NASA used that image, but the first words under it were "this is an artist's impression of..." which is the right way to label things if you don't want people mistaking an illustration for real data.
He's on the ballot next month. So of course he is.
Not a fan of mass surveillance, but my gut says this is the wrong person to fight this fight. His motives are questionable, and it shows in specifically targeting private business and not working to "ensure the privacy and security of all Texans" from government and law enforcement.
Also because people like Paxton aren't really doing their jobs.
He targeted Google, when Amazon, Facebook, etc. are doing the same. Also, less known companies like Palantir, roam free, just because they don't have the political baggage like Google do.
Worst of all, Paxton doesn't seem to have any issues with police departments having access to Nest or Ring accounts.
>Which you replied to with a very apathetic and condescending
Well, he did say he felt offended that he wasn't included in the list.
>You should have used this as an opportunity to make your employees believe they made the right choice
Brian is doing that here. Except he is appealing to the employees that aligns with him and his choice of people for exec leadership. You seem to assume that a vast majority of the employee base agrees with the petitioner, and Brian seems to assume that a vast majority agrees with his PoV.
There are a lot of people that agree with the petitioner, but employees aren’t given an open forum to talk about internal problems. If you talk about things that are wrong too much with your manager, you get marked down for not being positive. There’s no “free speech” internally and it is a pretty oppressive environment in that it doesn’t feel safe to express yourself to anyone.
Was Coinbase the company that paid-off employees to leave when it implemented the "no politics at work" policy? I had my suspicions that this would result in chilling /suppression of dissent as "politics".
>I appreciate that the author clearly states that security, (i.e., output can't be reversed back to the input), is a non-requirement.