ralfn

That's not a one time risk though! So far it seems a person can be infected multiple times.

Say you get Covid once a year, that's 0.004% per year. Also, wether you need hospitalisation or not, doesn't change the fact that some people are having permanent issues like lost their stamina, hair loss, loss of smell. I have a coworker with neurological issues, but he is not in a hospital.

So the big question is: how effective are the vaccines against long Covid?

And we need that number at or below 0.001% or Covid will overtake other diseases in terms of life expectancies and QoL implications. Assuming we would get once every one to two years.

That's just too much rounds of Russian roulette.

> I assume that if you where to launch a product in the Netherlands you would avoid naming it "Pick" as well?

Not really. But its not a fair comparision, because Coq isn't an American or British research project, its a french project. Its not even a commercial product or anything.

So i fully understand they want to change their name, but it is sad they feel forced to. Honestly, if someone is harressed by actual adults within a particular culture for using something that could somehow make a 14 year old little boy giggle, then i strongly suggest they leave whatever culture they are in, because its completely backwards.

The problem to infantile behavior and sexism in particular cultures isn't sovled by every other culture renaming their stuff to not trigger this behavior. Lets solve sexual harrassment in English speaking countries by the rest of the world avoiding doing anything that has any phonetic resembles to genitals. Does that not sound idiotic? Is that a not a weird English privilege that other languages don't get?

Again i understand and respect the decision by the project. In the end you just dont want people to get harressed. But lets not pretend the problem is the name. The problem is certain cultures lacking adult behavioral norms for men.

Please don't use the word "pick". It sounds exactly like the Dutch word for penis.

Also don't use the word "could" because in Dutch that sounds like a nasty word for vagina.

Thanks for being considerate. There is nothing wrong with your English language, but sometimes it sounds offensive in mine.

Nah. I'm joking obviously. I do understand that in an international project with the dominance of English it makes it easier to take these things into account. I don't blame them for looking for a new name.

But the idea that the whole world changes their values and language constructs to not offend American sexual oppressive culture is still stupid. I do blame Americans for that.

Yet here I am as a Linux user actually hoping the competition can even catch up on the hardware side of things, since it's all so locked down when Apple does it.

But I have no illusion about a future for the x86 arch on mobile devices, like laptops. There is none. You can bury yourself next to its dead corpse of course.

I don't know what you think the competition is, but you don't need a new computer to run old programs. And your new computer won't be better than your old one, if it still compatible in the way you seem to care about.

All the competition is moving in the same direction. That you can not run your old legacy programs from 15 years ago on a dual boot with a competing OS. Nobody wants you as a customer with these terms, why would they? You sound needy, difficult and cheap. If you don't even intend to replace your existing software with new software from their store, they wouldn't even want to waste an ad view on you.

And the direction of a trillion dollar industry isn't going to be influenced by your lack of being able to run Office '98 on a dual boot.

That's actually not how capitalism works. I don't always like it either, but these threats of I'm going to with hold this pocket change money. It's a such a misunderstanding of capitalism. It's like a 15 year old gamers threatening to not buy EA games.

The button of betrayal is right there in the demo.

Your privacy is not safe with Mozilla. It requires the same level of distrust as other browser vendors, but at least with those vendors people already know. Mozilla luls people in to trusting them and then uses that trust to fund a business model that is specifically about collecting and uploading user data.

What is the point of firefox if it comes with spyware?

This supposed feature is nothing more than a css tweak that somehow needs to upload your urls to this 3rd party provider that is not bound by the privacy guidelines of Mozilla.

It is makes Mozilla a bunch of liars in a way that Google isn't lying. Actually. Google isn't sharing your data with another party.

I wont be switching back to Firefox until they remove the pocket thing and enact policies preventing this from happening again.

Now it's just a worst chrome, with better promises that turn out to be bigger lies.

Many responsible adults jumped on the 'it can't be man made' bandwagon out of instinct.

It feels like the kind of narrative that could lead to destabilization and may be fueled by xenophobia.

But beyond the responsible adults there are few people in the world that can study the genome and they never really had internal consensus. They had internal consensus to downplay the 'its made in a lab' conclusion, but there is no clear evidence of the opposite.

Keep in mind at that moment in time this would give ammunition to general public to harass random asian looking individuals.

You can imagine that's a not a conclusion you want to exist in the head of your common hooligan.

You can also imagine that most people convinced of anything are just, ehm, idiots. Because if you can't do the science yourself, or if you can't but haven't, it would be foolish to believe any kind of consensus where most of the people talking also can't or haven't done the science themselves. The majority is always wrong, and scientific consensus of a new event becomes insightfully about 10 years in after a few revolutions of ideas like the one currently happening.

It is in the end just a economic system of gatekeeping by a cabal. A cabal very much in a situation of economic dependency on political structures. So there can't be a scientific consensus about this in the media. Only a political one.

Well as a European from the Netherlands this means I won't even risk a city trip or holiday to the UK. Can you imagine being imprisoned rather than just being refused?

Have they gone mental? This is war.

Living in Amsterdam in tempted to report any british tourist now.

Enough with the tolerance.

I've only been a tourist in Greece, so definitely not an expert, but....

Take your house. Now add some scaffolding for a new floor on top of it. Does it alter the ability or even quality of living in it?

It might also help hide the pool, which is also taxed.

"Up to code" isn't the same as a safe house. That's just such an american way of looking at issues. All that does is make the legal liability clear. It doesn't make anything safer or nicer.

It's like arguing that a 'stop sign' makes an intersection safer. It doesn't. Real proper pedestrian and cycling infrastructure does. Traffic calming. A stop sign just tells you who gets bankrupted when another person is killed yet again.

Your asking the question 'if it's unclear who can be sued how can people be safe' but these things are completely unrelated. As any statistic would tell you.

Keep in mind that that is an American problem.

Here in the Netherlands and most of Europe kids go to school independently. They are not constant prisoners of adults stuck in american suburbia where one can only safely go from A to B by car.

Here, they just make a sandwich themselves. Grab their bike and go to school when school starts. The schedule of parents might mean the parents are already gone. The schedules do not need to be in sync and mom isn't the kids drive around slave.

If they aren't smart enough to put code examples on their homepage, yet they did spend effort on making it look professional, then you can assume it's either vaporware or corporate nonsense and dismiss it out right.

If they don't respect your time and attention now, extrapolate.

Also, doesn't firefox still contain things like pocket.io and other 3rd party data integrations?

I don't know the current situation but I stopped considering Firefox an alternative or mozilla more trust worthy than Google at that moment.

There are still alternatives but that's more things like the default gnome webbrowser.

At heart Firefox's financing model is as broken as Google's. Yet all the real alternatives aren't investing in the actual development.

Give me a competitive browser and render engine with a patreon button or something similar as only business model and I'll switch. At the end of the day that sort of thing needs financing and Mozilla's strategies aren't at heart different. And I don't know current leadership but I haven't heard the all clear yet. Is firefox currently more privacy conscious? People just assume Firefox is a clean browser but last I checked those assumptions were still marketing and not reality.

Yeah. As someone not in any risk group I will prefer the Pfizer or Moderna one. I'll be happy to get the Janssen one or even the Sputnik, but if the vaccine they offer me is AZ then I will refuse.

And not just because of the obviously higher risk associated, but also because it appears not to be effective against the new strains. (Especially the new South Africa strain). Unlike for example the Janssen vaccine (goes by their parent company of Johnson and Johnson in the US) which was actually validated in South Africa or the rna ones which are just a technical masterpiece.

Keep in mind that the real shortage of vaccines is production locations right now. And the type of production of the Janssen, AZ and the Sputnik vaccine is all similar. So why even produce more of the worst vaccine in any of these locations.

It's more important how we all feel about each other and our drama than the fact there isn't a currently easily available obvious way to have private secure conversations.

Your "they are not being constructive enough" is actually very unconstructive, because it drags the conversation into more drama.

The tone is not more important than the facts. It never is.

Im not suggesting you have some alternative motive to deflect the facts. Any one could have written this reaction.

The top comment on a thread like this is always the same. Talking about tone. But I don't mean this offensively, I'm sure I've done it myself as well at times, but it feels like theater. Like a journalist asking a question they know they won't get an answer to. Talking about drama is the same participating in it.

So what should we use instead of signal?

Yeah. Its super scary. The idea that an algorithm decides and no legal recourse, all decided by a company that has an illegal amount of control on what is supposed to be public space.

Imagine all the public squares to be owned by some company rather than the community. Now imagine an algorithm deciding to exclude you from that. To just ban you from participating in life.

It is taking too long for Google to understand what they need to do (to own public space, you must bring all the other public stuff too, like a legal system and proper rights protection and due dilligence).

We should kill the monster, while we still can. Break them up. They'll never learn. They'll keep destroying lifes. Less than 0.1% is acceptable statistical error, right? Just pray you are never the 0.1%.

Yeah. But that's a company risk.

Not being able to participate in video conferencing and desktop sharing is an employment risk.

Im a picky person though. I already use i3, but also have NVidia gpu's. I don't mind spending some money on another real GPU (will it work with AMD).

I understand the frustration of the developers too. But screen sharing or my custom screenshot tool.. are things that will make me recompile if needed for days before I give up and abandon linux for the desktop.

I realize I'm spoiled, but I do wonder if this is the direction things are going who is going to be that hypothetical user that cares?

Yes and no.

Application sandboxing is not a need I have or one that I want my display manager to solve.

But incompatibility vs the architecture disallows features like screen sharing, automation or accessibility means I will not ever have it installed anywhere.

I can't tell people want to do, but those features seem very "contemporary" to me.

Perhaps it's because I use linux as my work desktop. I suppose if this is the feature I should just migrate to OSX.

Because I need video conferencing. I don't need a sandbox. I already am selective about what I install and most of those things aren't even desktop applications.

Then Google should hire journalists to write it.

Those Silicon Valley boys, always trying to make money on the labour of others. Will they ever come up with a business plan that is not at heart slavery, theft or extortion?

There are more countries in the world that believe the people should be in charge not venture capital.

Europe would close ranks pretty much immediately. As would New Zealand. Not so sure about UK though, but that's not a surprise to anyone, is it?

Yeah I fail to see anything addressed at all.

Just fluff words and old sci fi trope.

How is this presented as something published in a peer reviewed journal.

Is the article completely misrepresenting the research or is the research itself this level of nonsense.

I must be missing something here.

I think the OP was referring to the unfortunate phrasing.

For a publication like Nature to use baby-talk phrasings that are just semantic nonsense.

Im not a native English speaker, but I would be embarrassed if I wrote that headline.

>using that as the entire basis for dismissing arguments seems disingenuous.

You are right. The tech firms could be more transparent about the rules they apply and which ones are violated. The ambiguity is indeed solvable, but considering the state of the world, it seems like a low moral priority to me.

>We at $bigname law firm aren't corporate, it's just if we hire poc our employees will walk out. -someone before the civil rights era.

That's disingenuous. Your comparsions fails in five ways:

1. Its not about who gets hired, its about who is served as a customer

2. The violated rules of these firms are also defined as criminal behavior by law in all of the western world, so to 'serve the customer' you are talking about being an accessory in a crime. Even if public prosecutors don't make a habit of prosecuting companies when they are simply the platform, companies have an obligation to their shareholders to not take unnecessary risks.

3. None of this has anything to do with traditional or conservative values. Both the far-left and far-right have been creating a lot of propaganda suggesting that traditional values include racism, sexism, sedation, anti-semitism, etc.

4. The employees walking out is a realistic problem, because there is barely any supply of death cult members with the intellectual and educational background required to perform the job. I'm sure lots of people work at these tech companies that have traditional values, like a small government and low taxes, or a more family centric focus on life. But at this point those people are referred to as 'traitors' by the same so called conservative media

5. People's skin color isn't a choice. They are born with it. Your views on the other hand are a choice. There is accountability and liability. You can be an anti-semitic person and post a video about how to cook an egg without it being removed from youtube. You just can't express anti-semitic views on somebody else's platform. Not complicated nor an issue.

The problem for conservative outlets is that we have to believe their word that they are being prosecuted.

But their word means absolutely nothing because they have zero credibility since they would be saying these exact same things no matter what.

If you always cry fire, you end up in a situation where people don't care if you are lying or that your house is on fire.

>. Finally, corporate America will realize that it's better to work with people than fight them

Conservative media isn't 'the people' and these tech companies aren't the corporates. The tech companies follow this policy because otherwise their employees walk out.

And the so called conservative media is a very tiny super elite spending a ton of money trying to pervert traditional values into a death cult for personal gain.

> But I don’t think I want to buy software from services that could just one day decide to stop serving me for an unclear reason

So you hate SaaS. Potential unclear reasons can will and have included 'changing our focus', 'being acquired', 'fire your customer', etc.

Im not entirely clear who would have any other expectation for any SaaS product.

Where on the internet can I be free from being indoctrinated by idiots about god's and ghosts that aren't well defined enough to exist, like the 'deep state'

It's such a weird and pathetic phrase to use.

This could have just linked to a page of plastic surgery photoshoots.

It's not that the dolls are becoming more human like but the other way around.

Lockdowns drastically increase the amount of domestic violence.

Also deferred medical care because the health care system is overloaded.

Finally, people are not getting the best health care money can buy. In most countries if you are very old or have underlying conditions making your survival chance very low, they don't offer to try everything.

Excess death is a useful metric for the true total body count of Corona, including all cultural, economic and policy changes it entails. However it's really hard to accurately provide any number for the mortality of the disease itself.

Unilever, stolen by the Brits from the Dutch and now slowly being turned into something as morally questionable as Nestle.

Im not buying their products anymore. Protip in the Netherlands: go to another supermarket than AH or stick to homebrands.

>So are you saying crypto currencies are making it impossible to do the right thing?

Cryptocurrencies are designed to subvert regulation and oversight. That's the selling point. That current societal infrastructure to protect innocent (sometimes gullible) people from everything from weapons trade or pyramid schemes.

If you want to 'make it do the right thing', thats already exists and is your wallet. Thats called money. A ledger with a tax identity. A bank account that requires a legal id. There is no point in burning all this electricity to verify those hashes, except to circumvent regulation and law.

I can't start a pyramid scheme and steal money from gullable idiots. Thankfully, an ICO is completely legal (for now). If you want to sell bread to hungry people, use money. If you want to sell guns to a hitman, use a cryptocurrency. Thats why cryptocurrencies are economically viable compared to money. Because they make it harder to apply the laws we voted on democratically, like how you can't sell children for sex.

The reason any money out there is investing into cryptocurrency technology, is because of the expectation of moral subserversion of society. Its a not a side effect. Its the bussiness model.

What do you think Venture Capital considers some startups worth so much money? Because they see the potential of price dumping and becoming a monopolist. If markets were actually properly regulated to always keep competition alive, people wouldn't be investing millions into apps and websites, they would be investing in actual R&D and hard science.

But doing the real work, can never compete, with just plain cheating. You always make more money being the bad guy. Even if a lot of startups have sincere intentions (Facebooks' mission was to connect people, not destroy democracy), the money will chase the decision down.

You do realize the success of the platforms is the result of finding legal loopholes.

That's the innovation. What if we are a media publisher but than without worker rights and unions? Youtube.

What if we start a hotel franchise but without any regulation or oversight or liability? Airbnb.

What if we start a cab company but make all our employees independent contractors, ignore all regulations and put all liability and legal risk on the independent contractors?

Silicon Valley is nothing but a bunch of young spoiled boys asking themselves the most American business question of all: have you tried slavery yet?

Business model innovations where you make money while someone pays all the costs.

>Is there a “right way” to do this that protects everyone

There is no investment if you do that, because the competitive advantage comes from the stealing. Nobody is investing in technology. Nobody is doing actual R&D. It's all about the viability of the scam. How profitable is this loophole?

We go out of our way to engineer protocols and technology and platforms that make it impossible to do that the right thing (by design). From p2p networks in the 90ties to crypto currencies. From YouTube to Spotify.

It's a dog eat dog world and I'm not here judging any individual. But let's not be naive.

Theft is the plan. Abuse is the strategy. Fortunes are not built on sweat. The people who work hard are the ones you hire to clean our house. The ones that pick our vegetables.

But we at least show the respect to others to not lie about the true nature of the successes of our industry.