You heard it here first.
302 publicly visible posts • joined 24 May 2017
It depends how you you define relevant. If you have some money you want to invest, then YT and the crypto scammers see you as the prefect audience for their advertisements. Own a windows PC? You should see ads about how your PC has a virus and you need to let 'Microsoft' technicians remotely access your computer to fix it.
I predict a 90% chance that this message will come up when I use privacy blockers but not ad blockers. Most other sites present a complaint pop-up that I'm blocking ads when I do this.
To me that's damning of the industry when I'm willing to see ads while protecting my privacy, and the industry is not prepared to show me advertisements unless I permit them to intrude into my privacy as well.
I thought that the advertising is most important to their revenue, but maybe it is transacting in people's private data and advertising is second most important.
It's good to see this moving forward. I suspect an obstacle to it's success will be all the one-way doors such as family trusts, gifting, buying assets for relatives, Swiss and Cayman island accounts that these weasels can use to make their bonuses non-returnable.
But if that leads to these mechanisms being targeted next, that is a good thing.
The 'possession is 9/10 of the law' rule seems to broadly apply to ill-gotten gains, for example a person can use all of the money fighting in court, so none is left to recover whether in tax, fraud, or damages.
I'm interested to hear what you think about this topic.
Google has analytics where you can check how often a term is searched. Not to mention your browser plugins that have access to read the URLs you visit There is definitely some risk in searching for your private key on the internet. It is called private for a reason.
So why did the bank use cloud services to run its major business functions?
Either to save money or they felt that it was expected because it was best practice.
If it was to save money, that would explain declining client-side encryption and not paying for the very best security design money could buy.
Cutting costs improves profits, unless something goes wrong and there is an expensive mess to clean up.
That Tesla is claiming that the employee stole something valuable when it might not have been:
1. Stolen - the employee may have already known it before working at Tesla or it might be public knowledge, in which case they are not stealing anything.
2 Worthless - if it is not really IP, or is common knowledge, then it is not valuable.
I find it hard to believe that it is viable to design and build a new supercomputer from scratch without purchasing IP or getting the same knowledge by hiring people who have done itbefore.
It sounds like typical Tesla doing something many others have done before and touting it as a great achievement and a breakthrough. This only works for people ignorant of the industries Tesla is works in.
Finally, thermal engineering of electronics is not high-tech. I find it implausible that there is valuable, unique, innovative IP created for Tesla's supercomputer. More likely Tesla doing something and thinking they are groundbreaking when it has already been done before.
Despite being someone who works in marketing, marketing is a huge problem in this. Making people aware of your product and company, and persuading them to buy your product instead of the competitors is fine; but deliberately misleading people, and encouraging misunderstandings that benefit your company such as autopilot is autonomous, is really bad.
I'm also disappointed by encouraging fashions and fads to motivate people to buy more things or buy things they can't afford.
Further note: the process of purchasing advertising keywords is meant to be an auction, so it is concerning in a different way that the price goes up for those keywords just before someone plans to purchase them. Indicating that the pricing mechanism isn't an auction. One person talking about a topic should not be able to influence the auction prices of a billion+ dollar advertising market.
Billboards, radio, and TV advertising are incredibly expensive. YouTube, Facebook and Google offer relatively cheaper advertising.
So even if it doesn't work perfectly, it is still attractive to use digital advertising rather than the traditional advertising channels.
Billboards are only targeted to a location, so it is very easy to do better in terms of whom digital advertisements are shown to.
The return on investment for digital advertising has remained higher than traditional advertising, despite the cost of digital advertising increasing a lot over the last decade.
The article means the bid price of advertisements for that topic, not the price of items you (as a consumer) could buy related to that topic. What that means is for the companies purchasing advertisements from Amazon , the price goes up. I'm interested to know which platforms are affected by the increased prices.
As a person who works in marketing, this means that if I have a meeting with colleagues to discuss our advertising purchasing strategy, and Alexa is listening, the prices will increases for all the keywords and topics that we discussed bidding on/using. I'm not sure what law that is breaking, but it is the equivalent of insider trading.
The big internet companies need to be careful here. It is risky to bite the hand that feeds them.
My view on cryptocurrency is that it is designed for criminal activities and also that anyone holding cryptocurrency will eventually have it stolen.
Some of the characteristics of the currency such as being decentralised and untraceable, make it the most attractive target of theft ever.
So I don't think anyone who buys crypto or uses it should be protected from theft or fraud of said crypto.
It is almost the opposite of what you worry it will be. You won't be forced to create any Pods. If you did, you own the Pod, can host it (or not) and choose who can see into it.
Currently your bank keeps a record of not just your transactions, but a bunch of other data it knows about you, and it sells that information to marketers.
Large organisations have shown a pattern of giving some or all of their data to the NSA. Why would you think a Pod would be less safe from the NSA? It might make collecting the data more work (if they could no longer get it directly from your bank).
It's smart to be cynical, however Tim is quite experienced and should be able to find a way to make these pods well encrypted.
We have crypto technologies like TOR and crypto currencies that aren't fundamentally broken / hacked.
An issue could be if you grant someone to your information, then they make a copy, steal and keep it. That is what happened with Cambridge Analytica where a University researcher got access to FB data for research, quit, and took the data with him. Maybe Solid pods have a solution for that too.
The other challenge will be identity verification. How do you know the people or company that you grant access to is who they say they are.
Extinction is a one-way process. When species die, we will never get them back. Not sure why anyone is fine with this.
The other problems may be unfixable, or take tens of thousands, thousands or hundreds of years to fix. Why is that worth it for the highest quality of life humanity has every seen (our current level in the West)?
I thought they could turn a profit without engaging in racketeering. There is a lot of money to be made in search advertising.
Is the only difference between a large corporation and an organised crime enterprise that one is listed on the stock exchange?
Yes, they need to do something about that.
The steal a bunch of money and spend it to the last cent if necessary defending yourself against charges of stealing - routine is far to common.
The person whose money was allegedly stolen has next to no chance of getting any of it back which is unfair.
This was interesting reading. I looked through the repository of examples too.
Some theories about why this can happen:
1. Individual programmer / low level manager doesn't want to accept any blame so goes on the attack to hush it up.
2. Company has psychopathic senior manager so programmers are terrified of bug reports and do everything they can to hush up reports, such as mislead the company lawyer that illegal hacking has taken place.
3. Company has out of touch (non-technically literate) senior management and in-house lawyer who don't understand that the people finding exploits are providing a valuable service to the company.
4. The company lawyer sees an opportunity to escalate the situation to make additional work for themself = fees.
5. One or more government agencies have compelled or persuaded the company to add these vulnerabilities to their products. When the flaw is discovered, the company doesn't want to fix the issue or have it disclosed.
If anyone read the example of the phone monitoring rootkit, it looks like the product was malware, and it was the only product of that company. So exposing any of the issues about the project was game over for the company. Therefore legal action was the only chance at survival. I class this as a rare special case.
I think I updated WD NAS firmware last month, but I disconnected the device from the network just in case. Yesterday I turned off the internet, plugged my WD NAS back into the network to check the firmware version from a PC. BUT the NAS software requires logging in to a WD account to allow access, and an internet connection is needed to the to log in. Genius design WD!!!
It's more about how much power you have than how smart you are. With the exception perhaps of being able to manipulate people exceptionally well, which isn't something that should attract extra money except in sales, diplomacy and some management positions.
An example would be the son / daughter of the CEO gets a job over the top of better candidates, gets paid well, is exempt from most disciplinary action, and isn't required to work very hard. Most of you would have seen this at some point of your career.
Or it shows that the problems of lower pay and opportunities for minorities are part of Google culture, and even through this program got more people in the door who were not given opportunities through the traditional hiring process, these issues kicked in later.
Or it shows that such an opportunity is not enough to catch up with people who faced less obstacles.
There is not enough information provided about what proportion of people on the program didn't do well after the program, and we don't know the parameters of the quality of the people in the program. It would likely be be a bell curve with some talented people, some people who shouldn't have made it into the program in the first place, and most in between.
Why has nobody mentioned that cryptocurrencies are a blessing for organized crime.
Untraceable, easily transportable. Can be used to launder money, transfer money cross borders, pay for contract killings, drug shipments, kiddie porn, arms dealing terrorism.
Is this not a bigger deal than whether a government can control a currency, the electricity* used to mine it, and how stable an investment it is?
Makes me think people on this forum can't see the wood for the trees.
I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on this. Didn't realise? Don't care?
*Maybe the electricity=carbon issue is the most important in the long term.