PG:"We will not do a good job of fixing the bad causes of economic inequality unless we attack them directly.
But if we fix all the bad causes of economic inequality, we will still have increasing levels of it, due to the increasing power of technology"
I still don't get what PG is trying to say.
For example few years ago Google and Apple bosses made secret agreement to not hire employees of the competing company. The goal was to transfer wealth from engineers to shareholders and bosses. There are a lot of other examples. That's why the essay had so much negative comments. PG should clearly condemn these practices.
PG:"we will still have increasing levels of it, due to the increasing power of technology"
That is just narrow VC point of view. Think about what cheap printing technology did for our civilization. There are countless of other examples. Today UK monarchy can only dream about the power they had.
I had a dream that the technology (Internet, DVCS ...) will make legislation process more transparent. Tax loophole? Just file a bug, propose a fix, vote for the fix. Think about what Stack Overflow and Github did for software development. Something similar can be done for the law.
How do you know what the goal of the conspiracy was? Another possible goal was to stop the destabilization of projects by having the leads strategically poached. Neither goal makes it legal, but since you don't know the goal, the example doesn't support your argument.
The most important thing to do after a server setup is to enable firewall. By default block all ports on public IP and then open ssh, http and https. There are tools like ufw, just few commands and your server is secure. This is much better approach than securing all services and system deamons run on a server.
>This is much better approach than securing all services and system deamons run on a server.
Um, no. You should absolutely be doing both. Defense in depth is the only way to remain secure in failure of any other component. A firewall WILL NOT PROTECT YOU FROM THAT.
For example, you just put on the firewall and leave a daemon running on localhost as root. The firewall allows connections from localhost by default (as most do). An attacker finds a hole in your webserver and is able to run scripts in the httpd context. The script makes a connection to the daemon on localhost, exploits it, and now has root privileges. With root the attacker modifies the firewall rules to allow access. You are now fully exploited.
Had your daemon been secured they would have only been a takeover of httpd and daemon accounts and not a full system compromise. Privilege separation is extremely important.
1. Many Android apps depend on proprietary Google Play Services. So app customization is needed anyway.
2. Do ordinary people really need unified apps for PCs and mobile?
Currently an easiest way to develop multi platform apps is to create a native mobile app and UI for power users in web browser. There is no need to build a running tracking app as a desktop native app.
Recently notification center was removed from Chrome. To my surprise it turned out that nobody was using it. Well, I also wasn't using it because my (Android|iPhone) is always with me.
I'm a fan Elon Musk. But I think people are exaggerating that Mars mission. For me it looks like a goal for SpaceX employees. You have to somehow motivate people to work harder. Maybe I'm just a little cynical, but Elon is too smart to believe in this mission.
And most incumbent players seem to like the current state of affairs.
The whole situation is beginning to resemble feudal Europe class system. You cannot sell a car unless you belong to a specific fraternity. You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company. The free market is shrinking because of various regulations written by lobbyists.
Unfortunately this seems to a trend for societies across the globe. The older society, the more walls higher class builds to protect their status.
"You cannot sell Android phones unless you pay licence fees to some company"?
Of course you need to pay licence fees to "some company" if you are selling Android phones, they're the ones making it. Why shouldn't Google get paid for their work? You can always remove Play store and other Gstuff and "leech" Android like Amazon. Let's not compare selling(licensing) software to some kind of feudal extortion pls.
HFT are making huge profit margins - their entire industry profit is estimated at around $1bn, or a percentage of what a single large financial institution will make in a year. It's all relative - they can only make so much profit before they move the market too much themselves, they are limited by their size.
Your pension fund is not trading in a way which is significantly adversely affected by HFTs, the CEO of Vanguard is even on the record as saying that HFTs make his traders more efficient. Fund managers employ their own dealers to ensure best execution, if HFTs were causing significant losses you can be sure they would be raising hell - and that regulators and governments would listen.
They don't just give out loans, they create brand new money. They also have a state-enforced and -backed monopoly on this creation of new money. So they do "produce", it's just that what they produce is more or less "fictional" violence tokens.
They provide currency, which can be used to acquire capital.
Do not confuse this with providing capital. The person who gives you a fence-painting robot is providing capital. The person who gives you 10000 coupons for a free fence-painting robot is not providing anything, if the person who issued the coupons does not actually have any robots.
Banks lubricate the machinery of business, theoretically making productive work more efficient. To the extent they do so, they can reasonably capture a share of those gains.
But once they are trusted in that capacity, they are now in a position to take money by less-honest means, in a manner largely indistinguishable from their legitimate functions by the casual observer.
That's the theory and few rational people would argue that those services are necessary. But we've been in a tail-wagging-the-dog situation for a while now. The industry seems to believe that they're entitled to an increasingly large share of the world's wealth. They've seemingly forgotten that they're a facilitator of progress and don't represent progress in and of themselves. They recruit the best and the brightest to create ever-more-complicated financial instruments robbing society of the contributions those engineers/scientists would have made elsewhere.
Much like the same cellular mechanisms that sustain life become cancerous when there is unchecked growth, the same financial apparatus that we need to facilitate progress becomes cancerous when its growth is unchecked and it loses focus of the purpose that it serves.