Theory5

And again in 2018, as we all know too.

Did you click that site? I can't read the damn article because of all the ads.

Its normal for the authorities on a subject like this to balance informing the public vs discovering all that can be known about something.

Things change as they learn more. That's how this works. Saying they "lie" to you is stupid. They're telling you what they know, as they learn it.

They are STILL learning new things and will be for years, which will change how we address and deal with this.

For them to lie would mean they magically know everything about it and specifically choose not to tell you.

Wow, it's almost like private companies don't want to be seen supporting terrible people who have done terrible things, such as damage a democracy by incompetence and malice. Or encouraged and emboldened extremists cumulating in an attempt to actually harm the leaders of a country, or illegally obtain a gun, shot several people, then was seen associating with extremists who regularly call for and perpetrate violence.

Yes, and automation is very difficult to use for these tasks. Running such huge infrastructure can benefit in many ways by automation, just look at netflix.

But it doesn't function well in these cases, and again and again it's clear these companies can't employ enough people and tools to prevent blantly illegal content (to the point many of those hired to review potential illegal material come away from that job with PTSD) much less identify and moderate hate speech or even speech that is more nuanced.

Reddit did some stuff right with sub moderators, but even then its a whole charlie-foxtrot when the moderators encourage it or aren't active (and thats excluding ones with their own specific agendas).

At this scale, these companies cannot moderate their platforms properly, and automation could help, but isn't the solution until ot greatly improves.

But these aren't private conversations via means covered under wiretap laws, while your analogy is exactly that.

Federal law on phone communications differs from public online forums owned by private companies.

Which is not to say other laws may not better apply meant for public forums physical or virtual.

When I'm bored, in the shower, or just day dreaming I sometimes like to think about what it'd be like if I was a multi-millionaire or billionaire. One thing I imsgine myself doing is giving giant donations to museums with the only request that they let me wander around various warehouses and storage areas.

I like history and old stuff, and it just boggles the mind what they must have back there. Especially when I read articles about someone "rediscovering" some old or obscure item because it wasnt catalogued when it was put into storage, or the record was lost.

And remove your work ID badge. No joke, the guy with the flag in the picture in this article was identified by people on social media and fired... because he had his company ID badge on.

These people are giving peosecuters a field day, displaying clear proof of multiple federal crimes.

That guy in Pelosi's office who stole her mail (and posed for pictures of both) also gave his name.

I work in Infosec, and I keep getting the question "why do all these scammers send poorly worded, frequently misspelled, obviously fake emails by the millions?"

And I lay it out for them. The short answer: is because it works.

If they send 5k emails out, asking for $2k, all they need is for a small percentage to fall for it.

They know how much effort to put in to get a specific return.

Why can't that be the same idea here? Pick out the ones who don't ask questions, or take 2 seconds to Google something, etc. Whip them into a frenzy. Then steer them to a specific site. Or to donate. Or even just start following whomever wrote this out, to be convinced to donate somewhere later.

The New York Times had a set of videos called 'Verbatim" where actors acted out scenes from real deposition transcripts.

I wish they continued that, there's probably thousands of these sorts of things both in court, and depositions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/verbatim-what-is-...

We expect it because it happens enough that to believe there will come a time it won't happen is foolish.

Tolerating, however isn't something that should happen. Though as people are discussing, maybe in this case turn it from corruption where it'll pad some people's pockets to a legitimate way to fund initiatives to help the less fortunate can be beneficial.

Is it right? No, but humanity rarely follows what's right when its more beneficial to certain people to follow the wrong paths.

Our solar system is called Sol. "The Sol System".

Our residence and office of the leader of our country is The White House.

"Air Force" only sounds more normal than "Space Force" because most of us weren't around when it was the "US Army Air Corp".

Admittedly they could've called it something slightly cooler based off other names, like the US Cyber Command.

No, for taking a position on another companies board of directors, because her employment contract prohibited that without a higher ups (ceo's) approval, and he only let a handful of his direct reports do that. Its not uncommon for high level executives to sit on boards of other companies in addition to their job.

There are laws meant to prevent conflicts of interest (but as one of my bosses once pointed out, most people in those positions know how to skirt the boundaries without breaking the laws/regulations).

For example at my company, a member of our board is the CEO of another software company.

We were evaluating their product in addition to others for corp wide adoption. As the sales rep from his company mentioned they were "very interested" in them getting the contract.They were beat out (but made it into the top 2 in testing, it was a great product) and we ended up going with a competitors product.

Obviously that CEO was able to ensure his people knew a potential contact with us was "of interest" but he couldn't go so far as to actually use his influence on our board to convince my company to choose his product even though it didn't fit our needs as well as the other.

Its pretty complex, some of these laws and how they are supposed to prevent conflicts of interest (and how they may or may not work).

I saw that a few weeks ago, and I thought it was awesome.

The more we do online, the more we need things like this. I already can designate family member or my fiancee as a beneficiary in most accounts that handle all my money, but there is much more to that I'd like them to be able to access if I suddenly died or became incapable of accessing it, or giving them access.

My dad is in his mid to late 60s and often will remind me what his passwords are based around for most of his online accounts in the event he can't get into them and my mom needs to. I think he tells her and my sister this too, but it'd be better to have successor roles for Email and other important accounts that don't have benefactors setup. More legal too, as technically if he passed and I accessed certain accounts it could cause legal issues if I ever did something like transfer funds or use his email to claim I was him for verification to another site.

This is very true, i think the guy you're responding to is thinking more in terms of when there are more jobs then devs, not the other way around.

Even if that becomes the case, since this stuff goes though phases, a lot of college students or kids right out of high school would still jump at the chance to gain this sort of experience, alongside people like you, who just want their needs taken care of, a bit of spending money, and a job where they can focus on what they enjoy without too much demanding or stress. Same for older people with a lot of expertise, but who again want something less demanding but still enough to support them until they retire, or give them a purpose after they do so.

Like my dad, he's a network engineer, in a job like I described. He and my mom are a little over retirement age and plan to retire soon, but he's not one to just sit around the house all day. I think that's one reason he keeps saying he'll retire in 2 - 3 years, but says that year after year.

I'm in the InfoSec field, and bug bounties are a huge thing now (well, for years but it seems to keep gaining steam) for app security. There are people who make a living, or at least generate secondary income off it, or others do bug hunting as a hobby and to help out and don't mind a little bit of reward when it's there.

Maybe it's because I'm not big into the development side of things, but I cannot recall any programs that'd be similar to bug bounties but focus on someone building code or fixing the bugs and submitting that in a freelance type capacity.

Granted, my limited knowledge of development may just mean I don't see obvious reasons it's not done or widely known about, and there would be a few different things thatd need to happen vs how bug hunting works, but its similar to your idea to attract more talent to work on small bits, without going out and hiring full time developers.

In other countries and cultures, living with parents is entirely normal. My girlfriend is from India, and was very confused as to the whole "looking down upon people who don't move out" stance people take here. I explained a bit about how its seen due to our views (be they correct or not) of self-reliance, and other issues such as if they're just mooching off their parents, but I agree its still not as bad as people make it out to be.

Sometimes when hackers break into a system or network, they will actually stop and PATCH the systems, to prevent others from using the same vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities from compromising the device they now own.

Suffice to say, these attackers will already have ensured they maintain persistence even with closing their initial entry points.

Likewise, the NSA has many avenues to get into a device, or (more practically, when it concerns most of the public instead of specific users and devices they need access too) they use mechanisms that aren't affected.

As they've proven, they have a huge catalog of malware and similar, but that's for actual targets. People they already believe to be threats or targets, that they need to directly attack.

But for the majority of the public? The information will come from the companies themselves, not the user devices. Why would you spend thousands or millions on developing and maintaining an application you can put on everyone's devices, and may be removed, or even just disabled due to an upgrade (until you can patch it) when you can find and obtain data from a company that already has common apps on a device, across the public, and the public not only knows they are there, they WANT the app and will take steps to complain if access is rejected? And the companies will gather as much as they legally can (and sometimes more), put it into databases, sort it, categorize it, etc?

Why would you duplicate ALL of that, when you can just take the finished product, the sorted data that's stored, either legally and knowingly, or unknowingly from a company?

And you ensure that while you can maintain that access, either to the company or the device, you direct the users and company on how to protect themselves from random attacks, or other entities that want to target the users, often with automated software that hits the "low hanging fruit".

And who supervises the kids? Drives them to school? Makes their lunches? Teaches them?

>But as someone who followed the spygate saga, Q seemed to know just enough inside baseball to make it interesting and keep me curious. I thought maybe some foreign intelligence op or something.

You ever see a psychic or other con-person work? Think more like that.

Yup, and its not like it was a minor thing that escaped everyone's notice. It was huge.

Which has been a staple of the news for many decades now, and will be for decades to come. Finding those niche views most people disapprove of and getting everyone's emotions up keeps them engaged.

That's absolutely not true, lockdowns have been proven to help protect people and reduce the spread of the virus.

Amazon makes money by being so damn easy to spend your money and get products. One click buying probably increased the average American's monthly spending a decent percentage alone.

Making it just as easy for third party sellers is a no brainier, and will only increase their influence and grasp.

Especially if they can cut small business overhead significantly. Today, why would anyone want the overhead of building and maintaining an ecommerce site when their business is too small to do it without lots of money and additional overhead.

The history of unions, in the US and the UK have always painted a picture around this. Unions, and their rich history came about because the government couldn't, or wouldn't, create laws to protect the common worker, and even when laws were on the books, couldn't or wouldn't properly enforce said laws.

Unions started at a time when they could be crushed, workers fired, and even blackballed legally. Yet they, the organized workers, did what the government couldn't.

The power of unionization hinges on the workers themselves, they need to stand up, fully organize, and bring Amazon to the table. Amazon has too much money, too many "friends" and too much power for the government to take the lead. The attempts to protest earlier, or unionize, at amazon showed a half effort, not driven by the entire workforce, will fail.

Unlike the days of the past, workers are protected by many laws. Companies cannot hire mercenaries (in the US and other "first world" countries, at least) to brutalize workers. But they control more, across a larger area, making unionization difficult, despite the laws protecting unions. If Amazon wishes, they can easily cut off a single warehouse, if all those workers organized only in a single location, in the grand scheme.

But similar fears also exist among workers. If only a fraction of workers strike, they'll lose their jobs, deincentivizing the others. If you work in a warehouse, in the US, you're expendable. And especially in these times, people will be more likely to say "any job is a good job". And refuse to strike unless an effort appears that they see protects them, i.e. most of the workforce strikes, preventing Amazon from firing them all, or cracking down on unionization.

In my opinion, in lieu of 3/4th of all Amazon workers in a region unionization and striking together, the tech workers must unionize first, and lead any charge for change. Otherwise, again, a small minority of workers in other roles who strike will be ousted, painted as malcontents and policy violators hiding behind a fake claim of mistreatment, and fail to enact changes and possibly not be hired by other companies.

That's my two cents, as long and rambling as it may be.

"Those assets are, in large part, the church buildings themselves. They are not liquid assets. Indeed, they are even more illiquid than most other real estate, because the market for church buildings, all of which are constructed to meet the needs and functions of a particular faith, is quite limited."

I don't think that's true. Years ago in Boston MA during one of the big legal where church leaders were accused of child molestation/rape/sex abuse, the church was ordered to pay $85 million dollars to the victims, some 260 people I think.

They took short term loans to pay that, then sold 15 buildings that netted them over 100 million dollars. One of the biggest properties was the archbishop's residence.

They didn't tap into the normal petitioners funds and similar, just took out some loans, took some insuance payouts to cover the 85 mil, then less then a year later sold those 15 buildings for over 100 mil.

The building packages were thought to be worth at minimum $1 mil per acre.

This was between 03 and 04.

In 2020, they were able to move around $2 billion to shield those assets from being taken into account during more recent sex abuse payouts.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-01-08/the-catho...

They sure as shit can liquidate, or move very large amounts of assets around to protect their own organization.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/10/us/church-in-boston-to-pa...

They're not a small business in any sense of the word, and they took money they don't need, seeing as it can take them less than a year to sell $100 mil+ worth of assets to cover payments to 260 sex abuse victims 15+ years ago, or move around 2 billion worth of assets in a ploy to try and reduce what they'll have to pay to victims of these leaders.

No, you're quoting word for word a heavily biased article, pushed from a site that is publishing "information" without being able to prove it or provide supporting sources, and whose outlandish claims don't match up to multiple reports by news agencies with years if not decades of experience providing news both locally and nationally.

Time, NPR, and several others paint a much different picture, and appear to be able to actually substantiate THEIR articles, unlike this one that you're championing.

"Solve the problem" ok, so you're starting that this selling only happens when a third party dev does it?

Do You have an android phone? Do You use google for anything? Gmail? Google docs/drive? Youtube? Chrome? ChromeOS? Anything google owns? Then they're selling your data.

Try reading all those fun TOS agreements that come with using any of the aformentioned products, or heck, visiting sites that use google analytics.that won't tell you how much or what data google gets from you, but it'll tell you that you agreed to it.

You're on the internet, this is kind of our specialty.

They took the wrong conclusion from the PopSci article, and have few other outside sources that don't link from sister sites.

If people don't read the sources cited, they'll come away with the wrong conclusion.

Case in point, PopSci argued economically valuable materials are heading to the dump instead of being used in other ways, not that recycling isn't economically viable.