Is it really true that there is no censorship at the dns level? The creeps at the daily stormer seem to have been run off the internet, it seems sort of like the reason dns has been 'safe' in the past is that people didn't lobby the dns providers.
I'm not claiming there is zero censorship at the DNS level. I'm saying a marginal group (whether ISIS or Piratebay or Wikileaks) needs to find a TLD (top level domain) willing to hold them. (That's what The Daily Stormer did -- they tried Albania tld ".al", then Russia ".ru", and now it looks like they're at tld ".ws" (Samoa))
Creating a new domain at a tld is much more realistic to implement than passing a new law requiring Facebook/HN to pay for and host your objectionable content. For marginal groups, that DNS-level option to spread your ideas exists today without any new laws.
Nutrition science has an ugly history of wrongness and capture by industry. I am also extremely wary of psychology, which puttered along doing bad work for decades before the current replication crisis. We could all have a foodfight about Economics for fifty years.
There is a bunch of foundational stuff in science that is great, but like any human endeavour, there is also plenty of garbage and nonsense.
Probably not, most cities in the US purposefully restrict growth, and most of the affordable ones are only affordable through lack of demand and the slack from white flight, decades ago. Texas is the big exception, they have a ton of cheap land and very few rules.
The interface problem seems like something the compiler team should fix or mitigate. I worry this post is going to cause a lot of premature restrictionism.
I agree, there's area for improvement for the compiler here and hopefully in the future we won't have to worry about those issues. For now those are constraints we have to deal with to make our software more efficient unfortunately.
"Using modern machines/VMs, C64 demoscene devs are able to create content and develop new efficient algos for the old hardware that probably wouldn't have been possible using only the old hardware alone. They can develop algos and art content using sophisticated tools and backport to the old hardware."
Is just as true today as is this:
"Using invasive data mining, insurance companies are able to make more accurate inferences about their high-risk groups that probably wouldn't have been possible using only the data they are legally allowed to use to set rates. They can use sophisticated tools offered from data brokers to make inferences and then backport them into policy changes that meet the current guidelines/regulations for the industry."
In either case I don't know enough to explain what "backporting" entails. But there's just no way insurance companies aren't using this kind of invasive data already.
On the one hand I agree with you--sleuthing for information is shady, esp. if it's without consent. But more accurate pricing is a "good thing" for most people, otherwise adverse selection makes everyone worse off.
I'm pretty sure the only reason social media isn't incorporated into credit scoring is that it's too difficult to reliably attach to a given individual without help from Facebook, etc. FB definitely does not want to become a consumer credit reporting agency, so their ability to cooperate without triggering the FCRA is limited.
Hmmm... I'm sure FB and all other social media are afraid of being targeted by regulation in case such data becomes so highly predictive and used by rating agencies which can causes actual financial harm to a person (i.e. by increasing their interest rates for a mortgage). I wonder if that's why they have been so aggressive about self-censoring and such.
I used to think similarly, these days I tend to be in fear is feeding the system, with a good deal of 'government do not scare me'... Western Europe ones that is.heh
That will also be part of your Citizen Score, or it will impact your life like having a bad Citizen Score. Kind of like how you can't get a loan because you haven't had a loan before and you don't have a credit rating.
It certainly will be as long as people sit around moaning about what is going to be imposed on them rather than asserting any opinions about how society should work.
Or you can pay us for some licenses of 'i-normal' the new program that will post in your name carefully boring and mainstream messages in social media!. Your kids need it if they want to work!
Red flag of what, though? Eg, I stay away from social media, and create burners for just about everything (rotating burners semi frequently depending on how many random details I post, etc) - so what am I an indicator of? I try to be a Ghost.
I'm sure a ghost is an indicator for some things, but the majority of it is just speculation right? I have trouble thinking of how a lack of information about someone could be harmful as a source of information.
Now, I could see it becoming harmful in that I have to have some type of Citizen Score to apply for jobs, be accepted for loans, get insurance, etc etc. That's quite reasonable, imo. Yet, it's still seems different than being a source of information, e.g. this person is unstable, or this person is depressed, etc.
If your employer/government/etc asks you for your facebook/google+/instagram/snapchat/etc account and you say you don't have any, it might come off as being suspicious. As if you are trying to hide something. The same thing with your banks/financial institutes/etc.
