JMCQ87

I don't see how B) would work in this case.

However, it could also simply be a huge pile of money getting burned, with a few useful innovations made along the way.

I would venture to say that is the most likely outcome, actually, although I prefer A) to happen, of course.

Short term is relative, I suppose.

That actually gives a neat amateur-ish impression. ^^

Pretty hard to imagine that there will be anything actually "self-sustaining" on Mars anytime soon.

Yupp, there's enough precedent with Parse alone.

Maybe it's still news to some people that there's plenty of precedent for that? For every Litvinenko there is 100s or 1000s that died in more subtle ways.

No, I think legality - in this case - should be pretty clear.

You're allowed your quota of one medium-impact dissident action per week, just like everyone else. As it helps to keep up maintaining the illusion of democracy and free speech, you are actually doing your country a great service.

If you start to do more, however... Consider yourself warned. ^^

In this case, I can reassure you though:

Online petition clicktivism has been shown to be very ineffective, so it's only considered a minor-impact dissident action. You are allowed five of those per week. ;)

I hope that was sarcastic.

Otherwise it's hilarious, especially in this context.

The UK is even more one-sided totalitarian in their views on state surveillance, so you got a point there.

The only one I find surprising among those three is Soros. He's a pretty Janus-faced individual though in general, so... maybe shouldn't even find that surprising anymore.

They should be condoning it. For that, a lot of things would have to change first though, like, for example, the community has to come to the realization that the (supposed) ends do not justify the means and that it's therefore the right thing to do to whistle-blow about them. They also need to realize that the internal mechanisms to whistle-blow are "not effective", to say the least.

Maybe he would have a tragic car accident, or commit suicide.

If you want to go to places where there hasn't been any terrorist attack nearby, you don't have many places to go to left.

Irrational fear, a car accident is the far more likely option to die.

It's mentioned in the article... ;)

>I put it to her that all of that doesn't sound very average to me. >She pauses and laughs sheepishly. "I guess it just depends on who you're comparing me to."

That's the key thing. If I compare myself to the average person, I'm obviously not "mediocre". However, compared to some people who (I think) have had similar opportunities and potential, I probably am.

Depends on us if that's the end of history, or just a stage though. ;)

The interview has some interesting points, this headline is just what he has been saying for years though.

Not even Trump would make we want to work in adtech.

That was my first thought, too. ^^

... and then someone else submits it and it gets like 5 votes, so you can't complain anymore that you don't get on there. ;)

Voat is not "forgotten about", it just doesn't have any mainstream appeal. The activity now is mostly from groups of users that have become "unpopular" on Reddit.

Not only to you. Homepage or no homepage is a pretty staggering difference in "vote-weight".

Yeah, and this person supposedly believing in "merit" wants you to buy into his vision based on fluff and hype.

Better journalists, or just critical thinkers, too.

This person drank a bit too much of the valley kool-aid already, it seems.

Didn't know they had connections to HBGary at some point. Quite telling, if you dealt with these "bottom of the barrel-guys".

I pitched in front of some people from ManTech once and knowing that they acquired HBGary made me somewhat uncomfortable - and made some negative things I heard about ManTech all the more believable.

Unbelievable that this can be legal.

Looks reasonably useful. What would be alternatives to this and what sucks/is great about them?

Since you implemented all those tools, the next obvious question is: what does the data say? ;)

If you look into what the actual outcomes of "charity" and development aid are in the third world, this makes perfect sense.