comice's comments

as the OP says:

> but what are you giving away for this? Are founders selling their shares? Where is the beef? $70M can be everything and nothing at the same time.

> We’re all adults here, we can talk about this stuff, right?

proceeds to not really talk about it

The rational thing for a secret rule-breaker to do would be to publicly argue against secret rule-breaking at any realistic opportunity. So the more airgapstopgap argues against it the more fundamentally untrustworthy we should assume they are.

> Have you read any moral philosophy before?

yes a fair bit, thanks for showing an interest in me!

> Again, his follower Sam Bankman-Fried has demonstrated this very clearly

I think it's much clearer that Bankman-Fried had absolutely no expectation that his rule-breaking would meet Singers requirements and, you know, he was just lying for the many normal reasons people lie.

> People who profess to believe in Singerian doctrine can not be trusted to mean what they are saying

in which case, nobody who believes in (this) Singerian doctrine should reveal that they do so.

Anyone telling you they follow this doctrine severely compromises their ability to actually execute on it. The rational thing for a Singerian secrecy advocate to do would be to publicly attack the doctrine, as you are doing.

yeah my autobiographical memory is like this, but I still remember bugs in software I fixed 20 years ago. I did feel bad about not remembering these things as I thought it was me not paying enough attention to my life, but recently realised that's not really true - was helpful to read that it's a recognised thing (and particularly affects autobiographical memory).

A bit sad, but as you say, I think I live in the moment and I'm generally quite happy. I don't remember many of those cringey and painful things (whereas my partner has well above-average autobiographical memory and is always replacing those cringey moments in her head). I still take photos and enjoy looking at them, to see all the fun stuff I've done :)

just going from your own quotes here, he describes the cases in which one might "apparently unacceptably" as "rare", and the example he gives has lots of conditions. and he believes you could never recommend the action to others.

so I don't think "any utterance" of his or his followers is inherently untrustworthy no.

they could have been intending to insert the advert into other places, which wouldn't be quite as outrageous (though I happen dislike them inserting them anywhere, but some places are definitely worse than others).

That sounds pretty bad but what do you mean by "browser chrome"? Isn't the claim here that they injected an ad into an actual page?

Firefox's responses are absolutely shit, for sure.

But Firefox has all kind of promo things (the latest I saw was adverts on their overview/links page - which you can also disable), so the presence of a config item for this doesn't mean they intended for it to show up where it did.

it's a bit unclear what they intended here but I see a lot of people assuming the absolute worst intent.

That Firefox would fully intend to insert full page unskippable adverts of it's own into unrelated websites is a major accusation and there is evidence this was an accident.

Looks more to me like bleepingcomputer purposefully sensationalized the issue as clickbait.

Just another example of state capitalism. Another huge handout to Tesla.

I personally happen to think it's fine for a government to do this kind of thing, but let's call it like it is!

yeah this is probably how it will happen if it becomes law. But UK-based companies won't want to take the chance or will have to immediately cave to the slightest legal pressure, so UK companies will be stuffed.

I wonder if the UK government can compel the likes of Apple and Google to prevent UK users installing the apps from their app stores?

Refusing to comply and threatening to walk are just two different approaches to protesting this and it's not clear to me which is the most effective.

But I think I trust Signal to know the better approach (whichever they ultimately take - they actually said they'd walk "if the alternative meant undermining our privacy commitments".

I don't think it is practical to just refuse to comply with a government like this - especially if you need to charge money (which Tutanota do) and especially if you're nearby, legally speaking (Are Tutanota in Germany?).

And given that Signal has "walked" from other authoritarian regimes but people in those countries still have ways to use Signal, I'm still betting on Signal.

only 1% of people can lose more than 5kg and keep it off.

if almost 100% of people can't do something, describing it as "not hard to fathom" completely misrepresents the issue.

lol I did exactly this at school too. My first version wrote the passwords to local disk and whenever I logged in anywhere myself my login script would gather them up. Til I realised I could leave myself logged in and write to my home dir.

I love how this same vulnerability was discovered independently and exploited by students all around the world!

I have autoplay of videos turned off. but I played a video, changed tab, the video ended and youtube went on to play another unrequested video, carefully selected to make me watch more ads.

As terrible as youtube can be (I currently hear it autoplaying some unwanted next video on some other tab I can't find) I love how we've gone from Le Prince recording a video on a roll of paper in 1888 to being able to watch that same video almost anywhere in the world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAiYFEHI9o8

Their privacy policy very strongly suggests that they are the data processor only when the account owner (Publisher) provides the email address, which they call indirect subscription.

Direct subscribers are users who subscribed themselves via the Revue service. and the privacy policy says nothing about providing direct subscribers' private data to the Publisher.

Their closure announcement does not distinguish between the types of subscriber.

So either the Publisher is only getting the indirect subscribers' info (and isn't being told they are losing the direct subscribers) or the Publisher is getting direct subscriber info which the direct subscriber never agreed to allowing (unless that is a separate agreement from the privacy policy, in which case presumably some permission was indeed obtained).

> "In the meantime, you will be able to download your subscriber list"

...

> "Twitter, Inc. has not obtained permission for you to use subscriber information for any purpose."

Twitter thinks it has permission to provide account owners with their subscriber lists but explicitly says that those same account owners have no permissions of their own for the data.

I do not think this is how how most countries' data privacy laws work.

This is a very murky situation and Twitter seem to be writing it all off with a wink and a nod.

human beings can often find situations like job interviews stressful. OP is probably a human.