That is not correct; assuming you are not using an employer’s equipment on employer’s time, and/or working on what the employer pays you to do for them or are working on something that is competing and a few other reasonable caveats.
I find that confidence quite unsettling considering everything we know about just the government in general, not even to mention what Snowden released, and I know he did not release everything.
Are you at all familiar with what Snowden released? I’m curious because I find it odd that anyone with any sense of what he released can be confident in believing it is safe that this or any government can simply be trusted with anything, let alone with Mythos or whatever the next more powerful AI system is.
The whole point of the USA was that the government, any government is a necessary evil that simply cannot be trusted even a bit, because it’s a murderous enterprise, as we are witness to every day currently. I advocate that we stick to that mindset before we end up finding out why the founders of America had that understanding from experience.
My point was narrower than suggested. If Mythos is in fact a security risk, then the NSA is one of the actors most likely to already understand that. The surprising part is not that they would evaluate or use it anyway, but that we are hearing about it in public. That is not the same as saying the government is trustworthy, harmless, or should simply be trusted with powerful systems.
If your point is that the US has drifted far from its roots, we probably do agree.
I don't see the OP implying that anyone should trust the government. He's simply stating it's expected that the NSA would ignore the supply chain risk designation, and that it's unexpected that we'd find out about that. If anything the comment seems to imply a lack of trust in government.
I find such framing challenging because you are correct, the Constitution lost its power a long time ago, but I would not limit the cause of that lost power to only a rather recent ideological adversary, those you imagine would say “stick it to liberals”.
Unfortunately for everyone but the parasitic ruling class that is plundering America and the world, the changes and damage done to the Constitution in the name of progress have not only been the primary vehicle of that damage from the start, but they have had compounding and exponentially negative effects that are clearly accelerating the impact.
The problem with “progress”, i.e., changes framed as positive, is that it is easy to hijack the innate nature of young people to want to differentiate themselves from their parents as a natural and instinctual process of development/maturity. It allows for malevolent, usually older people, to whisper in the ears of young people things like “don’t you think what your parents do is silly and should be undone?”, not knowing or realizing what their parents do not only protects and preserves, but is also the foundation that allowed everything we have to have been created. It is generally a form of grooming young people to tear down the protective walls holding the Epstein/Biden/Trump Class style super-predators at bay.
I personally am concerned that we are effectively already locked in the dungeon, but we just don’t know it because it has WiFi and is nicely decorated…for the time being.
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
Americans deep political confusion is really something to behold. How do you both hold the contradictions in your head? Every presidency no matter it's so called political ideology, liberal or conservative, have the same exact policies on mass surveillance? The Patriot act and fisa amendment was bipartisan, Obama voted for the Fisa amendment, Biden voted for the Patriot act.
The young people conservatives fantasize/complain about tend to be left-wing, their ideology has practically zero representation in politics, how do you make those the scapegoats of some confusing grand Jordan Peterson style social psychology argument it makes no sense. And how does republicans tossing civil liberties to "own the libs" mesh with libs slashing the same civil liberties? It's like the spiderman pointing at each other meme.
People don't understand that the way the media makes money is by stoking the "two sides" war.
People are so insanely ideologically charged up, the deepest conviction possible coming right from their lizard brain, all because they are lost in the sauce of an industry that is dependent on showing them random ads as frequently as possible.
It's actually kind of hilarious, and if you're one of these people, take a step back and see what's going on.
Exactly, representatives from both parties need to be forced to add FISA amendments that add privacy protections, most of everybody agrees with that enthusiastically if you explain it to them. Yet people are divided into their respective bullshit partisan trench lines by the two party theater.
The EU is not even a legitimate government in that it’s quite literally a con job (just shows up, moves in and declares “I’m your government now” and the people are like “yes, daddy!”. It’s weird, Europeans, it’s weird), but now you want to just have this fake government that is literally controlled by an unelected commission, unilaterally impose operating systems on all formerly sovereign nations too?
People like you amaze me, it’s the cattle advocating for the slaughter house because it has fancy neon lights and lasers.
Could you please stop posting personal attacks and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Comments like these, and you've unfortunately posted many others like them, are not ok here:
What exactly is a flamebait and what was a personal attack?
It seems more like you are rationalizing your personal dislike into justification to use control over others speech in this forum for which you are clearly not qualified. And that is true regardless of what you do or I say.
You were given the power to abuse, I merely have the ability to speak and I will not refrain from speaking, even in jocular and challenging ways, regardless of what you are wont to do.
Do you know what “patronizing” means? You should look it up. It’s really a rather pathetic and vile quality no one should have. Yet here we are.
"People like you amaze me, it’s the cattle" was obviously a personal attack.
I don't do exact definitions, but flamebait basically means tossing inflammatory language into inflammatory threads in order to vent aggression and indignation. That's the opposite of the curious conversation we want on this site, and your account has unfortunately been doing a lot of it.
e.g. "Sorry to piss in your corrupt government/military contract punch bowl" (personal insult), "I see the Germans are very upset and cannot believe that the marketing and propaganda people may be bullshitters" (nationalistic insult), "You mindless drones really love that peasant slop" (personal insult) - it just goes on and on. If you keep doing this, we will end up banning you, because it destroys what this site is supposed to be for.
These are not borderline calls - you've been obviously violating the site guidelines quite frequently.
You forgot the part where the countries voluntarily join the organisation. By the way, the commission is subject to a vote of confidence by the parliament, which is directly elected. I'm pretty sure you don't get to directly vote for your cabinet members either, wherever you are.
> You forgot the part where the countries voluntarily join the organisation.
It might be worth examining the word “countries” there.
Both France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed EU Constitution by referendum in 2005. It was then regurgitated as the Lisbon Treaty (with only superficial changes) in 2007, which was ratified with no public vote.
The Irish people initially rejected both the EU-empowering treaties of Nice and Lisbon, and a followup vote was considered necessary. You get two bites of the democratic cherry if you have enough power.
A majority of the British people voted to leave in 2016, and in the three years that followed everything possible was done to reverse the decision.
You might be spotting here a difference in desires and power between the governors and the governed.
That's one interpretation of the irish refs. I think the more obvious one is that the first result was very close and needed to be clarified. That also fits with the second one being emphatic.
You're allowed to think that Lisbon warranted referenda in the member states, but it's a minority opinion.
On Brexit, you should question your sources:
> in the three years that followed everything possible was done to reverse the decision.
This is a disingenuous use of the passive voice. Lots of _Remain voters_ did everything possible - i.e. tweets and marches. The government didn't take a blind bit of notice.
The government triggered Article 50 and then called a snap election - a damming order of events. They rammed it through.
> A majority of the British people voted to leave
Not by a mile, lol. The turnout was 37% and the result was 52% leave. Less than 20% of the electorate voted Leave.
Weakest mandate since the hung parliament of 1912, which only lasted a few months.
The electoral reform ref of 2010 got a 60% turnout. For the status quo. On a fringe issue. 37% is pathetic.
> That's one interpretation of the irish refs. I think the more obvious one is that the first result was very close and needed to be clarified.
Ah yes… and if the result was close but happened to be the one the Establishment wanted, do you think they would have called for a confirmatory vote just to be sure? Of course not.
> That also fits with the second one being emphatic.
The Playbook says spend more on comms, emphasise Project Fear, and call for another vote. Repeat until you get what you want.
> You're allowed to think that Lisbon warranted referenda in the member states
How very gracious of you…
> The government didn't take a blind bit of notice.
I think you’ll find that Parliamentary votes were required for the action to take place, and there were three years of deadlock during which the majority of MPs supported remain (an inverse of the popular vote) and certain MPs like Benn and Grieve led to legislation that made it very difficult to negotiate in the UK interests (no deal off the table, so a weak bargaining position).
Article 50 may have been triggered the year after the referendum, but the UK didn’t actually leave until 2020.
> Not by a mile, lol.
LOL indeed. 33.5 million people cast a vote, which was 72% of all people registered to vote. That doesn’t sound “pathetic” to me, unlike your comment in general. It reeks of someone who loses interest in democracy when it doesn’t align with what they want.
It’s extremely common and nothing to worry about. As a brass instrument player, I sometimes come across someone whose instruments always deteriorate at 300% of the rate of others. Laquer peels, silver plating blackens, etc.
I’m fine with holding them all accountable to varying degrees. For example, yes, ultimately the president is responsible, but so is the person who dropped bombs instead of refusing an illegal order; just like the street dealer, gang banger, trafficker, and cartel boss are all guilty of all of their various crimes.
What do you find difficult to understand about that?
My assumption based on many factors is that it is precisely why the carpet surveillance systems like Flock are being rolled out in preparation.
There are people in control who don’t make 1, 5, or 10 year plans; they make 20, 50, 100, and 500 year plans; and they know human nature quite well, which allows them to of not predict, have an anxious understanding for what their plans will cause and what needs to be prepared for in advance.
The flock systems are being installed by cities not the feds. You make it seem like someone has some master plan. Does not make flock any less dangerous but its not as organized as you make it seem.
It doesn’t need coordination to be organized and have the same incentives. Just like the wave of consolidation in media. Dario and Sam don’t need to talk to know what is in both their interest.
The concentration of wealth is at an all time peak. The top 1% own more stocks than the other 99%. Nobody thinks about that hard enough. The callousness by which people’s livelihoods dignity and safety are threatened is tremendous
Listen to the flock CEO talk and then tell me he isn't trying to build a counter-revolutionary dragnet. Just because cities are doing it doesn't mean it's not deliberate, that's just a step in the plan. Not everything the ultra wealthy do is a single step, they're lobbying and schmoozing their way to their goals in every way possible.
I understand the impulse, but there are not only significant differences, i.e., the requirement to add labeling to cigarettes was mostly a judicial or legislative action, but there is also that rather perverse fact that this kind of legislation that people are championing is often funded by profit and greed just like the harm being sued over.
The article even at least mentions that at least one of the suits is private equity funded; which generally will result in the partners and/or investors of the private equity firm and the attorneys suing, which are often all one and the same in what is just a financial and legal shell game, net tens of millions of dollars, while the supposed victims will end up with nothing but pennies on the dollar of harm and injury.
I get the impulse to also “cheer” for the lawsuits, but if you thought Meta, etc. are bad; you really don’t want to look into the vile pestilence that is the law firms that are basically organized crime too by the core definition of crime being an offense and harm upon society.
I don’t really know a solution for this problem because it is so rooted in the core foundation of this rotten system we still call America for some reason, but for the time being I guess, the only moderately effective remedy for harm and injury is to combat it with more harm and injury.
I mean you see piles of the libertarian types here on HN that would tell you that unending civil suits is how the country should work. That is freedom to them.
The other option is consumer protection agencies with teeth to put down actors like Meta quickly, but HN gets all mad about that as they are temporarily depressed billionaires that will hit it big at any moment.
That probably means they receive a lot of small donations. Payment processors often have a fee structure that's 2.9% + <flat fee around $0.30>. So any donation below ~$4.50 would end up having a >=10% processing fee.
There could be currency exchange rates that are factored in at the donation end as well.
I agree that 10% is high, but it's still explainable.
Yeah, and those amounts are much more common when organizations are pushing for users to make their donation a monthly recurring donation resulting in much smaller transactions.
I believe they use stripe and this would also include:
$6.25 * 97% =$6.06 - $.30 =$5.76 That's $.49 in processing fees and .49/6.25=0.0784 So 8% rather than 10%.
I assume donations other than monthly are more like $15 or $25 but maybe there are people who do $5 or $3 or even $1.
Add in chargebacks, etc. and 10% unfortunately seems reasonable.
I do wish there was a way to pay companies that was less expensive for them but very little friction on my end. Venmo business is 1.9% + $.10 and that's better than I was expecting but still higher than ideal. I've encountered that once. Zelle depends on the business's bank and I've never encountered it as an alternative to credit cards.
Not affiliated with Mozilla or Venmo or Zelle in any way.
That is very high. Not sure who they are using for processing, but I know Stripe will give registered charities a (very small) cut on their fees, I'm not sure about non-profits. But even with market rates, the average fees through Stripe would be well below 10%, IME.
Although it could be higher if a lot of donations are small, and hitting the minimum transaction fees. The average could also be brought up if donations are made through the play or apple app stores, which have much higher takes.
It’s actually quite reasonable and logical.
https://french-business-law.com/french-legislation-art/artic...
reply