I don't see how a slight improvement primarily in the last two years after Snowden is "normal behavior"? WhatsApp ran without end-to-end encryption for six years, so did Gmail without SSL as the default. The industry and government has had two decades to impose "western values" through precedent, standards or legislation. Instead they chose short-term profits and intelligence operations. Users have few rights and even lower expectations.
> I don't see any criminal or even incorrecr decisions by US military in that video. Making decisions based on incomplete information, with certain risk of bad outcomes abd collateral damage is a part of war.
So to paraphrase "they did nothing wrong and even if they did it would have been okay".
First, they clearly shot civilians trying to take other civilians to the hospital by essentially inventing weapons they didn't and couldn't have seen. Secondly, in most countries when you get the responsibility to fly something like an attack helicopter, which takes a fairly long time to learn, you tend to have to be better than some random soldier. The "war is hell" excuse isn't really viable with the attitudes displayed in the video. But if you're trying to say that these are the kind of actions we should expect when the US invades a country then I guess we are in agreement.
How exactly could've you made out these figures as civilians and not enemy combatants? From POV of the camera, you already have seen one of them with an RPG, and the opposing force doesn't really use uniforms either.
Don't fall for a logical fallacy, and try to view the situatiom from the lens of the information that they actually had, not the hindsight.
International law and the rules of engagement requires you to positively identify enemy combatant as well as not engage enemy combatant that are incapacitated. There's nothing in the video indicating that they person getting picked up by the van or that the people picking him up has weapons.
(from the transcript [0])
05:30 There's one guy moving down there but he's uh, he's wounded.
...
06:01 He's getting up.
06:02 Maybe he has a weapon down in his hand?
06:04 No, I haven't seen one yet.
...
06:33 Come on, buddy.
06:38 All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.
...
06:54 This is Two-Six roger. I'll pop flares [drop flares]. We also have one individual moving. We're looking for weapons. If we see a weapon, we're gonna engage.
...
07:18 Bushmaster; Crazyhorse. We have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons.
....
07:36 Picking up the wounded?
07:38 Yeah, we're trying to get permission to engage.
...
07:59 Roger. We have a black SUV-uh Bongo truck [van] picking up the bodies. Request permission to engage.
There's nothing unclear here or anything to be misunderstood. If they had seen weapons they would have engaged already instead of asking for permission. It's just that the crew of the helicopter really wants to shoot them and that they, the US military nor the US public don't really give a shit if they are civilian as long as they can get away with it, which they can.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt, not necessarily earned as the other poster points out but let's roll with it. You have successfully defended between two and eleven civilian deaths that were not hidden before the leaks. That leaves you merely with the task of explaining the around twelve thousand that were hidden prior to the leaks.
While I agree with your overall point I unfortunately don't think your characterization of Sweden is true anymore.
Your education prospects now depend on which school you go to, especially with blatant grade inflation. My friends are putting their kids in queue for elite elementary school the day after they are born. Even if you can make it to college the traditional route you'll have trouble finding an apartment and keeping your student benefits.
Healthcare is a complicated system of public funded private institutions that regularly and willingly violate the law on things like time before you get to see a specialist. I always used to like the Swedish healthcare system until I realized I've always visited the same doctors that I knew.
Unemployment benefits doesn't apply (or atleast appeal) to former students or short contract workers these days. You have to go the welfare office and even they have no problem denying you means. You'll probably won't have much job security anyways since you'll be hired as a contractor.
Housing, especially in Stockholm, is a mess that won't be solved anytime soon. It makes the effects of everything worse. Commute time, work-life balance, even the weather.
I honestly think Sweden is one of the best countries in the world, but it's not a good deal anymore. If you got established ten years ago and could go to school before rampant youth unemployment, got an apartment before housing prices skyrocketed, know which doctors to go to, get a stable job where it makes sense to join the union etc. then it's great. You can study at university for seven years, some of them abroad, work for a few years, go on paternity leave for the better part of a year, move abroad for some time, then come back to your stable job again, leave your employer and get hired back as a consultant and if you don't find work go on unemployment. All this while you make a workers salary in housing appreciation, take vacations three times a year and get to use your parent country house in the summers.
Bottom line is that increasingly only the rich can afford to take advantage of the social safety net these days and I think it's starting to show even with things like startups. It was apparent very early that companies like Spotify, Klarna, Mojang etc. would be successful. I don't see many of these types of early successes anymore (but that might be my own ignorance of course).
There's increasingly nothing special about Sweden.
That's feels like an odd statement considering many mature first-world economies actually seem to be dealing with the economic effects of transitioning to a flat to slightly negative population growth rate.
Paris is one of the few places I would go out of my way to live in (at least without the current unrest), but the rent really kills it for me. That would be an instant downgrade in life quality that I wouldn't want long term.
It kills me a lot also. I'm planning to buy something this year / next year, I still don't know yet if it's gonna be in Paris or not. For the same price, in Paris I would get a 50m2, while in province (the rest of France), I would have a new 300m2 house with garden. It really kills me also. But you don't have to stop at this detail,
Maybe a third cheaper. Cheaper still if you're not actually close to the train. There are only 2 million people living in Paris proper, but 12 million within such commuting distance. So there's still a lot of competition for living space.
I'll admit the situation would get slightly better, but all these incremental fixes doesn't deal with the real problem. Which is that authentication is treated no different from any other data. If authentication was treated differently you could quite easily...
1. Distinguish clearly between authenticating to the correct server and entering form data.
2. Not send the actual password to the server but instead use some form of challenge-response.
3. Store the authentication token securely i.e. not as a cookie.
4. Enable other forms of authentication e.g. with keys.
5. Decrease the use of passwords overall (though better password authentication would still be a win).
This would make it much harder to perform a range of attacks from phishing to session hijacking. It would also potentially increase privacy, since you could more easily disable things like tracking. The reason you don't see the improvements you mention is to some extent because the engineers in question would have to reconciliation with the idea that they are the ones responsible. It's much easier to hold the position that its other entities, or users, that don't understand how things work.
> Yeah, I get it, that's how they work. It's not going to change.
While they have been producing endless press releases about "makers" and "IoT" in the last couple of years, they still charge $4k+ for a usb vid (and prohibit sharing) as part of the usb if [0]. So yes, I wouldn't expect much change.
If everyone would start bringing their own food that would lead to a huge mess of transporting, storing, unpacking, preparing and disposing of food in all sorts of random ways at various times throughout the flight by the hundreds of hungry sleep deprived passengers. Airports would be even less efficient going through security, vendors trying to sell food to go and people congregating to buy things. There's really enough general unbundling of comfort and efficiency at airports already. I would definitely pay more if even more things was standardized and included for everyone on the flight (like luggage, security, airport seating).
>"huge mess of transporting, storing, unpacking, preparing and disposing of food in all sorts of random ways at various times throughout the flight by the hundreds of hungry sleep deprived passengers."
That's generally handled by having a cart with a garbage bag attached that comes by, and having people opening their food on the small trays provided.
>"Airports would be even less efficient going through security, vendors trying to sell food to go and people congregating to buy things."
Yes. It is called a "post-security food court".
>"I would definitely pay more if even more things was standardized and included for everyone on the flight (like luggage, security, airport seating)."
That's nice for you. A lot of people don't want that, or aren't willing to pay.
> That's generally handled by having a cart with a garbage bag attached that comes by, and having people opening their food on the small trays provided.
Considerable effort has already gone into making food service efficient. One of the few reason I can imagine to unbundle food is to have fewer flight attendants. But now you're suggesting they should service the passengers in a random rather than sequential order, as not everyone would want to eat at the same time. A tray doesn't really solve the problem of the person shaking their protein drink (which hopefully stays in it's container), the person having to grab the third thing from the over head storage nor someone spilling their to go coffee over you. Food service is efficient. It comes in bulk, everyone gets served, everyone eats, everyone throws things away, done.
> Yes. It is called a "post-security food court".
"Amenities" like food courts and shops is a big reason why airports are annoying. If it wasn't for trying to get you to buy overpriced things airport entry would be as efficient as airport exit and not some IKEA style maze.
>"Food service is efficient. It comes in bulk, everyone gets served, everyone eats, everyone throws things away, done."
Great. If an airline finds that it is more efficient that they bundle food with the ticket price, then more power to them. I just don't see why it should be required that they do so.
>""Amenities" like food courts and shops is a big reason why airports are annoying."
I am sorry that you are annoyed by food courts. On the other hand, I suspect that the fact they are usually full of businesses suggests that many people patronize them and find them useful. Again, I'm not sure what the proposed solution is. Prohibit airports from having food courts?
did you ever had guests in your home? did you ever have them full day inside, and didn't give them a single thing to eat the whole time? (ie those magical 14 hours). well of course no, you're not an a__hole, right?
alternative - food stalls in airports serving specific food/packaging for flights. haven't seen a single one in those 30+ airports i ever visited.
Another issue - many foods are outright smelly and many can't stand some smells (ie -> puking) - imagine 300+ people eating their own stuff inside the plane, on 14 hours flight. ever experienced a strong smell of any airline food? thank god or whoever for that.
as for food courts, they are full of 'businesses' since those have that overpriced and usually seriously crappy food paid by employer as part of trip expenses. they have their place in airports, but definitely add chaos and size - why do I need to wade through countless restaurants and boutiques just to get from checkin to gate? that's cheap. they could be in some designated accessible 'shopping area' for example.
But these would efficiency in the airports, and that's usually not the name of the game these days.
>"did you ever had guests in your home? did you ever have them full day inside, and didn't give them a single thing to eat the whole time? (ie those magical 14 hours). well of course no, you're not an a__hole, right?"
An airline is a paid service. I'm not their friend, I'm their customer.
>"alternative - food stalls in airports serving specific food/packaging for flights. haven't seen a single one in those 30+ airports i ever visited."
>"why do I need to wade through countless restaurants and boutiques just to get from checkin to gate? that's cheap. they could be in some designated accessible 'shopping area' for example."
Okay, I get it, you don't like the way airports currently are, nor all of their offerings. I still don't see why this requires that A Law Be Made governing what they are and are not allowed to offer.
I don't generally want to pay for business class, but frequent flyer programs and/or premium economy usually takes care of things like fast track, lounge access and priority boarding. But nothing of that is really special in itself.
What I want is an airline that doesn't undermine their own business by making things better for their passengers, but instead have incentive both to make things better and more efficient. If there's no upsell the airline have to make sure things are efficient and there's less reason to hold back on "goodies".
I know there have been attempts to make such airlines in the past, but maybe with the new smaller long range aircraft, that can go from smaller airports, and more competitive taxi market, for transfer, it could work.
> If everyone would start bringing their own food that would lead to a huge mess of transporting, storing, unpacking, preparing and disposing of food in all sorts of random ways at various times throughout the flight by the hundreds of hungry sleep deprived passengers. Airports would be even less efficient going through security, vendors trying to sell food to go and people congregating to buy things.
For any flight over 45 minutes I always bring my own food. It's better than anything I can get on the plane and cheaper too. There's nothing special about going through security as it's in my carry on.
Only catch is you can't bring large liquids (so no thermos full of soup). I suppose you could have a set of 3.5 oz containers you eventually merge into a bowl but that's a little too extreme even for me ...
Or, people could suck it up and not eat for an hour or two. Sure on longer flights a meal is welcome, but even missing a meal should not be a terrible burden.
No one is complaining about not getting food on a 1-2 hour flight.
Many of us routinely take plane flights that are longer than two hours. A cross country flight is 5-6 hours plus 2 hours at the airport before and often a half hour after to get checked baggage. That's an 8-hour day.
Sitting on a cramped airplane for 5-6 hours is pretty unpleasant already. Doing it hungry doesn't improve the experience.
With 5-6 hours of flight time I'm often lucky if it is only an 8-hour day. I almost never have access to a direct flight cross country, so tack on at least another hour plus taxiing, running to catch a connection, then waiting for the connection to depart. If you let airline algorithms/travel agents select cheapest available flights, the connection is quite possible entirely in the wrong direction, too, adding a bonus hour or two to flight times.
I've had companies crazy enough to ask if they could interview me on a cross-country flight day to save themselves a hotel night (after they were already planning to schedule the cheapest flights they could find), and I can only imagine those people have never traveled cross-country much.
When I fly international, it's more like 10-12 hours. Even assuming I had dinner before I boarded, sleep, and then wake up, I'm going to need some breakfast and a decent cup of coffee.
Then you have an even better incentive to fast, since it has been shown to reduce or eliminate jet lag [0].
I use this protocol on long flights and find it works well, getting me back in action within a day, even after traversing 8 time zones
It's not the airlines job to incentivize what some guy on the internet considers healthy habits. I want breakfast after sleeping through the night. Just a bit of fruit, some cottage cheese or yogurt, and some black coffee. Maybe throw out the dairy and give me an egg.
I already pay for that as part of the ticket price. I do not want them unbundled in a way that makes my very necessary breakfast more expensive.
Other people could say "Its not the airlens job to incentivize eating breakfast when so many people don't any more". I'm perfectly happy unbundling wasteful unnecessary gimmicks (from my point of view). And guess what? I win this one!
> All information should be free, really? Like your root password?
A password isn't information, especially in this context, it's data. How the login or encryption system works is information. Of all the misconceptions about hackers this is one of the weirdest to criticize. From the introduction of computers until the mass adaptation of the Internet, access to information was the largest issue in hacker culture. From BBSes to hacking groups and computer clubs, it was all about access.
> Basically a hacker is someone who enjoys hacking for its own sake
Not only isn't that what your quote says, it's essentially just the definition of an enthusiast. Hackers are, even in the most watered down definitions, something different. Doing something for fun is part of hacker culture, but it's not the purpose of it. It's things like curiosity, exploration, exchange of ideas etc.
> Whether you like it or not, most discoveries will be made by those who enjoy discovery, not as part of some moral crusade.
Rarely. Discoveries (at least "common" ones) tend to be made by people who see a future other people don't. One could argue that people like Elon Musk is very much on a moral crusade and that his motivations are utopic.
I don't really care who calls themselves or things "hacker" these days. But if you don't recognize that hacker culture, or the future of technology in general, is something more you're missing out.
Information and data are entirely about the intent of them. The same number can mean a movie file or a math equation in different interpretations, yet still have the same physical representation.
The difference between passwords, DRM, and proprietary software is then intent. They all serve the same function - secrecy - but for different purposes. The secret password is meant to provide security to the holder in regards to the information they hold. Proprietary software and DRM are meant to provide secrecy to the rights holder in regards to software other people hold.
While I'm not sure they are tackling it the right way (haven't really looked in to it), that manufacturers in the west can't competitively run prototyping or other small production runs is a real problem. Unpredictable quotes, lead times, high MOQs, tooling costs in the west or the language barrier and shipping cost/time in asia doesn't provide any value in itself.
The problems in the West are far more complex than simply making better CAM software.
Our supply chain is long and expensive. Start there. And by this I mean everything, from raw materials, components and sub-assemblies to tooling, equipment and consumables. The length and complexity of our supply pipe can easily double or triple a manufacturer's costs and impose very high inventory costs.
Our regulations are crippling. For example, try to get a steel weldment porcelain enamel coated. In China, no problem. In the US. Nearly impossible and definitely not even in the realm of being competitive.
Our unions have done of good job of helping kill-off industries. Union leaders (not union members, leaders) succeeded at pressing companies so hard without regards for long term viability that they eventually forced some of them out of business or out of the country.
Taxes are ridiculous. One way to look at it is how much of the year is devoted to, effectively, working for the government. In other words, in order to earn the tax money paid to the government you have to work.
Well, at a 39% corporate tax rate the entire company is working for the federal government for approximately the first 4.7 months of the year. After that they get to keep their profits.
In Ireland, with a rate of 12.5%, the people in a company work for the government for 1.5 months and the rest of the year they get to keep their profits.
So, taxes in the US means you are working 5 months to pay them vs. less than 2 in Ireland. That is horrific.
Liability and tort reform is a huge deal. As a manufacturer you are incredibly exposed to being sued out of existence (or out of being able to compete due to financially crippling lawsuits).
Labor force education and availability is becoming a greater issue every year. Skills development has stagnated over the years. We don't have a modern tech savvy workforce. Schools don't teach any of that stuff any more. As a software guy the "hour of code" is great but as a hardware guy I think the "hour of drilling a hole and cutting wood" is equally important.
So, again, there is so much more to making a product beyond rapid prototyping that at some point you have to wonder if people understand that there are far more pressing areas to be optimized, areas with far more significant impact on the bigger picture.
