generalpass

I wonder how that number looks if you compared founder CEOs with replacements.

I'm not sure it actually matters with the prevalence of skimmers plus this and even cameras taking pictures of cards.

I've had 3 compromised cards just this year, so now I just go inside and pay.

Please consider using archive.md. There are many of us who have no access to archive.is.

> Women do understand what men experience online,

It is not my experience with the women I know that they are aware of this. Maybe they think it is somewhat reduced from what they experience, or perhaps they think that the only women who contact men are legitimate, non-harassing contacts, but they are not aware that the actual experience is zero initiated contacts.

> because many men have developed a massive victim complex lately and won't stop trying to derail every mention of something women experience online to talk about themselves.

I have observed no massive victim complex. My comment was not intended to "derail" any mentions. I flatly stated my experience and that women are generally unaware of this experience.

If there is no interest in considering the experience of a party for whom you have some desire to influence, what is the likelihood of successful engagement? If you want men, who experience no initiated contacts to fully understand that women experience large amounts of harassment, might it be critical to approach them with the understanding that they have a completely different experience?

What is true is that women typically do not understand what men experience online. That was my point.

> This comment is like if someone said they watched their parents burned alive in a house fire and it changed the person for life, and someone else replied "yeah, but think about the other side, my brother is a firefighter and he works so hard..." Sure, let's minimize the first thing and talk about something different.

No, it isn't like that because the discussion is regarding the same environment. within your analogy, both discussions would have to be about parents. So the one person provides the stated example of watching their parents burn to death while the other explains that their parents locked them in a 48" x 48" x 48" cage and tortured the person for 18 years. (I'm going very extreme here to demonstrate the point.)

> I think men have no idea that girls and women experience this.

This is generally true in both directions. While I have never experienced sexual harassment, I do experience nothing. As in, no woman (online) initiates contact with me. Every woman apparently initiating contact is a scammer and likely not actually a woman.

I learned from their twitter to use `archive.md` instead of all of the other TLDs.

Is there any independent verification of any of the claims of this article?

I am well aware that terrible stuff happens on the World Wide Web and it may well be that Bark was legitimately founded to stop that stuff, but as a natural skeptic I'm at least a tad concerned that this is self-published by a company that sells a service to catch these kinds of activities.

Were there no journalists interested in covering this story?

Is Bark profitable?

"The accused never purchased an Alexa, carefully disabled all Android smart assistants, and even when his diligent neighbor across the street purchased a Ring for neighborhood security and protection, the accused immediately planted a very large hedge row in front of his home."

> What is often brushed over by proponents is that it will weaken security for all of us.

Because there are criminals in the government.

The people there created these problems.

Will Amazon send emails to mail servers with no encryption?

> 1) This doesn't deal with botnets and other compromised devices. Would you want your ISP to terminate your service if you (or worse, your roommate) got a virus?

2) This would require ISPs to do even more invasive monitoring of all traffic to be in compliance. They'd essentially have to DPI everything, or even break TLS between you and your destination, to know if your traffic was malicious. No thank you.

3) Many ISPs simply don't care. A lot of malicious traffic comes from countries where ISPs will just look the other way for a bit of cash. I suppose we could come up with a system that depeers bad ISPs, but this would have tons of collateral damage to innocents as well as reintroducing the exact centralization we're trying to avoid (where's the "master list" of bad ISPs to depeer?)

Whatever the solution to bad actors online is, it isn't ISPs.

Yes, I would like it if I had something that unbeknownst to me is harming others (beyond some de minimis) through their service, and per their contract, they certainly have the right refuse my service until the condition is rectified. Anyone relying on my service will either suffer or be owed something, by me. Note that this isn't some arbitrary shuttering of some service. This is a harmful activity being blocked from harming and is spelled out in the contract clauses.

You make it sound as if this stuff is so hard, yet here we are discussing this in a comment section of a post by a person who doesn't seem to be employing highly-sophisticated tools in identifying the bad behaviors. All he would have to do in my dream world is show this behavior to his (contracted) service providers, and them on up the chain.

But notice that this option is not available, thus the only option is to use a centralized provider that is effectively big enough to completely absorb a huge percentage of bad activity. He even comments that owners of networks are only voluntarily providing responses and actions to these activities. They could just as well not be bothered and what then?

If the ISPs don't care and people who don't want this traffic on their networks disconnect from them, this is bad? And, yes, whole countries may have problems connecting anywhere. Mind you, even those countries had some reason to connect to the World Wide Web (itself with a mountain of even just protocol requirements) in the first place, and it likely has to do with some minimal amount of trade with the outside world. To continue this trade communications they will have to provide a service that others are willing to connect to.

> Probably worth thinking through why this isn't done already: firstly it's a lot of work, and secondly the cross-network accountability is very short on choices. After a certain point you have to decide whether you want to cut off a majority of the internet or put up with it.

It also requires de-anonymisation (so you can identify who the bad actor actually is!) - you wouldn't be allowed a Tor exit node on this network, for example.

I think that "because it is a lot of work" can't be a reason for not taking preventative measures against something you own that is performing harm on another party.

As far as available technologies, "it isn't perfect" does not mean it isn't better.

If an automated ride-sharing service has customers who are shooting guns out their windows and damaging property, then maintaining the anonymity of the attackers is not a reason to permit them to engage in this behavior.

If Tor is permitting criminals to use the Tor tool, itself, to do harm to others, then it is up to the Tor project to remedy this. If I, as a network operator, do not want them damaging my network, then that is my choice. If I, as a customer of a network operator inform the network operator that I am willing to accept Tor and all liability, then this exception can be written into a contract.

How come private contract clauses can't be initiated to protect from malicious actors?

What if I own a server and connect it to an ISP under an agreement where the ISP is accountable for clearly malicious behavior coming from its connection (regardless of origin)?

Then, that ISP requires the same agreement from me, and everyone connecting to that ISP, and on down the chain.

Wouldn't we all be very active in policing bad actors in the networks we manage?

I'm not suggesting anything other than the state may not be interested in serving the poor and more interested in reducing what the state pays out.

I did not make a statement about what I would personally prefer the state to do.

I found it interesting that Rubin claims the site grants creators the ability to know everyone who signs up for their community, which protects the creators to significant degree.

The site title is:

Locals | Build your own community

Looks good in lynx, but having the site be a .txt would be cute, if annoying.

Do you propose that the thief is rich or does not benefit from the theft?

The poor do little to directly increase revenues, so the cold financial evaluations that states are too good at will reveal a net benefit to the state.

I did not make an claim that "...everything is about spending more to fed[sic} those already at the bottom..." You are presenting a straw man.

The discussion about the entire U.S., which is an incredibly diverse region inclusive of almost every demographic except those found in the very poorest nations on the planet is not useful in a discussion on a specific region within the U.S., and worse is to compare it with somewhere else in the world and make no attempt to explain why the comparison is valid.

An additional angle is that the state is well and truly out of money and running out of lenders, yet continues to see the number of poor and their related costs increase.

One way to offset growth in welfare expenses might be to permit poor people some way to directly steal with impunity, thus they can still somehow be fed, while simultaneously reducing attendant enforcement costs and prison populations.

One issue you don't mention is the urban growth boundary laws, which basically mean there is no competition for housing outside of areas that already have housing.

Prior to these laws, cities absolutely could not get away with such nonsense restrictions on growth because people would move just outside of the city limits, establishing new communities not within the city's taxing region, so cities would try to accommodate to keep the taxes in the city.

Now, the cities all know that people cannot move outside of cities, so they can behave as oligarchs.

Indeed, it is only a problem in the sense that it is not a perfect solution.

Looking only at a package you receive does not even come close to the complexity of managing a supply chain of packages.

Shippers the size of Amazon are dealing with a supply chain of packages that is larger than the majority of businesses. They have likely already considered that they could ship in a different package, but it costs them less by having fewer packages to manage.

If every possible size/weight combination requires a different package, then the amount of packages sitting in warehouse will increase by an enormous margin.

I would wager that the actual resources consumed by having fewer package sizes to manage is less than the amount of resources consumed to have a huge variety of package sizes to manage.

"Young people" and then they provide some broad data on "age groups" as if the entire U.S. were some homogeneous blob.

I think that's really sad.

Maybe someone will make a tweet in peace site.

This article seems to suggest that shareholders are primarily concerned with board members who can help them make more money.