Thesis is a cryptocurrency venture studio whose mission is to empower the individual—we seek, fund, and build products using cryptocurrency and decentralized technology that further this mission. Current and past Thesis projects include Fold (2014), tBTC (2020), Taho (2021), Etcher (2023), Embody (2023), and Thesis Defense (2024). Investors in the company include Andreessen Horowitz, Polychain Capital, and Draper Associates, among others. We are a remote-first company, led by founders who have been operating in the cryptocurrency and web3 space for a decade (actually for a decade ;)).
Our current focus is on building Acre, a Bitcoin-in Bitcoin-out BTC staking platform, and Mezo, an Economic Layer for Bitcoin. Across the board, we are focused on building a new home for Bitcoin holders to cultivate Bitcoin and grow wealth together. Our projects are built with a focus on creating something useful and valuable rather than a perfect technical machine that provides unclear value.
We’re a fun, down-to-earth, fast-paced and highly collaborative team looking to expand our engineering and product capabilities, amongst other disciplines, and this is where you come in. Join a team that strives for excellence and help us build technology that enables the integrity and empowerment of the individual.
The only provider here who is stated to have said they will be complying is Google, right? So not only is singling out cloudflare incorrect, the title itself is incorrect. “French court orders Cloudflare, Google, and Cisco to poison DNS to stop piracy block circumvention” is the correct title for the article contents, possibly with an addendum of Google saying it will comply.
Just to make sure I understand—you're saying that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe that this program did not help people under the poverty line?
Or is it that because your family, which is 4x the poverty level income, got this discount, and did not need it, you believe this program was not meant to help people under the poverty line?
Which is to say, can you make your point more precisely?
The second one - it's not meant to help the poor only. They just use that language to make it more popular. It should be more difficult to qualify for this program, such that people well over the poverty level like me would not receive it.
> They just use that language to make it more popular.
I agree that sometimes issues are framed that way to get sympathy for a program’s beneficiaries, but I think it’s probably a bad tactic (from a marketing perspective) and an even worse move (from a policy design perspective) when programs are specifically designed to benefit the poor only.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who don’t like to think of themselves as “moochers”, or as in need; they have a reflexive negative attitude toward “welfare recipients”. Better to just make the programs universal, and to advertise them as universal; when everybody benefits, so do the poor, but it’s no longer a wedge issue, it’s just something we’re proud of that our society does. People who go to public school are just normal people. Yes, public school happens to benefit the poor. The fact that rich people can also send their kids to public school is not a problem, though, and it would hurt public school to frame it as something for the poor.
Yeah I agree with this. I'd prefer a society of mostly "self-reliant" people, but those days have long passed. We live under a welfare state, and we pay so much in tax that we might as well get some free services out of it.
Unfortunately, the main recipients of government welfare in this country are the big government contractors. The rest goes to the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security. So there's no money left for anyone else. Furthermore, the money that does go out is all borrowed, which we have to pay back with interest. We are so screwed.
What evidence do you have that erroneous benefits are the only thing driving excess cost?
Do you feel that correcting the errors can be done with no cost whatsoever?
We can argue about where that break point is, but the break point absolutely exists. There is a level of verification / enforcement that will cost more than what you're getting back through reduction of erroneously distributed benefits.
Congrats to this thread for intelligently considerately tugging at the thread here.
I have such a hard time staying so level. It's so obvious to me what a a benefit internet connectivity is to this nation. Giving families access will set people on far better paths, will have economic returns for the nation. The costs here seem not bad. I'm definitely not worried about a couple arguably less deserving people getting access, especially given the relatively minor pay-out involved. It seems obviously not worth it to care so intensely about some borderline cases of oh you make $62k now (or whatever), sorry you are cut off now.
Ideally we would be figuring out how to make connectivity a public utility, as so many municipalities have done over the world, greatly reducing cost and increasing speed. But in America we keep having to pay businesses to do things at enormous costs, protect their absurd profit margins, because in part there's so much fear & angst around government & public ownership.
It's actully a 15 year old law (in it's current name, originally from 1958). From the article:
> Today's decision concludes that Apple's anti-steering provisions amount to unfair trading conditions, in breach of Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU')
This argumentation is probably being based on generic anti trust law ... and the DMA is a new specialization below it. Does not mean that you violated past law just because new law is also applicable to you.
They do not. This entire case is about them not being able to use in app purchases (in which case they would pay 30%) or steer people to their site to pay for subscriptions. Spotify doesn’t sell subscriptions from the apps, and thus they pay nothing.
There is no iMessage app. There is a Messages app that implements two systems: iMessage and SMS/MMS. iMessage is the system whose security model is being discussed here, and the security model of SMS/MMS is mostly irrelevant to it.
This is splitting straws; the overwhelming majority of Apple users don't make this distinction (if they even realize there is a distinction to make). For all practical purposes they use one app that lets them talk to their friends and some of the bubbles are green and some are blue. How many of those Apple users even realize that the green bubbles are unencrypted rather than just being a designation for Android contacts?
It also changes nothing about my comment, because you can call SMS a different system all you want, but your conversations with Android users are still being sent unencrypted and any malicious payloads you get from SMS phones are still being loaded into the same Messages app. If you're worried that a 3rd-party client on Android is going to let a company spy on conversations you're having with Android users, then I still have real bad news for you about how Apple sends messages to Android users.
Draw the lines however you want between Messages and iMessages, but the security implications of Apple's setup are exactly the same. When you write a message to an Android contact, Apple sends that message unencrypted to a 3rd-party client that could by spying on you, leaking your data, or sending malicious payloads to your iOS Messages app. It still makes no sense whatsoever to be this concerned about the security of the push notifications for your messages to Android users when the alternative being proposed is to throw security entirely out of the window for those conversations. It is still a clear security improvement for conversations between Apple and Android users to be E2EE rather than to be sent over SMS, because the risks being raised about 3rd-party messaging clients are already present within those conversations today.
That feels like the start of talking past each other here heh. GP is making a values statement. If a good product gets to be exempt from the values in someone’s value system, then any product is.
More likely here following the law in this instance isn’t part of your value system, and neither is free/libre software being used on its authors’ terms, so you are (internally) free to decide to buy something even if it doesn’t adhere to the GPL. If I’m right about that, adherence to these things is a (maybe very-)nice-to-have rather than a core value, whereas the GP I think is coming from a place where one of those is a core value.
The fact that Garland got no confirmation hearings or consideration at all, as well as the bipartisan nature of the confirmation vote Bork actually received that Garland did not, both seem more than sufficient to make these entirely unrelated.
This is a person who is linking to an article that literally says the opposite of what they are claiming it says.
> The media erroneously reported [a statement from September 2021] as Apple reversing course.
Linking to an article from December 22, 2022 in which Apple is quoted as literally saying “We have further decided to not move forward with our previously proposed CSAM detection tool for iCloud Photos.”, ie actually and literally reversing course.
If this person cannot comprehend an article, should I trust that they actually checked that what they were seeing was what they were paranoid about?
In short, paranoid people are good to use as indicators for further investigation, but are rarely to be trusted as sole sources—even less so when they attempt to ascribe intent.
"erroneously" is referring to his later claims about Apple still continuing to scan. I guess it's a poor choice of words, but I don't see much problems with that.
Your note about that domain is interesting though. I don't regularly use Apple devices, so I'm not particularly concerned by that anyways.
Thesis is a cryptocurrency venture studio whose mission is to empower the individual—we seek, fund, and build products using cryptocurrency and decentralized technology that further this mission. Current and past Thesis projects include Fold (2014), tBTC (2020), Taho (2021), Etcher (2023), Embody (2023), and Thesis Defense (2024). Investors in the company include Andreessen Horowitz, Polychain Capital, and Draper Associates, among others. We are a remote-first company, led by founders who have been operating in the cryptocurrency and web3 space for a decade (actually for a decade ;)).
Our current focus is on building Acre, a Bitcoin-in Bitcoin-out BTC staking platform, and Mezo, an Economic Layer for Bitcoin. Across the board, we are focused on building a new home for Bitcoin holders to cultivate Bitcoin and grow wealth together. Our projects are built with a focus on creating something useful and valuable rather than a perfect technical machine that provides unclear value.
We’re a fun, down-to-earth, fast-paced and highly collaborative team looking to expand our engineering and product capabilities, amongst other disciplines, and this is where you come in. Join a team that strives for excellence and help us build technology that enables the integrity and empowerment of the individual.
Check out our open positions at https://thesis.co/jobs .