> donk_enby had originally intended to grab data only from the day of the Capitol takeover, but found that the poor construction and security of Parler allowed her to capture, essentially, the entire website. That ended up being 56.7 terabytes of data, which included every public post on Parler, 412 million files in all—including 150 million photos and more than 1 million videos. Each of these had embedded metadata like date, time and GPS coordinates—unlike most social media sites, Parler does not strip metadata from media its users upload, which, crucially, could be useful for law enforcement and open source investigators.
Neglating to remember his president has been in charge for 4 years
The guy coughing at 1m34 too!
Rioter 1: "They just hit that dude"
Rioter 2: "Yeah because he was being a prick"
Woman takes of mask to tell camera "It's amazing". Cameraman says "put your mask on I don't want anyone to see you"
Showing that people posted videos from the rally at the Monument and then went to the front of the Capitol buildings. Note that many on site participants reported there was no cell or data service at the Capital, so they were not coordinating with Parler, just reporting.
The heat map might generate hypothesis but conclusions that Parler users or demonstrators as a whole did anything other than asserting rights under the 1st amendment do not necessarily follow from the data.
Turn off or strip EXIF data -- most sites do anyway -- and this wouldn't happen.
This isn’t an app that’s in widespread general use but just so happens to also have a few bad apples using it too. It’s instead almost exclusively used by what would appear to be the most radical wing of the Trump party. Almost every single person using it during that period attended Trump’s speech and/or participated (in some way, shape, or form) in an assault on the Capitol that day.
These are location from pictures. Of course almost all pictures are of the riots instead of some boring random street in Washington DC.
Even people who are not part of it will take pictures simply because it is a major event and nowadays, every time something interesting happens, there are people to take pictures. You are probably going to find similar heat maps on more mainstream social networks.
Are you sure it's not just a heat map of only those videos?
"Authoritarians never believe they're authoritarians, no matter how much censorship, surveillance, jingoism, & imprisonment they demand.
They tell themselves their enemies are so uniquely evil and dangerous - terrorists - that anything done in the name of fighting them is noble."
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald Jan 11
Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler?
The planning was largely done on Facebook. This is all a bullshit pretext for silencing competitors on ideological grounds: just the start.
> Hi Glenn, I'm wondering if you would be willing to delete this tweet and issue a correction both on Twitter and your newsletter since a number of the people arrested last week, including Jacob Chansley and Nicholas Ochs, were active users of Parler. Thanks!
Also, auth provider (twilio?) removed Parler as a client so for a short while it was possible to create accounts without a phone number (2FA).
edit: okta, free trial, thanks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25774943
It was a free trial of Okta that they were using for their entire userbase.
Also, how does some randomer have ten of terabytes of disk lying around?
10TB fits on one desktop drive, it's completely pedestrian
Others, like me, have home NAS's which have 10-20TiB, and they're usually close to full.
Fewer people, but a non-zero amount, hoard data, they have 20-100TiB or even more, full on homelabs.
If you're a person collecting datadumps or running rainbow tables, you probably have such a unit. It's not even that expensive really, you can get a 24TiB Pegasus Thunderbolt raid array for <1,000 USD
If so it's distributed among many volunteers.
But the data still has to end up somewhere... Archive.org?
Grab status: https://tracker.archiveteam.org/parler/
and will be hosted by archive.org
They're not a randomer, they're a person interested in data dumps.
Including old desktops and a couple of random external HDDs, I could probably hit 8-10TB easily.
And it's not like it's hard to get more. If I hit a montherlode and I need keep it, it's a 20 minute drive to Target / Best Buy / Walmart for a drive or three. Not as cheap as bulk orders off of Newegg but cost-effective enough to store these dumps.
Also, I assume there is content from EU citizens in there, and so GDPR violations galore.
The GDPR talks about "data controllers", and citizens have the right to demand such controller remove their personal data. A "data controller" in this context means you knowingly possess the data and are in the position to make decisions about it. You're not a data controller, tho, if e.g. you run some service that allows users to upload data, without your involvement and direction and also do not decide how to use such data. E.g. amazon would not be liable if people put a data dumb in their cloud (unless amazon used the data themselves, instead of just storing/hosting the data at the behest of their customers).
Even before the GDPR there have been related laws and court cases, like the case that culminated in the "right to be forgotten" based on a decision by the European Court of Justice, which may well come into play here. I also remember a case in Germany, where a women allowed her partner to take intimate pictures of her, then after the relationship ended had a court order him to destroy the material (not a revenge porn case, there was no allegation he ever shared any of those pictures), meaning it's not always about what's public.
I don't know how California's mini-GDPR compares.
Then of course there is still the avenue of copyright law if the stuff is put online. Just because a parler user gave parler the permission to distribute a certain piece of content doesn't mean that everybody else has the same permission. I'm pretty sure Parler didn't make people assign them the copyright (which isn't even possible in some jurisdictions), therefore the people who posted on parler still retain the rights to their content. They can therefore use the DMCA or other similar jurisdictions around the world to demand takedowns.
As an EU citizen, I can request that a company deletes my data. Unless this data dump is being treated as a crime scene or something, then the holders of this data will need some way to comply with these requests.
Also, now AWS (or whatever cloud provider it is) is holding content that contains racist and/or illegal content. Are they not effectively now just another Parler?
Now, ripping that _user_ generated data from the website this way without justified (justified = platform user agreement + legitimate interest) purpose or intent or even agreement and storing / distributing / processing it is the epitome of a GDPR transgression and borderline criminal at least in the EU (saying this as a EU citizen). They are liable. I wouldn't touch that dataset with a 10 foot pole. And I would even less brag about it on Twitter, things we do for clout I guess... :)
I have no stake in this thing, it's just to emphasize that statements like this are what get people and businesses in big trouble. Stay safe! Archive only your own data or data you gathered legitimately. Take the rest up with a lawyer or ... read the laws.
I don’t think this relates to GDPR though. There are some exemptions for personal use which I think there are arguments this could fall into (IANAL). But my opinion is this isn’t in the spirit of GDPR.
There are many other laws that are broad enough in most countries to cover gray area scraping sadly. CFAA in the US for example. This sounds similar to the AT&T weev case.
This is a colossal mess up, on epic proportions.
Apparently it's called Grey's Law: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Grey%27s%20L...
Wait... Is that a thing? Are there more of these?
That is to say it's a snowclone where the substitutions come from another quote.
I guess quotemanteaus are a special kind of unique snowclone.
You could take "with great power comes great responsibility" and form the snowclone "with great X comes great Y" and then take the quote "the medium is the message" and use those in your snowclone to make the quotemanteau "with a great medium comes a great message"
Hmm... I feel like I should try concoct more of these. They're fun.
Besides that, probably not much. =)
I’d think I’d like to prepay a fixed dollar amount like USD 200 IF I anticipate some major event but really this is problematic for students. I just want to use the free tier. Why is this so hard?
I agree that there is some financial risk to using AWS although my understanding is that they're pretty forgiving of surprise bills--at least the first time.
This taught me to be very very careful with this stuff, and to not bet on Google or Amazon being nice to me when I am bound to mess something up at some point - because with the complexity these services carry, it's no wonder people fall into cost traps all the time.
I also help out a small non-profit newspaper mostly operated by students. We're going to need some storage for an archiving project and there's no way in hell I'm going to use AWS for that.
There’s one in particular I’m thinking of…
I am glad that my customers and company pays the bills because they can fluctuate very noticeably.
For private use I still host my own server just because the costs are fixed an I know what I am getting.
I forgot to remove NAT Gateway for a few weeks while learning bits and pieces of VPC usage and it ended up costing me 25$... what can you do.
Anyhow, if your image shows recognizable landmarks with shadows, then it will be feasible to recover the exact point of view and the time of acquisition.
With what level of accuracy? Are you claiming you can confidently assert 2020-12-21 15:12 over, say, 2020-12-22 15:15 via shadows
Not at all. By visual inspection you can see whether it's the morning or the afternoon (if you know the orientation of the landmarks). I guess by image processing you could get a precision of +- 1h maybe?
and bill you at the end of the month.
This is the crucial part: AWS will serve whatever is request. It brings them money.
Does that mean someone could request a lot of files, over and over, to increase my bill? Or is that served by some cache?
Let's say for example I host Mastodon media on S3, about 30G of unique data. Could someone use that to increase the cost of my bill?
I do of course have a budget alert set but I have to react to that alert too.
Not only is it very easy to spend real money by accident, the web interface makes it incredibly hard to work out what you're spending money on (it took me a long time to even understand what I was paying for, and then longer still to turn it all off).
Even if you know what you're getting in to, the pricing is very misleading. A few cents an hour adds up if its running 24/7, and its never obvious whether you're in the free tier or not.
If you don't have deep pockets, be very careful with AWS.
It amazes me when I get pushback for that, but it's to be expected inside toxic culture corporations. I'm kinda disgusted with AWS now so I'm looking to re-tool. The dangerous defaults and concern about arbitrary or uncaring TOU enforcement should be an impetus to diversification of service provision.
If you’re hosting Mastodon, then I assume you’d take steps to ensure that only an authenticated user can access any data. And that user would also need to be authorised to access only specific data. And that authenticated and authorised user would be rate limited so they couldn’t scrape everything they have access to easily.
If you do all these things, you’ll be fine.
there are a lot of interesting things that can go wrong.
ITYM lying around, unless this is a quirk of US English. Sorry to be pedantic!
It is indeed. Very common in colloquial speech around here.
Do all your transferring from an EC2 instance in the same region and it never needs to waste bandwidth going over the public internet anyway.
If not them because in you're worried they'd also shut you down than probably BackBlaze.
Could also just buy a bunch of fairly cheap 100 mbit unmetered boxes off OVH/Kimsufi for a total cost probably of ~$300/m.
I saw 6tb hdd's for €114 on my local site, 16tb hdd's for €370.
It's not exactly cheap, but if you're doing it for a serious project like archiving an entire politically relevant social media website, I'm sure you'll have 1-2 thousand eur lying around for a couple of hard disks
They took action against one organisation that had multiple 10PB+ users but Google really doesn't seem to care that much about the tertiary institutes giving unlimited GDrive accounts to every data hoarder who pretends to enrol.
Once a service account reached the limit, switch to another.
I'm really glad she did that. I'm fine with all this stuff getting taken down, but it really needs to be archived somewhere for historical purposes, to help understand this moment.
Given the kind of media and political impact Trump's tweets from @theRealDonaldTrump have been, I really hope they're archived at NARA along with the @POTUS tweets. They're legit historical primary source documents.
I understand this on a visceral level, but I wish more people would look beyond that to the implications for communication on the web. This action by Amazon happens to correspond with what I think is right and just on first iteration, but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with?
Honestly, none. It's their business and they can handle it however they want.
What you can do (and this is exactly what Kolmisoppi was suggesting) is build your platform to work without relying on other people's business.
I'm happy that companies like Amazon don't want to get associated with people who organized a failed coup. That should be the bare minimum. But there is no law which forces you to be hosted on Amazon if you want to be on the Internet. You can self-host. You can buy/rent servers in another country, where what you are doing doesn't have direct consequences which might lead people to want to get away from you. Use the blockchain, use torrent, develop your own P2P protocol. Those people just got locked out from the easy way, something they should have expected to happen (and plan for) since day one.
You can't although you can, of course, mitigate.
But are you OK with just a PWA on mobile w/o the Apple or Google stores?
And your platform is ultimately dependent on a network connection, probably CDN, domain registrar, DNS, etc. Those are a pretty high bar to get kicked off but you're not immune.
(And, yes, there are things like Tor and jumping around providers if you have a fairly lightweight web site--like most torrents--but that doesn't help you if yo have a site with many TB of data catering to unsophisticated users.)
POTUS has the biggest bully pulpit in the world. whitehouse.gov, daily press briefing, C-SPAN, etc.
No third party should serve as alternate bully pulpit, allowing a democratically elected leader to speak directly to their audience, bypassing the fourth estate.
I'm not saying Twitter was right to shut down POTUS. I'm saying never should have hosted POTUS in the first place. Further, no leader should be allowed to speak as a private individual.
If Twitter wants to feature POTUS, then let Twitter attend the daily presser along with all the other reporters and journalists.
Everyone is responsible for allowing this undemocratic violation of norms. Social medias are just the one that profited most.
This makes people talk about how they think it should work, not just how it works right now, which I think is exactly what is needed.
Personally I found Amazons response to Parler convincing: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.u...
The question is, why should a company in Amazons situation be unable to turn off that service? As in, your question assumes that Amazon turned off Parler out of nowhere for no reason other then "we dont like them". It assumes they did not had documented reasons, documented attempts to convince Parler to comply to TOS etc.
Otherwise said, contract.
The principle of Amazon not wanting to piss off all of their customers and several government organisations. If you're this tentative about something you explicitly agree is just, then clearly you (and millions of others) are going to react pretty harshly to Amazon unilaterally deciding, e.g., that all mentions of Belgium should get scrubbed from the platform.
I mean, it is the rudest word in the universe.
> I understand this on a visceral level, but I wish more people would look beyond that to the implications for communication on the web. This action by Amazon happens to correspond with what I think is right and just on first iteration, but what principle prevents Amazon from arsing some other group that we agree with?
It's kind of predictable but still disappointing that this was the part of my comment people chose to discuss with a 43-comment thread. It was the least novel and interesting idea in it.
But to your point, there's a lot more "looking beyond" than just that. There also needs to be a lot more looking beyond rather limited fundamentalist views of free speech, which tend to abrogate other fundamental rights and be so short-sighted that they actually bring discredit to the values they try to protect.
Like, amazon isn’t actually the basic infrastructure of the internet. You can build web sites and apps without involving them. So why would a law force them to do business with you?
The political alignment of many Parler users isn't a secret and if they decide to measure skulls again, I might be in trouble. Still, I don't see them as a relevant threat at all. It is even more ridiculous as the terrorism scare.
However, the actions of SV social media sites and hosts like Amazon censoring unpopular opinions and content outweigh that danger from neo-nazis by magnitudes. These groups have absolutely no political power in the 21st century.
They have more influence than a decade ago, but that is mainly due to their ability to reinforce their prosecution narrative and martyrdom.
On the internet there are calls to violence in any political group, even vegans and cat lovers. We ignore that because they aren't relevant. But if you seriously crack down on cat lovers, you might need to expect real violence.
Either there are rules and principles that are valid for everyone or there are none.
Some say people get influenced by far-right propaganda. Far-right groups think in the same way in that they believe everyone not on their side is an "NPC".
I think Dorsey and Zuckerberg handled it relatively well in the grand scheme of things. Their latest ban attempts were over the top though. I know that some people might need help instead of a Twitter account, but that is beside the point. They set the precedent for countries to suppress their opposition and for state propaganda. I think Uganda is one of the latest examples.
The reasons are not "they were too much right wing for us". They had multiple reasons, but it is not that long to read.
> On the internet there are calls to violence in any political group, even vegans and cat lovers. We ignore that because they aren't relevant. But if you seriously crack down on cat lovers, you might need to expect real violence.
And vegans and cat lowers do seriously take them down in their forums when those cross the line. And when they discuss cats and food on reddit and reddit deletes accounts of those who threaten violence, the vegans and cat lowers are happily continue to discuss cats and food.
This is bad analogy.
That's the difference between merely saying something, and saying something with the likelihood of actually carrying it out.
Parler would still be around if there not been an mob attack on the capitol connected to it (and no legitimate fears of further mob attacks on inauguration day, etc.) If vegans actually started and organized butchering of meat eaters, I'm pretty sure the forums where they planned such things would get shut down quickly.
I don't have a solution, but Amazon + Apple + Google coordinating to shut down a platform for communication - even a platform that contains expression that I strongly disagree with, I might add - is a problem that requires a solution
This is what I wish more people understood now rather than later, but at some point everyone will understand that it's a problem
Hint: it's the identical problem to deplatforming BLM or Antifa or Occupy or the Proud Boys or pick anyone you agree with that annoys powerful people. "Having the better politics" will not protect you. "Oh they're just fascists" will not protect your peoples.
Apple on the other hand is a lot more murky due to their lockdown of app installs. I don't believe they should be made to host things they don't agree with but people should not be prevented form installing whatever software they want on their own hardware.
For the record I am a staunch free speech advocate but fully believe that no-one (no-company either) owes you (the royal you) a place to use your free speech on their property.
Did they actually coordinate  or just come to similar conclusions based on similar facts, in the context of the same cultural zeitgeist?
 e.g. Bezos, Cook, and Pichai (or subordinates) on a conference call, deciding what to do
I do believe some level of internet serving access is a public utility. But i doubt that level is cloud hosting.
I will dig a little deeper to support archive.org this year. I'd love to run a mirror.
Parler had people discussing murdering Congresspeople and didn't do anything about it. No matter which faction of "what level of free speech is acceptable" one subscribes, this is never acceptable and it is no wonder that Parler got booted off.
I want you to understand what I'm about to say. Understand it in your bones: it is unacceptable to me and to you and it is reprehensible; and beliefs that you hold dear will someday, by someone, be seen as unacceptable and reprehensible. To protect the speech of the reprehensible is to protect your own speech. That's what I would like you to understand.
David Goldberger didn't defend the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie because he is a Nazi, but to defend his (and all of our) rights.
The people who planned actual murders and crimes must be caught and punished. But if "planning and executing crimes" is the standard by which platforms should be shut down, then Facebook also should be shut down.
Planning an executing crimes is the standard by which those doing so should be shut down. Ideally, by the actor as close as possible and able to do so with minimal collateral damage.
But a second-order platform that determines a first-order platform is systematically incapable or unwilling to do that does not act improperly in cutting service to the first order platform .
That's fine by me tbh
Note, the reason why it is illegal goes back to preventing protesters from hanging up their banners / messages. An act to legally silence opponents.
Actually, even in the US there are exceptions - namedly when speech is likely to incite crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
But if you wrote that on a site hosted on AWS, there is nothing in principle from Amazon taking the platform down. Politician Y calls his buddy Jeff Bezos, and fwoomp! Gone. This should be concerning.
It seems more likely that we've learned that if I said that quote -- and then I personally tried to hang the politician by his thumbs and got caught because I'm a cartoonish moron. Then, when charged with attempting to hang the politician, I said "I was just joking" even though I had some hanging equipment and I was in a giant mob full of other people all chanting to hang the politician and many of us had guns and anyway I also broke into a locked building to do the hanging -- and then it came out that large swaths of the content on the same site was people making those kinds of threats, and then it came out that the site operators didn't care to remove the threats because they had a moral opposition to moderation, and then it came out that AWS had contacted the site owners many times to implore them to remove other illegal content, and then the site operators, rather than removing the content, gave press interviews where they boasted how they were invincible and didn't care if AWS took them down... then it's probable that AWS would take the content down. And this doesn't concern me at all. Lock me up, in this hypothetical, and lock up the people who enabled me.
I ran a legacy website that once got spammed. My host contacted me because one of the spam things was an ad for a website hosting stolen credit card numbers. They gave me 24 hours to take down the content. This isn't because they're censoring math and they're using their monopoly power to prevent numbers from being posted, it's because stolen credit card numbers, provided for the purposes of credit card fraud, are illegal and they didn't want to do business with me if I wasn't willing to remove the content.
And I also don't see a further problem with using the posture of the site operators + the site itself to make a judgment call about whether the content in question is an aberration or intentional. If someone posted a magnet link of pirated content in Hacker News, I wouldn't presume per se that Hacker News was a piracy website because I can facially see that the site is general purpose, and also because I can see that the site has a general moderation policy that signals it is willing to comply with legal requests. But that doesn't mean that ThePirateBay can credibly argue in court "We had no idea our site was used for piracy, and if you ban us, you have to ban Google, because they crawled us."
The 1st Amendment (and its European equivalents) usually only bind the government, not private entities.
There is nothing per se preventing you (or Parler) to build their own datacenter or use another hoster - there is no "human right" to be able to use AWS. However, what still remains is that every company has the right to refuse service to an entity that is suspected of criminal activity - and the onus is on Parler to prove they will not serve as a planning platform for criminals.
Why should it be concerning at all? There are a few thousand other hosting providers they can go to.
The slightly stronger argument seems to be that the people making these death threats on Parler should not have been banned from Twitter/FB in the first place. FB/Twitter have far less competition and most of their value is in the network effects they've established.
The tech giants should absolutely be broken up/more heavily regulated, but I think there are much better examples of why than Parler.
That's not a strong argument at all. Spouting death threats gets you arrested if you do it in public (and someone records it or calls the cops), so it should also lead to a time-limited or permanent ban from social networks.
Social networks are not a free-for-all zone.
I don't think it's a strong argument either, I just think it's slightly stronger than the one people are trying to use for why AWS should be forced to host Parler.
> Spouting death threats gets you arrested if you do it in public (and someone records it or calls the cops), so it should also lead to a time-limited or permanent ban from social networks.
The argument from people coming out against the moderation of these threats seems to be that FB/Twitter etc. should only remove this content after receiving some sort of court order/government mandate to do so, that they shouldn't "play cop" as it were. Personally this seems like a pretty stupid take.
> Social networks are not a free-for-all zone.
Some people are arguing that the should be, that they should be treated as the equivalent of a modern town square. I don't necessarily agree with this take, but I can see why people might think that way.
A modern town square isn't a free-for-all zone either. Try to go and shout "fuck <n-word>" or raise the arm to the Nazi salute in an area where people of color live and you'll be lucky to escape with a minor beating.
Town squares are a form of societal self-preservation too - unruly elements get dealt with, either by the people themselves or by the police.
By that criterion we should immediately close down Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, ...
I mean, AWS basically took their business under false pretences. AWS wasn't trying to provide them a service, it was trying to kill their company.
Same for Facebook and Twitter.
Parler, however, did nothing even as people went and publicly called out criminal acts happening on the platform.
Let's see what comes out of this data dump before getting too sanguine about loss of "free speech".
On this topic, I've seen reports on Twitter and Reddit of people who don't fit Parler's "prescribed worldview" being banned.
Not so free after all.
After all, it's just speech right?
I was just pointing out that Parler is nowhere near as "free" as it claims to be.
I was actually condemning them for not even living up to the standards they claim to profess, in addition to their other issues.
The Pirate Bay and other torrent networks were built by people with a passion for building, maintaining and hacking things. People who, even without a solid CS background, would spend hours a day learning new things, developing distributed protocols, evading DNS blocks and hosting their content wherever they could to make it accessible - included the small server in their own garage if needed. And they are used by people who don't mind learning a new protocol or how to use a new client to get the content they want.
I don't see the same amount of passion for technology and hacking among the Parler users, nor its maintainers. Those who believe in conspiracy content are people characterized by a psychological tendency to take shortcuts whenever they can in order to minimize their efforts in learning and understanding new things. So when the first blocker hits they usually can't see alternative solutions, because it's not the way their brains are wired. They always expect somebody else to come up with solutions for them, and they always blame somebody else when the solution won't come. And even if they decided to migrate their content to the dark web or on a Tor network, not many people will follow them - both because they don't have the skills, and because they don't want to acquire those skills. Plus, they'd lose the "viral network effect" that they get when posting click-bait content on public networks, the new censorship-proof network will only attract a small bunch of already radicalized people.
And even if they wanted to hire some smart engineers to do the job for them, we all know that engineers tend to swing on the other opposite of the ideological spectrum. Those who have built systems for escaping REAL authoritarian censorship would rightfully feel disgusted if asked to apply their knowledge to provide a safe harbour for rednecks to vomit their conspiracy-theories-fueled hate.
Also by people who know that what they were doing was straight-up illegal in a lot of countries, and grey-area in a lot of others. So this was a real risk.
Parler on the other hand, at its core was just a social network, and if you look at the founders/owners, they have a very disconnected interpretation of "free speech", so they were clearly thinking nothing bad could happen.
I'm not sure this is true. This seems to imply that nations which have copyright law are imposing authoritarian censorship on their citizens. This doesn't seem to be a pervasive idea, at least in the US.
There are proponents of information freedom who oppose copyright law. It's not clear to me that this group would oppose Parler, and in fact many I've spoken to believe they should be free to exist without censorship.
But - I am not sure they want to be associated with Parler either, out of concern for their reputation.
This is exactly the point of most anti-copyright parties.
I dont think it is that simple. I remember reading finding that smart highly intelligent people are more attracted to conspiracy theories. The complexity of those theories and details those rely on attract them.
Also, I may be wrong here, but I remember reading that Parler was funded by some pretty rich people. If that is true, they should be able to pay for tech know how.
This is different than "intelligence." It's more about effort and rigor in thinking. It's the quality of the thought, and the willingness to question your own assumptions. And a willingness to recognize the limits of your own knowledge and understanding.
If that's true, and if indeed conservatives are much more likely to believe in conspiracy theories (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/information-overlo... in conspiracy theories), then the opposite of what you state may indeed be true
Keep un mind that before a conspiracy theory turns into the perverse mind-twist of a complex theory like QAnon it ALWAYS start simple, and always simpler than reality actually looks like. It can always summarized with "those guys want to harm you, so don't even bother to look further, the explanation is easy": pure and total amygdala stimulation. Then, when they are contradicted by evidence, they put up more and more complex twists to mitigate the arise of cognitive dissonance in its followers ("I know that it looks like things don't make much sense, but you know, you have to follow the crumbs, or keep in mind that Trump is talking to you in Morse code" etc.)
The only ones that seem to believe in them are those clearly unhinged (McAfee comes straight to mind although his seems self serving too).
Do we all really know that? Some very good technical people don't have particularly strong political views or keep them separate from their job. Example: lots of ordinary devs helped build porn sites.
The Children of Pornhub https://nyti.ms/33DMObR
An Uplifting Update, on the Terrible World of Pornhub https://nyti.ms/2W1aB1b
The founder's motto was literally "Hack the planet"...
Indeed, that's not to be compared with TPB enthusiast's taste for hack and passion for CS things, but don't underestimate "right wing" techies...
Such a representation naturally avoids the Y2K38 problem, and could go beyond Y10K. It's traditional in Windows and DOS (neither of which have the Y2K38 problem) to store timestamps as a structure of fields.
The other things you noted I agree with, however.
Plus, it's unambiguously human readable, for users, bystanders, platform developers, everyone. There's a useful usability principle in there.
Please, everyone, use a single format at all times in your systems. I don't really care what it is, though I'm fond of `2021-01-14T06:28:08Z` because it's unambiguous. But don't just say "use ISO 8601", it's far too vague and you'll inevitably have variations.
* `2021-W02` means the second (ISO) week of 2021. Perfectly valid and used in a lot of planning.
* `--01-14` - I'm assuming this is a recurring date: every 14 Jan for every year
* `--1013` - at 1PM every 10th of the month? Guessing here
I believe ISO 8601 is a ISO codification of a DIN standard, and based on other standards processes I'm guessing some German manufacturing companies were the only ones who bothered showing up, so their internal software practices were encoded into the spec because no-one else cared..
Often the biggest entity will end up accidentally forcing their practices, sometimes sub-optimal, to entire organizations, simply by having the manpower to show up to meetings.
(`--01-14` is Jan 14 in any year, the last dash is "optional").
The "duration" (`P`) and "repetition" (`R`) syntax is also pretty wild.
Apparently the records were strictly sequential, which I don’t believe is true for Mongo which IIRC includes the node ID in part of it.
I could see the argument for representing impressions as a string (especially if it's updated asynchronously and denormalized like that). The major downside is localization.