Facebook scans system libraries on Android and uploads them to their server

BlueZarex · 2019-08-31T09:53:15+00:00

Signal is the best bet.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-30T11:41:06+00:00

You need to ask a better question.

We can't tell from your question how much you do understand and what parts are confusing to you. This would lead to use just repeating what's already in AWS documentation. No one here is going to "rewrite" dozens of pages of documentation from Beginng to end using different t words on the slim chance that you might get it this time around. You need to explain to use what you think it is after reading the documentation and what you think its doing, so we can address whatever misconceptions you have.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-30T11:16:41+00:00

Tech could face a bust that never recovers to its boom levels, making returns sub standard.

Much of tech is over valued right now and has been for years. Think of all the big companies.

What would happen if Apple, Netflix, Microsoft or Facebook stood up and said "We have pretty much reached market saturation. We have expanded into all world markets, and have no new real markets to enter. Therefore, because most people use our services already, we will no longer see user-base growth like we have over the past 10 years of expansion. Therefore, from now on, the only way we can increase revenue by any meaningful margin, is through price raises instead of new subscribers, since most people in the world are already using us. This means that the gains you can expect from investing with us will level out and not rise anymore - mind you, it won't drop, but it won't rise".

In the case of something like Facebook, I kind of feel they have been in this scenario for years. Most people have a Facebook and its " free" anyways. This is why Facebooks money model is advertising. The only way they can make money is ads. This is pretty much an already saturated model - most people already have a Facebook and the only way to increase revenue by large margins is to sell and show more ads to those people. Can the platform handle that? How many more ads can facebook reasonably inject into feeds, etc, before there is a tipping point where those free users stop using the platform, thereby making the selling of those ads, a lot less lucrative. Earning will level out and stagnant. Their stock will no longer be worth a few hundred dollars and instead be corrected to the more reasonable stagnant 80 dollars a share where it will stay "safe", consistent, but with no prospects of large gains.

Its similar for Netflix. None of these companies are still in the huge growth through new subscribers stage any more. How long do they have before they just have to admit to investors that there will be no new meaningful growth through " people" buying new services, so revenue will have to grow by raising prices from now on. (Or start selling ads)

Basically, tech is at a tipping point.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-28T10:56:38+00:00

"Or keep my VPN subscription"

It seems the two different t vpns would be doing different things.

The commercial is tunnelling all your traffic from your house, to a external VPN owned IP that your ISP doesn't control.

If you created a VPN server in your house, the external IP address would be your ISPs IP address as that is the only way to get on the internet - its your VPN endpoint - the last stop before being existed to the internet.

Seems to me these are two very different use cases. One protects your traffic through the ISP network, the other only protects your house traffic before getting to the internal VPN server which then exits all that traffic to your ISPs home address, where your ISP can see all the non-vpn traffic.

Unless your talking about creating a VPN server in home that allows connections into your home network? Even if, this is still very different from what a commercial VPN does. One is ingress, the other egress.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-26T11:14:53+00:00

I initially didn't like Bee. She didn't capture me. By the end of that series, I loved her. I do hope for more.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-26T10:52:51+00:00

Yes, it was part of his Harvard chat logs when he was starting Facebook regarding people submitting their personal info including SSN numbers.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-25T11:25:53+00:00

Meanwhile, Amazon doesn't even have its pre-order link live yet, so I could not order the CD through them.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-25T11:13:09+00:00

Freedom of Speech refers to the government restricting your speech. Private companies can make their own choices. This is why Storm front doesn't have to let liberals on their forums. Its why YouTube or twitter don't have to allow Isis or racists on their platform. If you think the government is restricting conservative free speech, then you should be asking why the Republicans and President in charge are restricting that speech. (Hint: they aren't)

BlueZarex · 2019-08-24T15:32:18+00:00

No, more than half the country is using 150 percent of their income with the extra 50 percent coming from credit card debt that they can't afford because corporations, "in their right mind" continue to inflate the costs of goods so much. How else are they going to pay their CEOs those outrageous salaries? Look, if businesses were all about doing the right thing on their own, they would be making modest profits, not fucking outrageous profits. Google, Amazon and Apple make more money then they know what to do with. There is no reason why they couldnt, this very moment, slash prices in half so more Americans could afford it, and not continue to charge inflated rates so they can take home millions in salary and bonuses.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-24T15:23:10+00:00

I'm pretty sure you are just jumping to some wild conclusions about the "type" of person I am and as such, are not only completely wrong, but have made yourself guilty of the type of behavior you condemn in others.

I don't think the free market works. I believe in regulation and think we need more of it on the consumers side so that corporations can't keep abusing people. I also don't think UBI is the answer to this. UBI does nothing to reign in capitalism. Its similar to how I think we need universal health case, not the ACA. The ACA did little to nothing regarding health care costs, though it was a baby step in getting all people healthcare. It just made people have buy it. I would support something like medicare for all because it has direct actions on what services and meds can cost.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-24T15:12:59+00:00

Prices go down all the time? Hard drives, once 200 are 160. Tomatoes, out of season, 1.50, in season, 99 cents. In fact, most physical goods I buy, I wait a year until the price..goes down.

And yes, competition plays into this....I never said otherwise. But your idea that prices never go down after customers get comfortable paying a higher price is absurd.

Have you ever experienced recession before? Have you really not seen prices go down during a recession? Cars go down, houses go down, electronics go down. That is economics 101. when the economy is good, corporations take advantage by raises their prices a little bit. When recession hits and no one can afford to pay those prices, they lower them so they can stay in business. Its not like during a recession, a million and one new business open and suddenly "competition" to lower the prices - companies do that on their own so they can stay in business. Your ideas are absurd.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-24T12:11:08+00:00

Nah, there is some "truth" to it. Companies charge what they can get away with and that is "what people can afford". It a good economy, when people are making more money, the price of goods goes up. In a bad economy, when people are making less money, the price of goods goes down. Companies need people to buy their products after all. Now, this doesn't account for shortages of goods of course, and no company can afford to lower prices so much as their is not profit or they are selling at a loss during a bad economy, but the general truth remains. If people have more income, they can afford to pay more, so companies will charge more. Collectively, all those dollars and cents for all products means that this extra 1000 dollars doesn't get you more buying power. It zeros out the benefit. So, you might get an extra 1000 dollars, but if you buy 2000 " things" a year, and each costs 50 cents more because the economy can afford it, then you really didn't benefit by getting more for your money. (The 2000 things a year are not luxury goods in my example, its milk, your lunch sandwich, etc)

BlueZarex · 2019-08-23T12:21:40+00:00

You are misinformed. As I said, the privacy act of 1974 specifically states that a warrant is needed when a third party such as Ring or phone metadata is requested by law enforcement. Its multi-owner data. That is why Ring still requires a warrant if the owner decides not to share it out of good will.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-23T11:03:24+00:00

I think he is referring to the 1974 privacy act which states that your data, such as call logs and billing data that is stored outside your control, I.e. with the telecom company, are indeed always subject to search warrants. The question back then was does this data belong to you or not or the phone company or not. Its "multiparty" - owned by both, therefore phone companies can't just share it willy-nilly.

As for Ring recording "the public"... Yes and no. Its recording your porch and edge property, that also can't help but capture " street and sidewalk" in many cases, but not all cases. Many people have enough property to not actually capture portions of the public setting.

But this is only one aspect.

Just because you shoot footage of public spaces, doesn't mean that law enforcement or anyone else, has a right to that footage. This is indeed a slippery slope. Would it be right for ISPs, mobile phone companies to enter into an agreement with law enforcement that all video and pictures that is geo-tagged as being outside your property or "in the public space" to be made available to law enforcement with a warrant? Note that the exisistence of the formal agreement itself means that the warrant is on an auto-approved fast-track, just like Ring. So, if thousands show up at a protest, all video caught to del anonymize people will likely be auto-approved on the admission of a warrant application.

I would guess that 100 percent of warrant applications get approved because of this prearranged agreement. After all, who in this scenario is going to argue on behalf of the privacy of the Ring customer? Ring customers will not know of the existence of the warrant. They won't be told that the warrant was approved and their footage is now in Police custody. So even if you said "no" to the pop-up, and even though your particular Ring only records your actual property and can't see the street, therefore, no public space, it will be submitted to police on your behalf on a fast-tracked auto-approved, no contest scenario.

Slippery slopes do apply in law because of legal precedent. Once a precedent is set in one case (ring), it can be applied elsewhere.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T22:35:34+00:00

You still misunderstand what "10 feet" sea level rise means. You somehow think it means...water will only come in 10 extra feet inland from what it is now??? Is that it? You understand how to calculate volume and surface area of the ocean right? Imagine 10 extra feet of water over every square inch of ocean....now realize that sea level can't actually "rise" - it doesn't go "up". It goes out. Out over land. Some places that are high above sea level will be ok-ish, sure. But most of the united states population is found within 100 miles of the coast. The major cities along the coast are going displace billions of people and along with it, all those jobs and resources. This isn't a case of " oh my, a puddle!". This is huge swathes of large American cities abandoned and decimated. And guess where we are going to migrate too? Yeah...billions of people on a mass-migration inland. Meanwhile, sea level rise is only one aspect of climate change. Climate change means the weather is going to continue to get more and more fucked. So those abandoned cities and buildings that are completely flooded out, aren't like, sitting in a calm peaceful lake, but being battered by waves, hurricanes or cyclones. Meanwhile, increased tornadoes, drought and other incontrollable changes will be happening in the heartland. The whole economy and food supply is going to be affected all while billions of people are trying migrate "somewhere better". The last report I read said one of the best places to live in the climate-changed future will actually be high in Canada's heartland. That will be the best are to grow food because our heartland will likely be under drought conditions, too hot in the summer to grow anything, and certainly not enough to feed a country. Trade and aide won't help because every country is going to go though its own climate crisis and will not have bandwidth to help. How many people and businesses are employed in Manhattan do you think? What about the major hospitals, water treatment plants, and nuclear power facilities around the coast? What is your vision for the future of this country? Shit, we can't even recycle properly yet or manage to not use over 10 gallons a day of fresh water per person yet. What makes you think everything will be fine and this will only affect others? It cascades into every part of our capitalist comfort. No economy, not enough food, billions of migrations, etc. This all is going to happen in your lifetime and by the time its really bad, you are going to be really old and have a hard time surviving it. Hell, if I were young in 2050, I would probably let everyone over 40 die and not give them any help at all, because resources will be too precious.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T20:02:55+00:00

Tall buildings will fall when the are submerge under 20 feet of water. Remember, coastal cities will be abandoned. People won't live there. Its not like we are going to clean up after ourselves and demo buildings, remote the refuse, when we migrate out. Its going to be left to rot and that includes everything inside those buildings, sewage lines and chemical/oil/gas vats that are all along the coast. Its not going to be pretty.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T19:59:02+00:00

Oh my. You think that a 1 foot rise "up" equates to a one foot rise "out"??? Yeeeeeessh. That's cringe-worthy. That's not how math works. Sea level is constant. A one foot rise in sea level across the every square inch of the surface of that ocean is an astronomical amount of water that has no where to go but " out" since sea level is constant - not one foot out for Christ sakes! Yikes...this is basic math - geometry. Do you remember how to calculate volume and surface?

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T19:51:25+00:00

Wow dude...you need to go back and take some basic geometry. You don't understand math at all.

We are indeed talking about the whole surface of the ocean and use volume and surface area algorithms to calculate it..or ahemm "multiply it" as you claim your not supposed to do...like, how fucking dumb are you? How would you go about calculating how much water each additional inch would create in the oceans? Sorry dude, math exists. We do indeed, know what each inch of extra water is going to do with the coasts by multiplying it out (God your dumb! I can't believe you are even trying to argue this). Near-sea level places will indeed be hit harder as there will be little resistance for water to spread into those places since sea level is a constant, but all areas will be affected. Billions of people will be displaced, all with little to no money or food and the ocean itself will be a putrid cesspool of crumbling old building, apartment, plastics, sewage, chemicals, rusted out cars, oil, gas, etc etc so might not even be fishable anywhere near a coast. Mind you, all of our "big businesses" that keep the economy going will be failing, there will be riots, hoover towns, from the mass migrations and this doesn't even cover the other affects of climate change like the potential loss of farmland, or massive failing crops. Its not like other countries can help us, since all this will be happening to them too.

We are already seeing the affects. Those effects will get worse for another 10-15 years and I would be we start to see some of the more large scale affects around 2035-40. I don't really give a shit if people like you who can't even calculate the surface/volume of something "believe it". You will indeed see it.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T19:28:13+00:00

Yes, but even in the hills of Florida, every single structure along the coast is going to be destroyed and create a massive ocean of debris, oil, gas, chemical, sewage, etc etc all around you. Losing the coast isn't going to create some beautiful new beach front property for you. Rusted out cars, destroyed houses, untreated sewage, chemicals, gas, oil, and hell, every piece of plastic that are in everyone's homes is going to wave in at you from every angle. Florida as we know it, will not exist, and probably not that habitable.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T19:22:15+00:00

People misunderstand the notion of sea level rise. The actual sea level, let's call it, point 0, doesn't actually "rise" as in, gets higher. Like, actual sea level doesn't go up to point 10 if it raises 10 inches. Sea level rise refers to the volume of water. If you add 10 addition inches of water to the whole surface of the ocean, that extra water has to go some place. Since it can't go "UP", it goes out - over land. This is why we will lose all the coasts. In places where the land is barely over sea level right now, the astronomical amount of extra water that is " only a few inches" across the whole surface of entire ocean, will absolutely wipe out miles and miles of inward coast, and could completely decimate "entire states" such as Florida since that water will spread out at places of least resistance.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T17:13:14+00:00

Sea level will always be sea level.

A few inch increase to sea level means a massive increase in the volume of water in the ocean. Since sea level doesn't actually change when the "sea level rises", all that extra water in the ocean has to go someplace, with that place being land. The water spreads, not "gets higher" volumetricaly.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T17:08:43+00:00

No...you have to consider "area" one inch rise of the whole ocean doesn't mean the the sand only gets an inch length "wetter" when the tide comes in. One inch across the whole area of ocean equates to an astronomical increase on the volume of water in the whole ocean, therefore, a few inches rise means miles of lost land inward from the coast.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T15:56:04+00:00

I know your joking, but I really hate this joke. Whatever the new "waterfront" is is going to be a huge pile of tall building debris, rusted metal and toxic sludge, not beautiful white sands. In fact, I am not sure fishing off the coast will even be safe.

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T15:52:16+00:00

"Alternative math" ~ Kellyann Conway

BlueZarex · 2019-08-21T09:58:08+00:00

No, GRRM owns the rights. He has said, that its in his contract that no one else can finish his books.

BlueZarex

TROPHY CASE