IAmEveryone

they already mentioned why it was awake: downloading updates.

...which it only does when connected to power so I'm honestly failing to understand what the problem may be. Anyway: Settings -> Software updates -> Advanced -> Download new updates when available -> uncheck.

For everything else: Battery -> Power adaptor -> Wake for network access -> uncheck (may also take care of the above, dunno)

There's a possible difference here between "doing things that Twitter and its owner(s) will profit from" and "doing things as Musks wants them". If the two diverge, the first is the winning strategy, burning far fewer bridges than the alternative.

If it's unclear, people who don't particularly care for Musk (aka people who know Musk minus people who want to be Musk) may well start from the assumption that the current CEO was right. And if Musk-era Twitter doesn't succeed as wildly as some (one) person predicts, they stand to look even better in contrast.

I'm not saying that Musk will necessary fail––he's had quite a bit of success compared to, well, anybody. But he's been involved with a few duds, as well, and has set rather high expectations. It's an almost classic case of decision-making under uncertainty and I'd guess a Twitter CEO has seen a relevant case study or two.

Technically, i guess they could "have a little trouble acting so fast", buying everything at $0.9 and back up to $1, and pocket the difference, scolding people for their lack of faith.

Practically? Yeah, it's goner.

"A system that allows us to transact directly, peer-to-peer" is "unstoppable that people will seek this, regardless of anything, even legality"

It's a serious indictment of this generation that they talk about useless, wasteful distributed hash functions in the way previous generations talked about things that matter(ed).

Also your essay has nothing to do with issue of the posts above.

$ 1.2 trillion, or 6 % of US GDP p. a., according to coinmarketcap.com

I guess it was about 10 % at some point not too long ago?

The article is written as a response to claims that Bitcoin is an asset (class) different enough from stocks to be useful to diversify a portfolio. It's pointing out that, at a correlation of 0.86, it really isn't.

The headline doesn't quite convey this meaning.

Indeed. All the second-hand clothing stores are on instagram. All the drug dealers are on telegram.

The "parts of it" in your question might be the clue to an answer: you start implementing some often-used code path only to realize that they share code with all the rarely used code paths (permissions/authentication come to mind),

So you'd need to reimplement a whole bunch of your codebase, at which point you'll have two versions of everything that you need to keep in sync.

Yes, like it was yesterday (or today). It was a strange time where the term was often used for things that had nothing to do with the original meaning of the term.

The headline is editorializing beyond what’s supported by the article. That technology, SS7, wasn’t intended as a backdoor. It was about network management. As such, it may have been possible to gain access to it far easier than it would be to some intentional backdoor.

The IMF is anti-idiocy. So yes.

It's hard to get into a position where you get money for nothing. I'd gladly tell you exactly how to do it, but unfortunately I am just as lazy.

Maybe try feudalism, though.

How often do you use straws? Maybe it's a cultural thing, but as far as I'm concerned, straws are for ages 1-10 and 75+.

I guess it's a bit of a curiosity. The charge of hypocrisy is to be expected, and not entirely wrong, although it suffers from the usual problem, namely that a doctor telling you that smoking is dangerous with a pack of Marlboros on his desk isn't necessarily wrong.

Does it often happen to you that you talk about Ai and, three minutes later, find yourself arguing with every search machine on the planet that it’s impossible that someone would say nasty things about your favorite fascist?

Since “everyone” would include governments and industry as well, their restriction is guaranteed to not contain more bad actors than no restriction.

Go figure (8)!

Sure, but it would never do something actually bad, like raising the possibility that sexual harassment might, sometimes, be an issue, or questioning the value of phrenology.

So if your plane model keeps blowing up, at some point people will just have to learn to live (/die) with it?

In its original iteration, the Nazis were very much not accusing their opponents of such things. Fascism is very visible, with displays of strength, mass events, iconography, etc. They concept of the enemy was more conspiratorial in nature, i. e. the jewish conspiracy.

It's really only the most mindless middle school name calling of the last two years or so where you get Trump people saying "oh, but it's national socialist" and now Putin. It's trolling, "flooding the zone with shit". The Nazis were better than that.

Plus, you know, the globalists.

Funny you should say that. Eco anticipated not only Trump and Putin, but meerita as well:

Eco grew up under Mussolini’s fascist regime, which “was certainly a dictatorship, but it was not totally totalitarian, not because of its mildness but rather because of the philosophical weakness of its ideology. Contrary to common opinion, fascism in Italy had no special philosophy.” It did, however, have style, “a way of dressing—far more influential, with its black shirts, than Armani, Benetton, or Versace would ever be.”

You can't stop me from keeping the car I borrowed. Your bank can't physically force you to pay back a loan. I can probably outrun the staff at that restaurant. Does that mean the laws preventing such behaviour should be abolished, the (implicit) agreement to pay for the food I order should not be binding?

LinkedIn presumably tells its users how they are using the data, at least if they follow the law. Shouldn't people be allowed to consider those terms to be acceptable without it meaning they lose all protection?

"But it's impossible to protect your data against all re-use", you'll say, "someone may remember it". That is not just obviously true, it is the only reason one might want the protection of the law.

Things that can easily be prevented by technical means do not need to be prohibited. That's why the common argument that "it's your own fault when you are raped at night, in a park" or that someone stole your car when you accidentally didn't lock it is so absurd: laws aren't so much about preventing you from being raped. In the absense of the law, you'd just never leave your (fortified) appartment. Laws are about allowing you to go outside, to not spend your money on steel-reinforced doors, to leave your convertible parked with the top down.

"Might is right" just leads to a pointless arms race: social networks waste money on protecting against scrapers. They'll hide everything behind logins or paywalls. Scrapers will waste money on overcoming those protections.

If the scrapers win, some people will decide not to do something they would have otherwise done. In other words: they have become a bit less free. The social network becomes less useful and might shut down. The scrapers find themselves with nothing to scrape. Congratulations, everone lost.

Taking a photo of a copyrighted photo (and distributing it) is illegal. You're just saying that anything that's technically possible should be legal, since there is no need to prohibit the technically impossible.

Lots of people here seem to believe that scraping should be legal because it is possible.

The flaw in that argument is that a law is never needed, by definition, to prevent things that can easily be avoided by technical means.

The laws against burglary protect your property and health but, more importantly, they allow us all to live in peace without investing vast amounts of resources into physical protection.

You may be right, but that 2004 paper is on the wrong side of, for example, the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome by Pääbo, five years later: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1188021

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_... has some newer stuff and the trend seems to be progressively more archaic DNA being identified.

You can’t take it literally in this sense. Among other things, investors cannot commit securities fraud, only executives can. Als, relatedly, Matt Levine’s take regarding insider trading may be relevant here.

There are plenty of countries that are seeing inflation and didn't get any stimulus money. The official explanation blaming the war also happens to be the better fit temporally (you'd have to explain a two-year lag) and sectorally (why are energy prices and energy-intensive food prices rising sharply, when income effects would be seen more broadly, or focussed on luxury products (i. e. everything except food, energy, and housing))

The jump in 2020 is explained by a footnote saying that the definition was broadened in May of that year. Other than that, the rate is unprecedented in absolute terms only in the way that any chart of exponentional growth will always be.

This is like taking ten COVID tests, one after another, and declaring they must be broken when they all come back positive.