To find cures for diseases faster, find new ways to produce useful chemicals, find ways to make crops resilient against changing climate, etc
> Isn't this one area you'd want extreme human intervention?
No? There are an essentially infinite number of potentially useful experiments that could be run that have no risk or downside. It's not like they're doing this in a BSL-4 lab mutating smallpox.
Then when I tried to log in to my Gmail account at my destination, it flagged it as a suspicious login attempt and wouldn't let me in without entering a code they texted to my American phone number, which meant I was locked out of my email for the duration of the trip.
Plus travel day realities often require your phone and accounts - plane tickets, Uber/Lyft, hotel reservations or updates from Airbnb with check-in instructions, door codes, etc.
It's a tremendous challenge and hassle for any regular person. We really just need to push back on the government overreach. It's tragic that half of the Trump voters proclaim to be "small government" and "Don't tread on me" but then tolerate things like this. There's certainly a bipartisan group of people opposed that are large enough to effect change if we work together.
I 100% agree that the best solution would be for the law to catch up and actually treat privacy as a human right. Until that time there are things which, while challenging and a hassle, do help.
I would use the same sim-card in the burner phone. Any attack by the government that they can do with your real sim card can also be done through phone number spoofing.
For email, use unique emails (things like booking+youremail@...) for reservations/bookings/tickets and have those forwarded to a second email account that you want to use during the trip. It is already good privacy hygiene to use unique emails for all types of registrations, and you will have more control when services eventually have a leak.
This is so trivially easy to bypass. If you're a service selling email addresses, just strip off the booking+ part and you have the "real" email address.
All my sign-up email addresses are via a catch-all email, so I can just give a service "thisservice@mydomain.com", or "thatservice@mydomain.com", so I there is no single "real" email address, and I get to track who exactly is selling my email address. So far I haven't had problems with anyone spamming "anything@mydomain.com".
They can bypass it, and as the user you can also use any other sign or character that you want. If you email is foo@ then you can use the letter x, as registrationxfoo@. A popular choice for a company email is first.lastname@, so you can use a . for it, or the - character. + is just what some program, like procmail and Sieve, will recognize without much trouble.
Using a a catch-all email with your own domain works also perfectly fine. Doesn't work as well if there is multiple email users of that domain.
It isn't that they tolerate it, it simply doesn't affect them, so they don't care. Besides, it affects many they dislike, so that's always a bonus.
Remember, when ultra-partisans, of most political ideologies, demand rights and freedoms, there's almost always an implied "for me and mine" in there. Exceptions to this are extraordinarily rare, even more so nowadays.
>It's tragic that half of the Trump voters proclaim to be "small government" and "Don't tread on me" but then tolerate things like this.
Let's be real. Those people don't travel. They've never left the country, and most have likely never left their state, or even their hometown. I know a person like this - they refuse to fly on a plane to go anywhere because they are not allowed to bring their gun on the plane - they are a real "don't tread on me" 2nd amendment/NRA type. And they will never vote for anyone but a Republican no matter how bad things get.
You can bring a gun on the plane, you just need to have it in a locked case, and it can’t be a TSA lock. You also have to declare it and open the case for inspection when checking it.
That isn't their deal. They want to bring their loaded gun on the plane with no restrictions, or they simply will not fly. Reason does not work with a person like this.
Well that’s unwise of them. I just wanted to clarify since some people don’t understand that you can fly with firearms. A lot of people who go to events like Defcon will pack a firearm as this prevents TSA from inspecting the bag without you present—at least that’s how it’s supposed to go, unless there’s a secret room where they have skilled lockpickers on standby.
They are an in-law of mine, yes I've spoken to them. They want to bring their loaded gun on a plane with no restrictions - that is literally why they refuse to fly on an plane. Good for the rest of us, I guess.
The linked site shows me two subscription options, $289/year or $29 every 4 weeks. Expensive latte.
The economics of online new seem challenging. Bloomberg is $399/year. Wall Street Journal is $715/year. NY Times is $390/year. Washington Post $140/year.
That's a couple thousand dollars a year, just to have a handful of mainstream news sites. Add in local or regional sites, or content focused on hobbies, niche interests, etc and a person is looking at a huge chunk of their income (keep in mind median individual income in USA is $40k) going to reading the news.
Perhaps the more accurate description would be that as a kid, you misunderstood descriptions that petroleum was from decayed organic material from long ago, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
You’re right, the “both sides” claim really doesn’t work here.
Biden’s student loan forgiveness would have amounted to a gift of potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to his most ardent supporters: young, college educated, poor people.
Trump’s proposal is a fraction of that, and all Americans would be eligible. If he’s trying to buy votes, he’s going to need to try a lot harder. This proposal is nothing like Biden’s vote buying scheme.
Funny that you wake up and rise only now. Where was you righteous indignation when Republicans promises tax cuts? Can you point me to your contemporary reaction to "no tax on tips"? What made you react only now?
Have you missed where Trump himself and many of the wealthiest people in the U.S. have had integer multiples of their wealth over just the past couple of years?
> young, college educated, poor people
Oh yea, you're correct, who needs those? Let's feed the 0.01%.
(If those numbers are accurate, personally - I have "opinions" about the legitimacy of Trumps numbers)
Also - in-my-opinion, complacency around "not voting" means tacit acceptance of whomever arrives.
The lack of any large-scale, on-going citizen protests, disruptions (general strikes), seems to indicate the same - but I sure hope I am wrong and things may shift a little with their upcoming midterms (if they are legitimate).
OTOH, perhaps the various media (traditional and social) platforms have been doing some "calming" around stories of various protests to avert large-scale social disruptions... (We certainly can't trust the various executives/boards of those organizations when you track who/when they have been donating money and "gifts" too, and which events their leadership have attended...)
We (the collective "we" of all humanity) clearly lost massively when we let a handful of billionares get richer by saying they got to control all sharing, remixing, performing, using or expanding upon any music, art, or other media.
Not that it's any real justice for Swartz or the countless others who've had their lives ruined by copyright laws or for file-sharing, but it's a tiny step in the right direction if we drastically expand fair-use and rethink if we really want a society where the 0.01% control music, film and art.
Your bias and/or obsession are blinding you to the situation here.
There are hundreds of Standord dropouts running startups. And if they do fraud, people call it out, the media reports it as fraud, investors and customers leave, and that's the end.
But Holmes successfully marketed herself with gender as a central part of her story, so that people like you would defend her, promote her and dismiss criticism against the company or product because you're so sure that it's sexism and not legitimate criticism.
The only reason the Theranos fraud got as far as it did was because everyone calling it a fraud got silenced and cancelled as sexists. Now that it's finally over they're saying "See! We told you!" and yet you persist in "No, you're just a sexist".
Yeah, when there's the comment of "marketed as a successful woman" it's "by who"? Media jumped on board, but that was heavily the message being pushed by Holmes and Theranos, Bagwani, because it was their lever to stand out. To then say "but not like that" is BS.
You also won't find this for future female founders, because the comment you're replying to is a random internet poster imagining things. You can say "I can imagine VCs saying..." and then complete the sentence with literally anything nonsense, it doesn't mean its real.
A big part of the Theranos story is that gender was used as a shield - when people called it a fraud they were dismissed as sexists and Holmes got a lot of easy positive press coverage from media that was dying for stories of about a female visionary founder.
No women are going to have to "carry the baggage" of Elizabeth Holmes. At most, maybe they just won't have the magical protection against all criticism that she had for a number of years. But realistically, people have short memories so we'll probably have a new "The female Elon Musk" hype cycle start around someone new in a year or two.
Who cares? A modern worker is on Zoom meetings for multiple hours a day, if one of those hours happens to be talking to a recruiter or hiring manager, so what? People also sometimes talk to their kids school or their dentist or the plumber at their house during the work day.
I'm a people manager, and I wouldn't bat an eye at a candidate I was interviewing joining the zoom from their work laptop and I wouldn't care if someone on my team used their work laptop rather than their personal device if they were interviewing elsewhere.
To find cures for diseases faster, find new ways to produce useful chemicals, find ways to make crops resilient against changing climate, etc
> Isn't this one area you'd want extreme human intervention?
No? There are an essentially infinite number of potentially useful experiments that could be run that have no risk or downside. It's not like they're doing this in a BSL-4 lab mutating smallpox.
reply