Come on, you knew facebook was evil. Most people know facebook is evil. We choose to ignore it because otherwise we would feel obligated to change. Change would come at the expense of "likes" and other modes of social validation.
People are realizing that social validation is becoming less validated by social media. (Lets remove the likes on IG!!). The people coming around now are sheep looking for the next wave of validation.
In 2017, global IP traffic was 1.5 ZB per year, or 1.5 billion terabytes. So assuming you were using 10TB drives you'd need 150 million hard drives per year, or about 37% of global production.
You can dump any traffic that originates from a bulk traffic provider like Netflix, Youtube, Prime, Xbox Live Download, etc - it would be sufficient to collect metadata if you were interested in this at all. This source suggests that content makes up about 33% of global IP traffic, with unspecified media providers (probably porn) making up another 15% or so, so on the whole you can probably round that up to between 40 and 50%.
From there the numbers get a little squishy depending on your estimates of various categories of traffic and how conservative you want to be about discarding content.
In theory you can discard anything that you can collect from another source - i.e. stuff like gmail, you can get from google directly, no need to capture that. If you are not interested in retaining un-encrypted content, you could dump a bunch more. Only about 50% of traffic is encrypted, although that is probably weighted towards non-bulk content being the encrypted stuff.
If you can dump, let's say 75% of all non-bulk content then you'd be looking at retaining about 12.5% of total IP traffic, 187.5 million terabytes per year, which would require 18.75 million drives per year, or about 4.69% of global production.
You could, of course, blow it all down to tape filed according to cipher, and then read it back in when you have broken it. No need to keep everything online forever when it's not broken yet. LTO-8 tapes are 12 TB each (encrypted data will not compress), so the numbers work out similarly to 10 TB drives. LTO tape production is a lot smaller though, about 20 million tapes per year, so there is not enough tape sold to do that, unless you are doing a private factory to produce your own tapes. But at that scale, it would probably be more affordable than drives.
Some people speculate that Amazon Glacier is actually a library of BDXL discs and that they are purchasing big batches from factories. That's about 125 GB per disc, but in bulk they are probably also cheaper than drives as well.
FWIW Snowden's docs suggested that they were only retaining data for a month (iirc) and then dumping it, but it's possible they could be selectively retaining encrypted data for longer. Presumably the Utah datacenter was built for a reason. I would assume that at this point they have "high-risk" selectors that automatically get pulled out but that they are probably not collecting everything everything and keeping it forever.
Also, a footnote here is that this would be a logistically significant operation, you would either need your own parallel data links with a significant fraction of the capacity of the primary backbone (far beyond what SIPRNET/NIPRNET likely can support), or you would need to be moving shipping containers of drives/tapes back to Utah like Amazon Snowmobile. You'd also need people regularly going into those tap rooms to change out the drives and so on. It would be high maintenance to attempt this.
I suspect that even if they don't retain content long term, they would probably retain metadata. What sites you visited and who you talked to is very revealing, especially on a timeline measured in decades.
Isn't that what we did in Iraq, blindly listen to the IC? Ha, that was an A++ operation. All those lives lost - for absolutely nothing. I mean sure there was "Iraqi democracy" but where did the WMD's go? The solution being proposed is to literally kill the messenger. It's a two-party induced cognitive dissonance where you would rather be lied to than have your political affiliation be embarrassed.
I'm guessing this is more because of google analytics being absolutely everywhere. If G knows your social graph and that your peers looked up movie X on website Y - that's enough to tweak your feed. Pure speculation.
> I don't think anyone is vouching for "big brother" type government control here, but governments always have a principal role in civil rights, inclusion and the moral development of a nation.
Lol, what does this even mean? You want a Theocracy with Zuck writing the scripture? Are your views tainted in any way by Facebook Incorporated?
The government and their role in defining "harmful" has been defined already. It's called the First Amendment. Might want to check it out.
I'm confused what this offers over USDC. Banks can already issue USD backed tokens with this model. USDC is already being traded on several exchanges. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious.
It comes down to who is doing the coin creation and redemption. In the case of USDC, Coinbase is handling it. In the case of JPMC, JPMorgan would handle it.
The general public's trust in JPMorgan is probably higher than their trust in any crypto company that has yet to exist for an entire decade.
JPMorgan - and other banks - have a huge incentive to run their own "stablecoin" creation/redemption business, because it can in some ways allow them to skirt their reserve requirements, while also possibly netting them a tiny operating profit if they sell newly-minted JPMC above the price they redeem them for (leading to profit on the spread).
It's handled by CENTRE who's founding members are Circle and Coinbase.. but the network will grow to include any compliant banking institution.
> because it can in some ways allow them to skirt their reserve requirements
It can do what now??
> and other banks - have a huge incentive to run their own "stablecoin"
Every bank can release their own version of Paypal too. Why would the network effect of JPMC overtake USDC when any regulated bank can become a USDC issuer? USDC is sitting at a 255MM market cap.
I don't take it that way. In terms of "broadening your horizons" it's easy to travel and not connect with the local culture. You're just a tourist, window shopping into the lives of the local people. Strolling through with your selfie stick to earn social credibility on the Gram.
That said, I think people who enjoy Rick Steves would also be the type to make an effort to get the authentic experience. Could be my own projection.
The examples the tweeter gave like 'reading' as just really poor substitutes for travel, especially if you're a white, English-speaking, west-coast person like the tweeter.
Reading the opinion column of the New York Times will probably close their minds further than open it up.
Hanging out with other people who are wealthy/liberal enough to make it to and live in San Francisco will also do the same. Amplify the echo chamber rather than break it down.
I grew up in India and the Middle East in a very different sociocultural background with different values than the west coast, liberal, tech-elite culture I live in now and I find many of the people around me now have a much narrower world-view despite their education and 'reading'.
The tweet began with a premise. If the premise for travel is “broadening your horizons” then the assertion is that there are far cheaper, more accessible ways to do that than hopping on a transatlantic jet and spending a week in a foreign place. There is a real conversation to be had about the impact of tourism on local ways of life and local economies (both in good ways and bad).
If the premise for travel is “because I want to”, then by all means go ahead...
It’d be helpful if people thought a bit more about what other people are saying and were more charitable about interpretations instead of finding the first reason to get mad.
What if I want to broaden my horizons by visiting the ancient ruins of Rome, Persia, etc? Or going to observe Mountain Gorilla in Biwindi?
> It’d be helpful if people thought a bit more about what other people are saying and were more charitable about interpretations instead of finding the first reason to get mad.
I'm not mad - I just think it was a stupid, self-back-patting point.
1. She stated it was her opinion. She’s not forcing you to do or think anything.
2. Her assertion was that she thinks it’s overrated, costly, and inefficient. You did nothing to address those points.
If you think travel can be cheaper at achieving the premise, is not overrated at achieving the premise, or that it’s a more efficient ways of achieving the premise of “broadening horizons” than alternatives then that’s a relevant conversation. If you can effectively make those points then we’d have a real conversation on our hands.
Saying it’s “stupid, self-back-patting” is not productive and misses the point entirely.
1. Yes. And I'm allowed to have opinions on other people's opinions.
2. Yes, and that is what I take issue with, and yes, I did address the point. She says that it is 'overrated, super-inefficient way to "broaden your horizons"', and I said that there is more than one way to broaden your horizons than to talk to people who live far away from you, such as going to historical locations or natural settings.
Then pack your selfie stick and have yourself a time! I'm not saying there's a right way to travel. The tweet suggested there's more economical ways of "expanding your horizons" than being a chronic tourist. Given the cultural diversity in my own backyard I think the statement is more empowering than gatekeeping.
> So, you're basically only mitigating risk if you can't find a job.
Which is.. everyone starting a bootcamp!! Lol.
Who are you looking out for? You seem really concerned about the biblical application of usury laws. Do you know anyone who has zero technical skill and would LOVE to make 40k? I have a feeling you live in a very, very small bubble.
Just because you think someone is so poor they should be grateful for a 3x loan doesn't make it legal or right. That's the definition of loansharking. It's been a pervasive problem that increases economic inequality because only the poorest would accept a loan with those steep terms. Just because it's related to something positive like teaching people to code doesn't make the 3x payback and less burdensome.
I'm not so worried about this company in particular, but if this business model works, imagine desparate people signing up for a $100k loan and having to pay back $300k, or getting $300k for a house and having to pay back $900k.
It's the payback rate that's the problem.
I also don't think it's a bad thing to be concerned about other people in our community.
The difference here is that the incentives of workers and this company are aligned. Either workers start making some serious wages and the company gets their money back (with interest), or both lose - worker their time, company their investment. Given the risk I don't think this is even close to usury. In fact, I would assume they are getting paid by the companies too, for privilege of getting the suitable candidates (which is not a problem in my eyes, if true).
Edit: and if they ever move their operations to EU I know a few people who would probably grab such a chance with both hands.
i know a ton of people who would, as far as im aware the US is significantly cheaper than the UK in pretty much all areas, that $34k translates to about £25k which is not a bad basic wage. i imagine a lot of the people stacking shelves or cleaning toilets for minimum wage would much rather be coding for more money.
At least you understand your mental limitations. But this is also a form of false charity, where you make decisions on behalf of others in order to signal virtue. This is a business model that should be supported - because those of us with basic economic literacy know that competition will reduce corporate profits to market rate.
College is a misplaced job training program that is a self perpetuating status symbol. The poor NEED this model to be disrupted.
Yeah, not a fan of college either, but I'm also against marketing high repayment loans to the poor.
Students already struggle with 5-7% student loans. Sure, this is less total money, but just bring the repayment down to something reasonable like $30k over 10 years to offer a rate that doesn't exceed maximum interest rate laws.
> I've only met rich white people who are versed in Marxism
Wow. I'm old enough to know that when someone tries to attack you personally, it's because of something deeper in their life and not about the subject matter anymore.
Sounds like you're really upset that someone wouldn't agree with you on this topic. If you're open to staying on the subject matter, are you OK with any limit? A $50k payback? A $100k payback?
A long time ago the US decided to put a maximum rate on loans. I guess I don't understand if you think maximum interest rates are Marxist or something else, because I'm only talking about the interest rate part of this equation.
Sorry I did get annoyed. I've had similar ideas for this model and ultimately feel like it would be dismissed out of a sense of moral justice. Would I be okay with a 100K payback? In theory sure, thats the model for elite universities and no one seems to be concerned for their wellbeing. The determining metric would be ROI. The proposed model limits risk and incentivizes instructors to produce the most valuable curriculum. As more companies compete in the space, unskilled workers win because they now have a bridge to become skilled. Not only that, they're receiving cash while doing so!
I want to see this model taken to the extreme. Offer luxury living to students while they learn, and offer work from home positions upon graduation. Have developers compete to create modern campuses that compete for unskilled labor. They would only do this knowing there's profits to be shared by developing the unskilled to the skilled.
It's funny how clearly people are addicted to outrage, yet also in complete denial about it. They don't see it as outrage, instead it's measured, proportional, and reactionary response to the opposition. It's the opposition that's addicted to outrage, not my team.
Unfortunately I think we've forged a new road to politics, we can call it "outrage marketing". The more the opposition is outraged, the more publicity you get - the more extreme candidates from both sides bubble up in popularity.
People are realizing that social validation is becoming less validated by social media. (Lets remove the likes on IG!!). The people coming around now are sheep looking for the next wave of validation.