naringas

they have no face, just a series of rules, methods, procedures,..etc. in all, a culture desgined by multiple generations of firm executives optimized to make profit in any way they can.

when they don't stand to make a profit because they own the "IP" then they want openess

why?

I thought that ticks are insects?

however the diseases they cause are caused by bacteria and other non-insects which they carry around, which I think is the point

and no amount of studies will get this into the heads of those who need to accept it

but make certain choices easier, much easier. just use chrome, it's just less of a hassle.

I dubbed this "convenience herding". nobody is forcing you to do anything; they are just making some things very very inconvenient relative to how easy it's to just put it all in their servers or use their software (the cloud is an euphemism for not your computer)

> It isn’t really a credible source.

are there any "credible sources"? nowadays eveything is biased. the trick is being aware of the biases in your sources and reading sources with different biases.

All in all, what they are really accomplishing is making it harder and more techinacally difficult to track individual people. i.e. NOT impossible.

In the end, given enough money (or lacking enough scruples) it will still be possible to track individuals as a service, but it'll be more expensive because it has been made difficult by 'privacy-first' initiatives such as this.

So that finally, only very very large companies and governments can really afford to do this.

Nubank (a Brazilian based startup-style fintech company) does everything with clojure (on AWS). They bought Plataformatec makers of the Elxir lang.

just in case you've been missing this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFc40M1g8kA

they have recorded 4 of his quartets arranged for guitar

In my own worldview companies such as this as at this point autonomous entities made from money and owned by other money.

This is the stuff that skynet is made from.

This particular one seems noxious, but there are others which do make useful stuff, e.g. Kraft? Nestle? DuPont? P&G? come to mind.

rich wealthy country corruption: the building gets built and (if)when disaster strikes, the corruption is revealed by broken safety regulations.

3rd world country corruption: the project gets started, maybe they put the first stone in a ceremony. nothing gets built and years later there's an empty lot sitting there.

I tried checking out two articles but couldn't find any content other that a couple of videos not even 3 minutes long.

Additionally, the site annoyingly asks me to join the newsletter on every page.

https://forbiddenstories.org/javier-valdez/

https://forbiddenstories.org/miroslova-breach-drugs-traffick...

"don't you worry, it's secret for your safety."

they probably do really think like that. or at least claim to while their real reasoning is a private affair.

and so is free (FSF-style) and open source software. but apparently a healthy economy (with a 'free' market) is more important... o̶h̶,̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶e̶c̶u̶r̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶i̶l̶d̶r̶e̶n̶.̶

> but there really is no "deeper truth" here.

I disagree, I do think there's a deeper truth. It seems to me that you have already internalized and understood it very well; that is the goal.

would you at least agree that there's beauty here? and this notation does make it more apparent; or as you say "could have some meaning pedagogically"

however amazon is not really a tech-first company, their main business is retail (even if a lot of their revenue comes from AWS).

> The required amount is greater than 2/3 (67%)

I'm not sure that's correct (the tweet doesn't get into any details so I went to ethereum's website https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms...)

> The threat of a 51% attack still exists in proof-of-stake but it's even more risky for the attackers. To do so, you'd need to control 51% of the staked ETH. Not only is this a lot of money but it would probably cause ETH's value to drop. There's very little incentive to destroy the value of a currency you have a majority stake in. There are stronger incentives to keep the network secure and healthy.

The keypoint seems to be that if your attack fails your stake gets destroyed so besides the positive incentives (a good stable network working for all) this system also relies on punishing failed attacks.

One thing I haven't been able to figure out about proof of stake is this:

if one entity somehow manages to control over half to the total ETH tokens, does this enable an attack analogous to bitcoin's 51% problem (which happens when one miner controls over half of the network's raw cpu power)?

they can help you avoid malformed requirements. and/or preempt situations such as "oops your reservation has vanished because a bug; but now thanks to your complaint we've fixed it!"

> formal thinking is not how we learn.

The way I've thought about it is that we cannot understand a problem until we've faced it ourselves.

And too often we try to teach each other by going straight to the answer, and then it just doesn't stick.

I recall this happened to me when reading about 'soft' skills (such as collaboration methodologies), it wasn't until I was working with a team of people at a job and was faced with the problems these methodologies attempt to solve that I was able to read about them without immediately thinking "this sounds like bullshit"

I am pretty sure that evo morales was quickly kicked out of there because he wasn't gonna easily let global corporations mine in a "cost efficient" way. so now that he's out is only a matter of time before there's cheaper lithium in the global market.

> Science isn't in the business of answering why.

I agree as long as science is a business. But why is science a business?

If science is not meant to answer why, does this mean we cannot know why?

should we just give up on having story-like (narrative) explanations for why and how things work? it seems like we are headed to a world where the computer just tells us what to do and where to go. a world in which we are free from having to think about why we are being told to do whatever it is we're doing. click (or tap) buttons, get tokens to buy food and pay rent.

there's just way more people too

I wish all this technology were more accesible. but they gotta protect their trade secrets (I guess...).

I've heard about something called 'dycryl process' (in chip photolitography) but it is not the kind of info that it's easily found, nor easily understood even if I could google for it.

I hope you're right. in time we will know.

it's a bit like a pun, because by doing that they make a business (and a profit) out of sticking their noses where they shouldn't

I think he meant it from a purely technical standpoint... (curious use of the word 'business')

I think you're both right.

but the law is not the judge

IMO this is such an 'obvious' idea once you think about it that it will eventually happen.

The law will go from written natural language to executable computer programs (formal languages).

However a change of this mangnitude cannot happen quickly, (and might even be impossible to do peacefully).

Abusing the "software is eating the world" analogy, we ain't seen nothing yet. Software is just barely opening its mouth.