This is something I've been expecting for a while, but not quite so suddenly and sharply: privacy is becoming enough of an issue that people are questioning its violation as a business model. washingtonpost.com/technology/201…
Interesting contrast: FB lost 19% of its value (!!!) after its earnings call, but Google jumped a percent after its call just a few days earlier. I think this means people are recognizing a difference in the two companies' approaches.
While people like to say "oh, they're all big companies, they're all after your data, they're all bad," there are profound differences between the companies' attitudes and business models.
Little thing I wish: that the EU would codify its directives and regulations the way the USC does. Having to read and reconcile a pile of individual laws is a lot of work for no benefit.
This tweet brought to you by reading directives 2000/78/EC, 2000/43/EC, and 2006/54/EC, and realizing they're almost verbatim identical and if they were codified would have amounted to trivial edits on a single shared piece of text.
On the up side: these are really thoughtful directives, well-drafted, and show a lot of signs of having studied what did and didn't work all over the world. (They're all about discrimination, especially in employment)
There's a really good interview here, where @karaswisher asks Zuckerberg all the right questions. I can't say that I'm satisfied with his answers, though. They feel superficial, not because he's dodging the question, but because he hasn't really grappled with it.
Good thought exercise: Imagine what Facebook would be like if its founder had been a Black woman from an otherwise similar background. How would its priorities have been different? What would "connecting people" have meant?
I think the deep flaw in Facebook's orientation comes down to this initial idea that its goal is to "connect people," as though that were a good in and of itself. It can sound that way if you're a certain person in a certain environment, but it very definitely Isn't Always True.
OK, unusual note tonight: this is for the people I know now or previously in the US intelligence community, and for the people I don't know there who have been doing their best under impossible circumstances.
You didn't get shit upon by your country today. You got shit upon by a Russian asset, whose job it is to shit on the US intelligence community.
It may hurt like hell to realize that your President is a Russian asset, and that every sane norm of what to do has been upended. But those are the breaks.
This thread captures something significant I hadn't noticed - and which is especially creepy as an Israeli, knowing what sorts of people use this language. Generally, they are the sort of people you want to encounter at a distance, and through a scope.
They tend to have a very *vivid* idea about Biblical prophecies and want to bring them about, typically via some kind of plot that involves killing a whole lot of people.
These people tend to love Israel, in much the way that fishermen love fish.
They come in all shapes and sizes - I've encountered Jewish, Christian, and Muslim versions, and I'm sure other religions have their versions as well. But this one smells particularly like a Christian version, and a Dominionist one in particular.
This is an incredibly bizarre statement, given that Cohen met with Kremlin agents in late August 2016 in Prague to arrange payment for the precise things listed in this indictment. (Steele 135, 136, 166.2)
TIL that you can do the equivalent of a goto in Python by setting f_lineno in the top frame of the stack. I hope that one day I find a sane reason to actually do this, just for the sheer lunacy of the thing.
It's not even a goto. It's like doing a jmp with a mov into the PC, from a high-level language to boot *because you can.*
If you use Python and haven't gotten super-familiar with the data model documentation, you are missing out on a lot of the best stuff. It's second only to reading the interpreter source.
Both companies' leadership are really frightened of the right wing. Anyone important enough to them is "culturally significant" enough to effectively be exempted from policy. It's dressed up as a "public interest" exception, but it doesn't apply to everyone.
It also doesn't come with any kind of visible marker on content saying "This would normally violate policy, but is being permitted because we believe it's important people know what X is saying," because that would also offend them.
There's a lot of talk from @Facebook and @Twitter leadership in particular (Although @Google as well, especially in *internal* comms policies) about having to be ideologically neutral, but in practice they view silencing the far right as far more dangerous than others.
Why? "Punching up" is a way to poke holes in power when that power is entirely asymmetric, and the resulting relationship between people, if it exists at all, is parasocial: influence and knowledge flow asymmetrically.
Quite separately from all the other problems steep hierarchies create — the ripe opportunity for unfairness, for frustration, and so on — a steep hierarchy also guarantees that information won't flow upstream. R. A. Wilson called this the "SNAFU Principle" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAFU_Pri…
Oh, wow. If you're hearing about laws controlling sex work, like the (terrible and likely unconstitutional) SESTA/FOSTA recently passed in the US, but are wondering what research says about what does and doesn't work; here's a whole thread of links to the real thing.
If you don't understand the full significance of what the Trump regime is doing to immigrants: it's looking for more excuses to mark *anyone* as deportable, and to eliminate the need for due process when it does so.
Open secret: The reason open plan offices are so popular is that they require fewer square feet per person than cubicles or offices, and so cut real estate costs. It's not because they're more productive.
Reading through the lines: this means that HHS has decided that they will interpret the court's order as "get all 3,000 children off your books, by whichever means."
This certainly would explain why it's hard for them to do it in 30 days — because they aren't doing a reunification process at all, but rather just trying to clear them by "usual process." I don't get the sense that parents even have *priority* here.
The basic way this "desistance therapy" works is to put extreme pressure on the child until they no longer say they're trans. It counts "success" as the child's silence, not the child's health.
If you're seeing signs that your kid might be trans: don't panic. This is something that happens to millions of people (1-2M adults in the US alone) and will not keep your child from having a healthy, satisfying, good life.
So, deliberately losing records of families, transporting people thousands of miles, and using inter-agency lack of communication to ensure children *can't* be reunited with their parents? Yup, that's exactly what happened.
If you take 3,000 children on a *field trip* and say "well, asking us to get them back to their parents within a month is just extreme!" people will (a) think you're crazy or lying and (b) haul you off. Why is it justified here?
This article's description of Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren as candidates ideal for activating the Democratic Party base just highlights how poorly the Atlantic (and its ilk) understand what's going on politically.
Kamala Harris is an ex-AG, and an establishment centrist's idea of who "those young people" might actually like. These are all candidates that sound reassuring to people who view the party future as trying to please "moderate" Trumpists as being a "not-scary left."
The candidates who are *actually* speaking to the broad base are people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - but this is so terrifying to party leadership that they can't fully process it.
Reminder: the phrase is "you can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps." It means to do something impossible. Someone who thinks they've done so was lifted up by forces they didn't see.
If it's not clear why: Bootstraps are those straps at the top of a boot that you use to pull it onto your foot. "Lifting yourself up by them" is the sort of thing Elmer Fudd would do as a sight gag.
When people use this phrase metaphorically, and either claim to have done it or tell someone else to do it—that is, "make yourself financially stable without relying on your community"—nine times out of ten, they've gotten the metaphor more right than they think.
If you're wondering: "odeon" is an old word for theater; a "nickel-odeon" was the kind of machine you'd drop a nickel into and peer in to see a film strip. Popular in the very early days of moving film.
As movie theaters with projectors arose, these became less popular, and started to get a sleazy reputation - much like "penny dreadfuls" and "three-penny opera." Today, you'll mostly see them in fairly old-fashioned peep shows.
If you're wondering what the picture means: the idea is that Black, Latinx, and Asian people are sub-human monsters, and the Jews are manipulating them in order to infiltrate and destroy the white race - which he identifies with America.
Socialism and Marxism are simply the cover for this plot, of course. And the mechanism involves a great deal of Black/Latino/Asian Men Are Going To Rape And Impregnate Our Precious White Women. That's also what's behind Trump's "rapists" dog whistle.
Since it's a quiet Sunday evening and my allergy headache is finally passing, I thought it would be a good time to talk a bit about the discussion of "Universal Basic Income" and "Job Guarantees," and some things that have been churning in my head about them. 1/
This is going to be a Twitter ramble (not really a rant) rather than an article because my ideas are still in a pretty early stage, and I'm quite likely to be wrong about several things. But it's good to explore some of these ideas publicly, hear feedback, and think more.
Especially because I've found that Leftist and Conservative critiques of these ideas have been different, but both have been really thought-provoking. This is a complicated question, and none of the answers are simple.
Lumumba (in the DRC), Mossadegh (in Iran), dozens more: the US and UK orchestrated coups around the world against leaders who threatened to take control of national resources away from foreign companies. Each of these left massive destruction in the countries.
Don't forget that Khomeini only took power in Iran after a popular revolution overthrew the brutal regime of the Shah - the regime that the US and UK installed and maintained after overthrowing Mossadegh. Boy, that one turned out great.
Why do I bring this up? Lots of talking heads are talking lately about how many people have been killed by Socialism, versus how many great advances happened under Capitalism. Why does Socialism only get credit for deaths, and Capitalism only for progress?