about_help

People want to be useful, and people don't want to do the same thing for the rest of their lives. These are statistically true generalizations.

UBI would allow people to expand their career paths since basic survival would not be on the line. Personally I've got minor health issues from being in front of a computer too much, would absolutely love switching it up with a more physicaly demanding job if I had UBI to make sure a drop in wages wasn't threatening my family's basic survival. This also assumes universal healthcare.

"You cannot have both an opt-in working class and an opt-in nonworking class and have a healthy society."

So I agree, but I do not think it would become a real problem. If it does become a problem we could implement a lottery system that swaps workers out every so often.

Liar

That is a poor argument and not even really correct. He is advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy which would indeed take away from his own wealth. You can't expect people to sacrifice themselves completely to help others when the necessary changes are systemic and not individual.

Universal healthcare and education at all levels. Strong worker protections, good safety nets. Return to mid 1900s tax rates on the rich, fund the IRS to make sure corporations and ultra wealthy pay their taxes.

We have multiple successful models to look at where capitalism is reigned in by all the above.

You have been eaten by a grue!

"(c) The SDK Software is licensed solely and exclusively for use with products offered for sale by Boston Dynamics, Inc. (“BD Products”). Use of the SDK Software with simulators and emulators is not prohibited so long as it is a software based simulation / emulation. Use with any other hardware is strictly prohibited."

No thanks

The problem is that the "reason" was simply being associated with someone. We need to creste privacy laws, this assumption thst it is OK to go through someone's personal life merely for being in someone else's contact list is unethical.

There should be compelling evidence, and after some short time period say > 5 years the person should be notified of the investigation.

We already know what it is, the centralized ownership of news media. Billionaires do not want Sanders to bring their taxes in line with reality. Thus the corrupt political elites and the corporate owned media marginalize him every chance they get.

Just part of the panopticon, they are forcing you to make it super easy for governments to monitor you. Tracking email addresses and correlating amongst shared names makes for more false negatives, tie it to a phone number and you're doing their work for them.

Money is an artificial construct used by humans to facilitate trading their labor amongst each other in order to get what they need to survive.

Arguments about how expensive things are make no sense if we restructure our society where money is only half the equation. The labor required to provide food, health, and housing is incredibly small compared to the overall economy.

People want to be useful, and people want more than just a place to live and food to eat.

The real danger would be in creating a system that stifles the free market side of the economy and leaves people stuck in basic assistance hell with no way of working to improve their lives. Worrying about the costs of providing basic assistance to all is actually the least important bit.

"As long as data is not de-aggregated and de-anonymized there is no issue here"

Awfully hopeful there.

"The other political statements and comparisons he makes, well are unrelated and sincerely looks like political propaganda to me."

I would say the same about your assertions of innocence and presumption that the data can not be de-anonymized. If the "propaganda" is supporting user privacy I'd say you're on the wrong side of this discussion.

Some weird narcissism you're selling to convince people they shouldn't care about privacy. Immediately refuted by everyone's real world experience with visible privacy violations.

"If surveillance helped me meet my customer demands better, then by all means, watch me like a hawk. If it's just there as automated paperwork for the project manager then buzz off."

This is the primary problem. Managers exist because they're supposed to know the business and manage projects. Normalizing surveillance across society in the name of efficiency or profit is already sending us down a dark path.

I guess we'll have to legislate privacy and jail anyone violating it.

And this is how fascism spreads. Thanks EstoniaTechLead for trying to seduce people into giving up their morality.

These are bad actions but for "the greater good"? You don't get to have it both ways. Protecting yourself without torturing people is 100% feasible and your argument should only be heard in a war crimes tribunal from the defendant'a lawyer to ease their sentence.

Morality isn't hard, but the implementation can be.

Simple: disparate group of elites that realized monarchy has too many pitfalls and so they worked to create a better system where no one group could so easily dominate the others.

The war itself went well due to the huge geographic separation and the support from countries that wanted to end British dominance. Local governments were already in place, nothing local was "burnt down" except the British tax assayers office, roughly speaking.

Or possibly advanced civilizations had the same realization that many scifi authors have had about such probes. Something goes wrong and they cause widespread destruction. Or they work fine but still end up causing widespread destruction simply by replicating.

This argument is tired. We can maintain 1st world living conditions while drastically reducing emissions. Throw away consumerism is literally a toxic force on the planet, but the wealthy do not want to disrupt their income streams and "gamble" their fortunes on reinvestment or environmental rehabilitation. Your argument is akin to "why don't you donate all your money" when someone says the rich should be taxed more heavily.

Of course it is, he is embarassing their biggest competitor and ripping the band-aid off the gaping wound the US likes to call "freedom."

Why mess with the golden goose? They just let Snowden do his thing, he doesn't have any useful intel for them as they are running the same types of programs.

You are correct that if Russia didn't like what he is saying he'd be in detention. They really like how he embarasses US.

Greed is not surprising, but understandable you might have thought this crowd was a bit better than the average.

I have JS disabled and I see the article just fine.

FUD? Even vanilla Chrome only shows a small nag box.

TLDR: electronic voting machines are corrupt and US democracy has been subverted multiple times.

Could you use a full web engine to scrape the info which would also load the ads?

You should be, the Facebook app explicitly does listen to the mic unless you opt out. It has also come out that Google and Amazon are storing people's personal voice requests, and aside from that the mics are always on waiting to hear the trigger words. This means by default that the apps are listening and analyzing everything, though how much of the non word-triggered speech gets recorded is unknown.

Facebook's initial foray into the app/mic biz was troubled and their statement was "we only listen for popular music / TV in the background in order to help you." It also came out that they mine personal messages between users.

"I’m not paranoid to think they are listening to the microphone but the coincidence is super uncanny."

We need to get past the block where we label people as paranoid for thinking these big corps might invade user's privacy.

Institutional slavery.

If there is no profit motive in any shape or form then voluntary prison labor would be OK with my conscience.

You skipped right over "most likely" and only focused on "the ... cause". To me it sounds like they are saying statistically Mg deficiency is the most widespread underlying factor. Their language is strong, but it does not come off that absolutist and the "most likely" suggests other causes.

It absolutely is happening more on Firefox. I open Chrome almost exclusively to bypass CAPTCHAS, and I doubt they will get in trouble because Chrome gives more detailed data due to its invasive lack of privacy. You can't really blame Google for using its own tech to provide "better" results, but it is high time we started blaming them for the massive privacy violations they use to make their convenience work.

"I do not believe Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet's, etc, wealth impacts my inalienable right to life, liberty, and property."

That seems simple enough, however there are a multitude of secondary effects that happen when you allow individuals or corporations to amass the levels of wealth we see today. This enables them to monopolize markets through a variety of means and subvert the political process. Even without Citizen's United making bribery pretty much legal such wealthy entities would still be able to use their wealth to influence society.

Simply because Gates was in the right place and time to develop a near OS monopoly he should have a disproportionate say in society's politics?

These are not simple problems to solve, but then again they aren't that difficult either.

We use separate channels for different projects and people join/leave as needed. @here is incredibly useful when you have a general question and not sure who might have insight.

It all boils down to how people use the communications channel. I see @here multiple times a week but do not feel like it is a big distraction. At worst it can create a few minutes of distraction from my current workflow and if I'm truly in the middle of a thought process I ignore the message for a little bit or unless a 2nd notification hits.

Security and privacy yet again traded for convenience. We need strict data privacy laws and then I would have a little more trust in large centralized entities that would otherwise have every incentive to abuse people's data.

Such centralized systems also become significant points of failure. What happens to your small business if one of the many services you rely on disappears or changes their API?

"All that matters is the product" sounds very much like "all that matters is the bottom line" and we've seen the travesties that occur when profit is put above all else.

And yet you use the phrase "useless parasites". Keep meditating!

It is an extreme example to illustrate the point, not a direct comparison of FB to atomic bombs.

However, one might argue that FB is actually worse. It is hard to quantify widespread societal effects and determine if they would have occurred through other channels. The massive privacy violations across the world through FB is another item that is hard to quantify yet 100% morally wrong.