
Back to the topping at hand. The internet is whatever each country wants it to be, so I'd countries decided they didn't want to partake with other countries who had draconian laws, the herd would move the straggler. That's all I'm saying. Oh, and not that I vote for him (I'm more a balls and strikes kind of guy anyway), but there's no way at this point given the state of the country, Trump loses in 2020. He will win. Statistics make a very strong case, even if the Democrats came up with a good candidate (unlikely).
Which is why Taiwan buys armaments from the US and has treaties for its protection. If they can't protect themselves from Chinese intent of ownership, they are pretty much screwed. Alliances, treaties, and self defense are the solution there. Just like a moon base.
What these countries should be subjected to is for the rest of the world to decide the internet needs to be free, and totally free, everywhere. No GeoIP fencing, no banned services.
If a private company wants to do it, fine by them. But if a country tried this shit, the rest of the world should block them off the internet entirely, watch their economy have a coronary, and beat them into allowing the net to operate the way the net wants to operate. If you build a messaging service, you should be able to market it to everyone, regardless of where they are.
I'm sorry but that's not entirely true. You can leverage online services like open maps or use someone else's like googles. You can also use cloud infrastructure to do most of the heavy lifting for you. All you neee is the business license, and some programmers to build your interfaces, and a payment gateway to collect and distribute fees. Your business model has to accommodate for your costs of course, and you will need to get your code checked and approved.
No, the hard part is critical mass. No driver is going to try and drive for you unless you have riders. No riders will want to use your app unless you can supply them with drivers. The go-to-market is the hard part. Uber cracked that by early on incentivizing drivers to stay with them, and marketing to riders in a niche are (San Francisco).
Frankly, I dont see how anyone can claim to own it (government or otherwise) which hasn't claimed it. Governments get their power through the citizenry they govern, not through some mystical power bestowed on them. I don't see how Brazil or Belgium have the right what other people do with things that are not Brazil's or Belgium's? The moon certainly isn't, nor are far off asteroids. If you want something, get there and claim it. If someone invades, and wants it for themselves, then you either have to have the means to defend it (which, lets be honest; if you are mining on the moon, you probably have the means to), or establish treaties with those who do.
The moon is no different than an island, its just the ocean that has changed. In the old days, when new islands were found, they were ruled by the people who found them (think of Hawaii). If you didn't have the means to defend yourselves against someone else who wanted it, you lost that right (again, think of Hawaii).
I will have a party on the moon, best of luck stopping me.
This is stupid. Even if legislation came to bear, there is still open source, free and openly available encryption. The cat is out of the bag. Further more, there are phones moving across political boundaries. Are you going to mandate foreigners disable encryption when they enter the country?
This is somewhat stupid, I don't mind if they use the word milk, so long as it's to be used to describe it's not actually milk. Chocolate milk has milk in it. Almond milk does not. It should be call Almond extract milk alternative, if they want to continue to use the word milk.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. "Free markets" don't exist, first of all, and unencumbered commercial behavior is anathema to democracy.
Um, no. The only thing that encumbers commercial behavior is regulation by the state (bad), and competition (good). It is always better to have options, rather than instructions.
The revolutionary war was not about democracy, it was about exchanging one aristocracy for another. The Founding Fathers were very careful to limit the democratic impulses of Americans and make sure that the wealthy elite, who they believed know better than everyone else, could rule without being encumbered by democracy.
Um, no. They established a democracy, rather than an aristocracy specifically for this reason. Go read Thomas Jefferson. It took almost 100 years for everyone to get the right to vote, but they laid the bedrock of this great civilization. We have the free'est people because we are allowed to express ourselves. There are going to be bad ideas and bad opinions, like the Westborough Baptist Church. That's the price you pay for freedom. It is a price many have and will fight for, and die for.
Did you grow up somewhere that history is not taught?
I was taught history. What does that have to do with anything? Besides, history is taught by the victors. Decide for yourself. Unless you need this Democratic Senator to decide for you. I will be deciding for myself, thanks.
Fuck off ivan? He has a very valid point. Fuck all this regulation. The best way for a democracy to work is to have a free market of ideas. The day you decide someone has the right to declare info as good or bad on behalf of you, the citizen, is the day you trade your freedoms for the tyrant of a king you just made. Why undo the revolutionary war? Don't you want the freedom to decide who you want to believe rather than have someone make the choice for you? Isn't that your right?
1. I own no Tesla stocks. Those that do either short them, or see such valuations, that they are prepared for that to happen. Running out of funds isn't something that's going to come as a surprise to anyone, much less shareholders who actively watch the news cycles. Also, that's assuming they don't sell enough to satisfy their debt, a big IF.
2. If you have disdain for the CEO, that's one thing. But your just throwing shade at the company. You run dangerously close to the sort of guys we heard throwing shade at Steve Jobs for firing employees in elevators, scream at journalists, and blasting Adobe. The history is pretty much settled on Jobs. Like his products or hate them, Apple is the cash printing machine other companies can only dream of. Their products (even the product rumors) guide industry trends.
Wait and see how many companies come up with full-screen display-only electric vehicles with aesthetics following in Tesla's foot steps for the aerodynamic efficiencies Tesla vehicles have, with some component of self-driving in them. Tesla is like Apple circa 2001, more than it is like Amazon. I agree. Staving off bankruptcy, and having supply-side challenges, while garnering a Cinderella story the media can't get enough of.
Plus, Tesla is an underdog now, much like Apple was in 2001. Tesla just released it's iPod. The Macs were always out of reach of most consumer PC shoppers, but everyone had an iPod. First they were FireWire only, then they were made USB, and made to work with Windows. That's akin to the $35k vehicle when it finally ships. And since they are cash starved, it's only smart business to use your limited supply to fulfill the most revenue and marginal products (the more expensive versions). That is what helps you climb out of that mess. If I was a shareholder, and you told me you had 100,000 55k orders, and 200,000 35k orders, and you decided to fill the 35k orders first, and you were in a cash-crunch; I'd fire you or vote you out for fiscal meal-practice. The company is supposed to operate in a way that gets cash-flow in as fast and quickly as possible.
But, think of what they are doing. Pioneering all-electric cars, helping transition us to solar, providing power walls, democratizing multi-kWh battery packs with large facilities, and pioneering self-driving. Why wouldn't you want to wish them the best and cheer them on as they try and change the world?
Eg: Enron? Yeah... so typical (you are grasping at straws if that's what you use to defend your argument).
Tesla is not lying about it's numbers, or they would look better. Tesla is delivering on their agenda, and continuing to develop products and refine their business WHILE short on capital (Roadster, Model 3, Semi, Model Y).
That demonstrates management's commitment to the vision. Elon will get the money. They fact that there is a story about Tesla in papers every third day tells you that love him or hate him, he is going to be sticking around. Sheer will power of people who believe his vision will keep him around.
Besides, Amazon didn't turn a profit until very recently. Financials aren't the only way to value a business. The prospective future is a strong motivator for investment, and if Tesla delivers; their future is very bright.
No, capitalism is the most generous form of governance there is. You want to enforce charity of others by mandating fees and taxes be placed upon them, and if they don't comply, jail, and if they don't comply. Death. Don't come here pretending socialism is kind and just and like a "wider family". Socialism is enforced charity with others who you may or may not feel charitable for. That's coercion, any way you put it.
What the hell are you on about? Why would you raise taxes on the rich to support a minimum wage? The minimum wage isn't subsidized by taxes. Lowering business taxes and employment taxes would support higher wages, since it comes from the coffers of companies. Also, slavery is involuntary. The employees at amazon can quit at any moments notice.
I agree they should earn more, and they can. Every bank in the US has a trading account product. They could simply procure shares in the company they work. Had they done so at Amazon, they'd be pretty happy right now.
It would be corrosion to force the employees to work for amazon if they were unhappy with the terms. But it would also be coercion of all the stock holders and of amazon to force them to pay a certain wage.
Now, not with all companies, but certainly a lot of tech stocks are in many portfolios, which back 401k's, union pension funds, retirement investment accounts, and many retail investors who earn not much cash but who are trying to invest in their future. Let's not hurt them to forcibly help the amazon employee. Especially when the amazon employee could save some of their income and purchase stock, joining the former group pretty easily.
But it is a violation of free speech to mandate I write code specifically saying something.
If I write a virus that causes damage, then that damage is on me. But if I write a virus and I do not release it, but simply show people; then that is not a crime.
Based on that thought, you can not force me to write code to make a bot identifying itself. At best, you would have to write a law preventing anyone from deceiving a person. Best of luck with that. You cant write a law that forces one group to adhere to something a separate group is not.
Also, any good attorney would argue the bot was acting on behalf of its creator, much like a voicemail box that says "Hey, its me!". You think it is the person. Where does the distinction end?
Best to leave these things out of the law. It will only get messy.
Lol. The funny thing is, given what we see in virtual space: more and more applications are jumping onto the internet, giving up their isolated and independent infrastructure.
In the past, radio, TV, police communications, telephony, and even telegram/telegraph has their own infrastructure. This was radio bands, dedicated hardware, and dedicated lines traversing the country. The internet makes better use of that infrastructure by allowing all applications to leverage all mediums and all hardware. Want radio? You no longer need to dedicate huge swaths of channels of spectrum to transport it, and you don't need a specific device to "tune" it. You also don't need a separate device (that has a tuner and speakers) to watch TV anymore. Your internet connected device can do it, and talk on the phone, and send a picture message. The use of the infrastructure became more efficient and utilization went up.
That's the same thing with transportation. The ubiquitous device is going to be the thing you use to travel, be it short distances, long distances, underground, everywhere. All the existing infrastructure will eventually be used to move you or your goods ubiquitously. The subways will be replaced with those Tesla/TBC skates. Same with rail lines. You could have the same skate move a shipping container. The only place I see this not working is in air travel.
But other than that, yes. Once these things become autonomous, and cooperate, and can go everywhere. Efficiency and utilization will increase.
Socialism isn't workers owning the means of production, that is capitalism. Socialism is stealing from the more productive workers, and those who save up to own a larger share of the means of production, and giving it to those who are less productive. This makes being more productive and saving not all that worth it, for those who would otherwise work harder.
It ensures equality of outcome, regardless of the effort, rather than equality of opportunity.
There's a French saying: "A career, open to the talents."
This guy, Montana Skeptic was out in full force trying to down Tesla stock and bolster Oil stocks. He is a manager of a hedge fund. Isn't that manipulating the market? SEC?
He turned a child's rescue vehicle into a pseudo-dildo, suggesting Elong shove it up where the sun don't shine. Let's not forget this guy was not mahatma ghandi over here. Call him a pedo? No. He's innocent in all this? No.
These computers only have USB-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports, which aren't proprietary. If that's what floats your boat, and your biology fits.... actually never mind
Yes, but iPhones have more user engagement. People will reach for their phones more often than do androids. They also update more often, since updates are not dependant on the carrier and OEM. So, it stands to reason that iPhones hit their data caps more often.
If you want real results, throw out the speeds that fall under the data caps, only include results from the IP blocks of the wireless carriers (to rule out WiFi and VPNs), and analyze those results.
Also, maybe give a breakdown for the top 1% of results as well, so we can see best case scenario. Everything from housing size and construction material, to population density can affect these results, and it has been well documented that more affluent people buy iPhones, who tend to live in more sparsely populated areas like suburbs.
Yes, but the environmental factors argued are more trucks and planes, more packaging, more fuel burned, etc.
Those aren't free for amazon or it's logistics team. They pay for them somewhere. Either in the prime subscription fee or in the profit of products. Those are included in the price, not free as the article insinuates.
Should child pornography be banned on the internet? No. Should people who produce and consume child pornography wherever it resides be prosecuted, and in my opinion raped and tortured, yes!
If you wanted to write a history book on Child Pornography, and some state deemed that illegal, that's an infringement of free speech. I don't mind prosecuting for doing things. I do mind prosecuting people for saying things.
Making child pornography is wrong. Consuming it is wrong. But those two don't justify the wrong of keeping people from having the freedom to speak.
Remember, at some point in the US, interracial marriages were outlawed as indecent as well, and let me be clear here: I'm not saying that child pornography is the same thing or should ever be legal. I just don't want the government coming and saying what I say is illegal. I don't mind if the government says what I do is illegal. But what I say is not illegal. Just because I said it. Ever.
Mind you that doesn't mean there aren't consequences. Just that it's not the speech your going to jail for.
Thank you.
Fuck off. If I got a rope, I'd Lynch you with it for suggest I hang myself.
Back to the topping at hand. The internet is whatever each country wants it to be, so I'd countries decided they didn't want to partake with other countries who had draconian laws, the herd would move the straggler. That's all I'm saying. Oh, and not that I vote for him (I'm more a balls and strikes kind of guy anyway), but there's no way at this point given the state of the country, Trump loses in 2020. He will win. Statistics make a very strong case, even if the Democrats came up with a good candidate (unlikely).
Which is why Taiwan buys armaments from the US and has treaties for its protection. If they can't protect themselves from Chinese intent of ownership, they are pretty much screwed. Alliances, treaties, and self defense are the solution there. Just like a moon base.
What these countries should be subjected to is for the rest of the world to decide the internet needs to be free, and totally free, everywhere. No GeoIP fencing, no banned services.
If a private company wants to do it, fine by them. But if a country tried this shit, the rest of the world should block them off the internet entirely, watch their economy have a coronary, and beat them into allowing the net to operate the way the net wants to operate. If you build a messaging service, you should be able to market it to everyone, regardless of where they are.
I'm sorry but that's not entirely true. You can leverage online services like open maps or use someone else's like googles. You can also use cloud infrastructure to do most of the heavy lifting for you. All you neee is the business license, and some programmers to build your interfaces, and a payment gateway to collect and distribute fees. Your business model has to accommodate for your costs of course, and you will need to get your code checked and approved.
No, the hard part is critical mass. No driver is going to try and drive for you unless you have riders. No riders will want to use your app unless you can supply them with drivers. The go-to-market is the hard part. Uber cracked that by early on incentivizing drivers to stay with them, and marketing to riders in a niche are (San Francisco).
Frankly, I dont see how anyone can claim to own it (government or otherwise) which hasn't claimed it. Governments get their power through the citizenry they govern, not through some mystical power bestowed on them. I don't see how Brazil or Belgium have the right what other people do with things that are not Brazil's or Belgium's? The moon certainly isn't, nor are far off asteroids. If you want something, get there and claim it. If someone invades, and wants it for themselves, then you either have to have the means to defend it (which, lets be honest; if you are mining on the moon, you probably have the means to), or establish treaties with those who do.
The moon is no different than an island, its just the ocean that has changed. In the old days, when new islands were found, they were ruled by the people who found them (think of Hawaii). If you didn't have the means to defend yourselves against someone else who wanted it, you lost that right (again, think of Hawaii).
I will have a party on the moon, best of luck stopping me.
That sounds like a brilliant idea. Why don't you build a platform?
Should be simple.
This is stupid. Even if legislation came to bear, there is still open source, free and openly available encryption. The cat is out of the bag. Further more, there are phones moving across political boundaries. Are you going to mandate foreigners disable encryption when they enter the country?
This is somewhat stupid, I don't mind if they use the word milk, so long as it's to be used to describe it's not actually milk. Chocolate milk has milk in it. Almond milk does not. It should be call Almond extract milk alternative, if they want to continue to use the word milk.
You do know. Its right there in their security document. If you don't believe them, wireshark or reverse it and prove otherwise.
Its a shitty argument to say "I dont believe them, just because it sounds wrong to me."