Trumpi

> That's their data that they're choosing not to disclose.

And newspapers own the copyright on everything they print, even falsehoods.

What's important is the reason why they are doing it, not whether they have the right, because we all agree that they have the right to do it, but we are not all happy.

No - we have anti-vaxxers because nobody will debate them. Instead we ask them not to post their nonsense and so they just retreat to their echo-chambers and begin reinforcing their views to each other.

If my base salary is competitive, and I get vesting grants on top of that, then I don't see it as a bad thing.

If the vesting grants are an excuse to underpay me, then that is a bad thing.

An employer's perspective is different to mine, and some companies cannot compete by offering grants. This is probably what this article is really about.

What a clever way to tie an identity to a crypto wallet!

We literally had this with OpenID. If I remember correctly, it pre-dated Facebook and the flurry of "Login with XXX" type authentications. But the corporations like their walled gardens too much and OpenID fell out of favor.

Here is one of my favorite sections from 1984. Maybe there is some relevance to draw from it; maybe not.

  'You haven't a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,' he said almost
  sadly. 'Even when you write it you're still thinking in Oldspeak. I've read
  some of those pieces that you write in "The Times" occasionally. They're
  good enough, but they're translations. In your heart you'd prefer to stick
  to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning.
  You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that
  Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller
  every year?'

  Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not
  trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the
  dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:

  'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of
  thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible,
  because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that
  can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning
  rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
  Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we're not far from that point. But the
  process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year
  fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little
  smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing
  thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control.
  But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will
  be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc
  is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever
  occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a
  single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation
  as we are having now?'

Vote by mail.

It sounds like a euphemism for vigilantes, though I certainly hope that this is not what they intend.

Unfortunately, the alternative to persuasion is belief and trust.

I would prefer to be persuaded than told what to think. Otherwise, journalists can tell us whatever they want to without any accountability.

> Today, this is almost universally seen as a failure of journalism.

That is a shame.