They probably have large enough departments at this point that they could dedicate various 'HQs' to clusters of divisions of related projects. So 'fully owned subsidiary' comes to mind.
Not only that but competition for talent there is really fierce. Even though I am well outside NYC I get recruiters calling me and talking about how a couple hours on Amtrack per day isn't THAT bad and other people are doing it! I guess NYC is good if you are mostly interested in stealing other people's employees since there is already a big concentration there.
I think that last line is esp important. FTP, when installed, is pretty good about limiting where users can access on the server. It is a well vetted, well contained service at this point. The OP seems to mostly be upset that people can listen in to the traffic, but when the whole point is providing public access to data that is kinda a non-issue.
On the other end though, FTP and its various implementations not changed much in decades, so at this point the FTP services themselves are pretty well vetted. FTP is still in pretty common use for bulk data downloads that permit anonymous access, so it isn't even that it is 'rare'. Like any software that doesn't change much, it really has not been seeing new problems added in and old problems slowly being removed.
The tricksters also discovered that their pranks were only funny to them, and everyone else was just sorta expected to put up with it. I can recall one place I worked, there was a prank war between two artists that enjoyed pranks and that was fine, but once they started targeting people who didn't, it became a problem.
Ugh. I can recall working on a professional project in C/C++ where, in order to make it work across multiple compliers, someone had redefined things like 'null'. Hilarity did indeed ensue.
To build off this : another major issue is that the wealthier someone is, the less likely they are to be spending locally. If you have lots of money, you can either spend or invest it anywhere in the world, which is good for your pocketbook but not necessarily good for the local economy. If you are poor, the bulk of your money gets spent at local businesses and continues to circulate locally. If you are a public policy planner with an interest in the strongest local economy and the standard of living of your constituents, the difference can be night and day.
Not really. For starters, it changes how money is spent, focusing more of the spending on the low end of the economic scale rather than the high end. This means the spending is more distributed (local) rather than concentrated, which also tends to have a higher turnover rate meaning the money gets spent quicker, so the total amount of money in circulation goes up.
In theory, better roads and economic development. In practice they are trading concrete access to a sacred site for the abstract 'all society benefits when we benefit'. So yeah, they are not getting jack squat and giving up something major.
Well, progress tends to make some life better and other life worse. This was a NIMY issue, they were not against progress itself, but did not want it done on a site that would take something away from them. They see it as their sacred site, thus their decision regarding what it can and can not be used for, while other parties want it for their use instead. And that is the classic problem when someone feels they can make better use of a resource than the people who are currently using it... often from a macro perspective we give them a pass since it 'contributes to society', but it still involves taking something that other people were using and destroying their use. The land the telescope is built on and the land around it will no longer be usable for their purposes, and that is what they were upset about. The utility of the telescope is irrelevant for people who are being asked to pay a price so others can profit.
I wouldn't even call them anti-progress, just anti-building-on-that-specific-site. The whole case pretty much came down to 'so who gets to decide how the land is used?', with a particular group having been given the authority and other interested parties feeling the authority was being misused. That isn't really anti progress, just an authority issue.
Isn't this a path we have already been going down for a while anyway? I know tech companies were outraged over that too, but I find this 'sure we are already doing this to protect money, but protecting PEOPLE is going too far! think about what shadowy non-us governments might do with this!' a little disingenuous.
Unfortunately, a rather human flaw is that when one becomes skilled in an area that gets them admiration, they start believing they have en equal amount of skill in any area they have an opinion on. That is what really sunk the guy, he got popular doing videos about stuff he actually knew about, then started also doing videos where he 'debunks' things he doesn't understand but figures that if he has an argument that sounded logical to him it must be true.
It is actually why I stopped watching a lot of 'rationality' themed youtube channels... they really seem to struggle to stay within their field and almost always try to branch out into social areas they do not even wish to understand but instead eliminate.
As a general rule, CEOs are not skilled in reading how credible scientists or engineers are, they are skilled at reading how credible C suite executives are. So if you can pitch something in their language, you are more likely to convince them than if you stuck to all that boring science stuff.
Am I the only one amused that a piece is actually talking in gasped horror at 'megabytes' of data exposed? It just isn't a scale that you hear used much in outrage much anymore.
Well, a big part of the hope behind bitcoin was rooted in the idea that private companies are better for 'people' than governments, so yeah, BTC was in part about moving control from governments to the already wealthy, well, after making some new wealthy people at least.
I think the problem isn't that there are economists making arguments in favor of these companies and working for firms that do work for them, but instead that they seem to be the only people at the table.
I would expect paid experts, the whole point is find people who can make a convincing argument for why your solution is better than other proposed ones.
Slashdot Mirror
They probably have large enough departments at this point that they could dedicate various 'HQs' to clusters of divisions of related projects. So 'fully owned subsidiary' comes to mind.
Not only that but competition for talent there is really fierce. Even though I am well outside NYC I get recruiters calling me and talking about how a couple hours on Amtrack per day isn't THAT bad and other people are doing it! I guess NYC is good if you are mostly interested in stealing other people's employees since there is already a big concentration there.
Maybe that includes pathing and transit?
I think that last line is esp important. FTP, when installed, is pretty good about limiting where users can access on the server. It is a well vetted, well contained service at this point. The OP seems to mostly be upset that people can listen in to the traffic, but when the whole point is providing public access to data that is kinda a non-issue.
On the other end though, FTP and its various implementations not changed much in decades, so at this point the FTP services themselves are pretty well vetted. FTP is still in pretty common use for bulk data downloads that permit anonymous access, so it isn't even that it is 'rare'. Like any software that doesn't change much, it really has not been seeing new problems added in and old problems slowly being removed.
The tricksters also discovered that their pranks were only funny to them, and everyone else was just sorta expected to put up with it. I can recall one place I worked, there was a prank war between two artists that enjoyed pranks and that was fine, but once they started targeting people who didn't, it became a problem.
Ugh. I can recall working on a professional project in C/C++ where, in order to make it work across multiple compliers, someone had redefined things like 'null'. Hilarity did indeed ensue.
And of course javascript based solutions just happening to be the easiest type for search and ad systems to troll is just a fringe benefit.
To build off this : another major issue is that the wealthier someone is, the less likely they are to be spending locally. If you have lots of money, you can either spend or invest it anywhere in the world, which is good for your pocketbook but not necessarily good for the local economy. If you are poor, the bulk of your money gets spent at local businesses and continues to circulate locally. If you are a public policy planner with an interest in the strongest local economy and the standard of living of your constituents, the difference can be night and day.
Not really. For starters, it changes how money is spent, focusing more of the spending on the low end of the economic scale rather than the high end. This means the spending is more distributed (local) rather than concentrated, which also tends to have a higher turnover rate meaning the money gets spent quicker, so the total amount of money in circulation goes up.
In theory, better roads and economic development. In practice they are trading concrete access to a sacred site for the abstract 'all society benefits when we benefit'. So yeah, they are not getting jack squat and giving up something major.
Well, progress tends to make some life better and other life worse. This was a NIMY issue, they were not against progress itself, but did not want it done on a site that would take something away from them. They see it as their sacred site, thus their decision regarding what it can and can not be used for, while other parties want it for their use instead. And that is the classic problem when someone feels they can make better use of a resource than the people who are currently using it... often from a macro perspective we give them a pass since it 'contributes to society', but it still involves taking something that other people were using and destroying their use. The land the telescope is built on and the land around it will no longer be usable for their purposes, and that is what they were upset about. The utility of the telescope is irrelevant for people who are being asked to pay a price so others can profit.
I wouldn't even call them anti-progress, just anti-building-on-that-specific-site. The whole case pretty much came down to 'so who gets to decide how the land is used?', with a particular group having been given the authority and other interested parties feeling the authority was being misused. That isn't really anti progress, just an authority issue.
Taking right wing terrorism seriously hurts the feelings of right wing terrorist apologists and supporters, and that is the true terrorism!
Isn't this a path we have already been going down for a while anyway? I know tech companies were outraged over that too, but I find this 'sure we are already doing this to protect money, but protecting PEOPLE is going too far! think about what shadowy non-us governments might do with this!' a little disingenuous.
Unfortunately, a rather human flaw is that when one becomes skilled in an area that gets them admiration, they start believing they have en equal amount of skill in any area they have an opinion on. That is what really sunk the guy, he got popular doing videos about stuff he actually knew about, then started also doing videos where he 'debunks' things he doesn't understand but figures that if he has an argument that sounded logical to him it must be true.
It is actually why I stopped watching a lot of 'rationality' themed youtube channels... they really seem to struggle to stay within their field and almost always try to branch out into social areas they do not even wish to understand but instead eliminate.
As a general rule, CEOs are not skilled in reading how credible scientists or engineers are, they are skilled at reading how credible C suite executives are. So if you can pitch something in their language, you are more likely to convince them than if you stuck to all that boring science stuff.
Am I the only one amused that a piece is actually talking in gasped horror at 'megabytes' of data exposed? It just isn't a scale that you hear used much in outrage much anymore.
Well, a big part of the hope behind bitcoin was rooted in the idea that private companies are better for 'people' than governments, so yeah, BTC was in part about moving control from governments to the already wealthy, well, after making some new wealthy people at least.
Refurbished batteries are counterfeit. They keep the 'Apple' case but replace the cells.
If you buy the pan at the cheaper 'I will buy your eggs too' price, then yeah.
People tend to forget that 'corporate personhood' is also the reason companies can do things like pay rent, hand out paychecks, and order supplies.
I think the problem isn't that there are economists making arguments in favor of these companies and working for firms that do work for them, but instead that they seem to be the only people at the table.
I would expect paid experts, the whole point is find people who can make a convincing argument for why your solution is better than other proposed ones.
I do not think they should be discounted, but they should not be the only voice at the table.
Heh. Compression on scientific data is a nightmare. I would not trust AI to do it... I wouldn't even trust grad students to do it.