> you can, but I am used to using uber app to call an uber.
yes, waze had 100M+ users and still failed to have a successful launch with waze carpool.
part of the problem is Google is too successful.
If a business makes USD 10M a year and takes up a month worth of attention every year from the Alphabet CEO, they will probably shut it down before we can say Google Product Graveyard.
When I worked at Google our team came up with a data product that would have been pure margin and $75m/yr with customers lined up -- and I couldn't find a VP interested in cashing the checks because it wasn't on their annual OKRs.
Google is a great company but it has never been truly hungry because it has never faced an existential threat.
It's not just OKRs. That $75m/year consumes attention all up and down and across Google. Lots of things that are slam dunks at a small or medium company are just more trouble than they're worth at most really large firms.
This is the model being tried at the Miami Brightline station. The owners were (are?): Florida East Coast Industries, which is owned by Fortress Investment Group, which owned by Japanese conglomerate Softbank.
As an insurance policy, where would be the best places to live or buy land now given forecasted trends? I’m primarily thinking of the US, but interested any idea (well, maybe not Siberia…)
I'd usually suggest someplace away from the equator to get cooler temperatures, and close to a large body of water to reduce temperature swings. Good supply of fresh water is a plus as well. Lower population density reduces the risk of social unrest.
Great lakes, Maine, Northern Europe, Japan, Southern Chile, New Zealand?
Of course, what BC is experiencing right now demonstrates that it may be more complicated or impossible to predict.
Ultimately, anywhere that is relatively wet and/or not located in a forest is probably decently safe from forest fires. In terms of safety from heat waves, there are a few good hedges: a very well insulated house, ideally with some sort of reflective roof. A backup battery system that allows you to run independently in the case of a grid failure. Solar panels that work when the grid is off, which have excess capacity. Redundant cooling systems? If you really wanna go crazy, build a small underground bunker like Colin Furze did.
With these things in place I think you'll be safe enough during any foreseeable heat waves. You still wouldn't be able to go outside on really hot days, but you wouldn't likely die due to overheating.
I think it's worth remembering that climate change isn't just heat waves. The same will also protect you well from cold spells, but you should build a home that fairs well with other extreme weather too.
It didn't get much publicity, but last weekend there was an F4 tornado that destroyed a number of villages in the Czech Republic:
Tornados are pretty scary but ultimately the likelihood of ever being struck by one directly is not very high. That said, a reinforced cellar could hardly to amiss if planning for extremities. And building on high ground should go without saying. Wouldn't do to have your fortress of solitude flooded out by a heavy rain storm. Not too high though: mud slides.
Germany. Seriously, I don't know of any other country with such a combination of industry, education, social security, and absence of natural disasters as well as poisonous animals.
Such a claim was never accurate. The regions with good soil are already used. Northern Ontario isn't farmed because of climate, but because it's either muskeg or the Clay Belt. While the latter is good soil, all previous attempts to lure settlers failed because both muskeg and the Clay Belt are completely infested with black flies and mosquitos.
if your unpatched server is being used as a command&control server in an active offensive campaign, you can be liable for damages your server caused.
I hope that in the future there will be some fine for Server Neglect (leaving internet facing server unpatched and hosting web shells for 5 days after patch publication by vendor) and you will lose your server and all your data for such misdemeanor.
> I hope that in the future there will be some fine for Server Neglect (leaving internet facing server unpatched and hosting web shells for 5 days after patch publication by vendor) and you will lose your server and all your data for such misdemeanor.
I can see it now: "Government stole decades of family photos and videos because my Linux/Plex server was available online."
There is a constitutional basis for a warrant being permitted, upon probable cause, to execute specifically and exclusively a search.
This isn't a search, it isn't a warrant, and there's no constitutional amendment that outlines the situations in which the feds are allowed to break into my computers.
Did you read the article or just the headline? A judge issued a warrant. You can argue over where they should have issued one, but “it isn’t a warrant” is just wrong...
Here's the constitutional language: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." They got a warrant, specifically describing the specific places (web servers) to be searched and the particular things to be seized. Probable cause is easy, these servers were actively attacking government computers.
This is a search. Specifically, the web shells are (1) evidence of a crime, (2) contraband, fruits of crime, or other items illegally possessed, and (3) property designed for use, intended for use, or used in committing a crime. Any one of these three would be a valid basis for a search warrant.
Just to add to your point which covers speculation, options can also serve as an insurance policy (hedge). Have a large exposure to the stock market and are not looking to sell? Buy puts and receive a payout if the market drops (simplified explanation, of course).
I don’t really have a problem with this (as you mention, stores have had their own brands forever), but you may be interested to know that not all Amazon brands are clearly marked and there are a lot of them: https://qz.com/1039381/amazon-owns-a-whole-collection-of-sec...
The problem is that IDs aren’t free, therefore requiring one is the equivalent of a poll tax. Even if poll taxes didn’t have a racist history, it still seems wrong to charge to vote. I don’t think people are generally opposed to IDs for voting if they are free (voters registration cards currently serve this purpose).
Making it directly free doesn't solve all the issues.
8 years ago I was in a state I grew up in, but wasn't born in. Real ID was started, and I needed to renew my license.
Even though I have had a license for 25 years in this state, they required me to verify by identity again to meet the Real ID requirements. This required a birth certificate.
The state I was born in, at the time, didn't allow mailing of birth certificates. For $12, I could pick one up locally. The two states were 1700 miles apart. My only option, other than a road trip or flight, was LexisNexis. The cheapest option, at the time, was $75.
I did what I had to do to comply, other folks may have had a harder time or been entirely unable to solve that problem quickly, or at all. A corporate tax on peoples identity is only one of the possible hurdles in obtaining a "free" ID.
Nobody is saying it would be easy, or that there wouldn't be edge cases where people would get screwed. I argue that the current situation where it's an edge case to find people who aren't screwed is worse.
I further argue that your whole issue, and many like it, are caused because you didn't have a national ID, granted at birth or naturalization, which all State ID programs are required to recognize.
I actually think that we need a constitutional amendment for a national ID system. Add lots of "the government shall not" language to it for CR/CL, and require States to recognize it as a source of truth by itself that you are you.
Real ID is the current form of national ID. Some states fought it, and still haven't implemented it. The current state I'm in will be going live with Real ID in the next two years.
I took a friends kid to the DMV to get them their first license here about 6 months ago. My out of state license expires in a few months from now. I asked, since I have a current Real ID, how I should go about renewing my license. I was told that I would need to get a state license, without Real ID, until their system was upgraded to support it. Then return to get a new license with Real ID, and that would require the Real ID verification again. Even though I already have a Real ID. That's $35 per license.
I agree there should be a completely free national ID program, but the list of "shoulds" is infinite, and not worth much. No cap, like I said I agree, it's just damn near impossible to change this kind of structure from our level.
Never said that they would be. I'm arguing that we shouldn't poison the well with unfounded complaints about how a system which doesn't exist might or might not work.
That example is also apples and oranges. Given that a passport is much more expensive to make, has a ton of infrastructure mandated by international agreements, treaties, and standards, and is decidedly optional for the majority of people and it makes total sense to me that it would not be free. None of that is true about SSNs, and none of it would necessarily need to be true about a national ID.
SSNs are apples to oranges as well. I can't see a national ID not being a photo ID, so it'd be more akin to a driver's license--and those do cost money. And the cost will almost surely be higher than randomly generating a number.
The name for this logical fallacy is "strawman". We have an existing nationally issued identification card which is free and doesn't have a photo. That's an excellent reason to believe we could make a better one and have it be free as well.
I get free photo IDs all the time when I visit cloud data centers and they print me off a photo+QR code badge for the time I'm there. Drivers licenses are expensive because they are made to be extremely durable. They're made that way because they are constantly needed, not because of the photo printed on them. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever why a national ID card would have to be like a drivers license and not like a social security card. In fact, if they were legally required to be free they would very likely be just a name and a QR code. Leave all the photos to the back end, it's 2020.
The term "Voter ID" is somewhat complicated as it can refer somewhat separately to two different eras and types of policy.
Historically, many states, municipalities, and etc. had instituted legislation or policy requiring that voters provide some form of identification, better referred to as "evidence of identity" to avoid confusion with the concept of a state ID, in order to register to vote. This was intended to deter fraudulent identification, but requirements are very lax. For example, my state has a voter ID law as does my municipality, but these are part of a "first wave" and are extremely lax. ID is required only once. Nearly any document bearing name and address and, in many cases, a simple sworn statement signed before an election official are sufficient. Voters who register to vote with a county clerk or certified voter registration agent are not required to provide ID at all, as completing the form before an election official is considered a sworn oath. In general, the only case in which a voter is required to show ID is if they register by mail and decline to provide a DL number or last four digits of SSN on the form. In such a case, they may show any suitable document the first time they vote and the requirement will be removed for all future elections. Election officials are trained to err on the side of accepting identification documents. Things like school report cards or phone bills are often used by people with less access to government services due to poverty or rural residence. The definition of "address" is even quite lax, for individuals living in rural areas, written directions or a drawn map depicting their residence are acceptable.
This is considered a "voter ID" law, but is fairly different in origin and burden on the voter than the modern sense of a "voter ID" law, which may be as strict as requiring a photo ID issued by the federal government or motor vehicle administrator at the polling place for all elections. Because requiring payment for such a document prior to voting would likely be considered an illegal poll tax, many jurisdictions with such laws have instituted something called a "voting-only identification card" or similar which can be obtained from the motor vehicle administrator with no fee. However, waiving the fee on applying for a motor vehicle administrator's 'state ID' is largely missing the point. The true burden that people with limited access to government services face is less the fee and more the difficulty of obtaining the evidence of citizenship required for these documents. For people who were born in an impoverished, rural, or otherwise challenging context may have significant difficulty and face significant expense in obtaining a birth certificate, or no such birth certificate may exist. Historically, alternate documents attesting to the context of birth (for example, issued by a Catholic diocese on baptism or by a sovereign indigenous nation as documentation of membership) have been accepted to handle these situations, but modern voter ID laws often exclude such alternate documents. Further, under federal policy evidence of birth is often not the only document, and other documents are required as well.
The summary is that there is, for the last decade or so, a "second wave" of voter ID laws which are more stringent and difficult to satisfy than nearly any historical identification scheme. In some cases obtaining a state voting-only ID is even more difficult in terms of documentation than obtaining a US passport, even aside the relatively high fee and long processing time for a passport. This is what leads to these laws being widely interpreted as intended to reduce access to the polls rather than to address fraud.
Further complicating matters, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 imposed federal-level voter ID requirements. However, the federal government is not able to "override" voting legislation put in place by the states, which are solely responsible for administering elections. The result is that in some states, such as this one, there are two simultaneous paths for voter registration: the "state form" and the "federal form." The federal form actually imposes stricter ID requirements than the state form. For reasons I am not entirely clear on, HAVA requirements are interpreted as applying to all by-mail registration, with the result that some voters have to choose between obtaining additional ID documents (such as an SSN) to register by mail, or traveling to a county seat or other location where voter registration agents are available, where they can register to vote without these documents. Fortunately, there has long been a good deal of effort in getting librarians and other "prominent members of the community" certified as voter registration agents to make this route more accessible - in addition to the political parties often having their volunteers certified so that they can conduct door-to-door campaigns and be available at community events, although of course they often do this in ways that leads to the resulting registration turnout being party-biased.
In addition to adding more friction for individuals legally entitled to vote to exercise that right, the situation is frankly just confusing, which creates a big window for disinformation that even discourages people from registering when they would have an easy time doing so.
Just adding slight confusion to the whole matter is the fact that, due to a long-running aversion to citizen ID programs, the responsibility of tracking and identifying citizens has been de facto imposed upon the social security administration and motor vehicle administrators (DMV, MVD, etc). This creates a lot of confusion among especially people with limited government access - is it possible to vote without having an SSN? without being able to drive?
I'm not sure where you live, but my state doesn't require an ID to register. You can use:
"a copy of a utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that is current and shows your name and residence address."
You have to look at the most rural and poor communities in the nation to understand why it can be both expensive and difficult. Birth certificates for instance, are often not present or available, nor are the agencies that provide the necessary documents accessible. Many times they are hundreds of miles from the person in need and the costs, and necessary steps can be extreme to a person with very little funds or resources.
To make them free enough that they don't impose a burden on people's right to vote, we'd probably need to collect an amount of identifying information in a central location rivaling anything attempted previously by the US government.
Enough biometrics to recognize a person regardless of whether they have any paperwork, paired with a system to update those biometrics when people's situations change (If you identify people by fingerprint for example you can't deny their right to vote if they lose both arms).
You should check out how DHS/TSA can do boarding pass checks now. Swipe your drivers license, passport, or DoD CAC smart card, all can auth in under 10 seconds, no boarding pass required. The data sources already exist.
I’d assume any digital credential system would accommodate biometric updates the same at my Global Entry interview went; you speak with a government rep in person when they take a digital representation of your biometrics.
I guess we can't escape the cost to implement that, even if that cost is subsided by the government. However, once it is in place there should be enough saving from increased efficiency to compensate that cost.
It doesn't stop there, though. To vote you need to be alive, and to stay alive you need food and drink, neither of which is free. You need some means of getting to the polling place, which also costs money. Even if you walk, you need shoes, which aren't free. In fact, if you don't want to be stopped by the jackbooted goons of the state while you're on the street, you better be wearing clothing, which you also need to pay for.
Really, the entire economy is a poll tax meant to keep the poor voter down.
If you don't mind me asking, what state is this community in? I've been looking for a change and the western states seem appealing. Something like this would factor into my decision.
