I think you're imagining the ID thief going to the bank and withdrawing your money from your bank account (which probably happens too). I also think your analogy of a "friend" isn't right... you are the bank's PAYING customer... you pay them to secure your money and only give it to you! If they fail to provide the service they're offering to you... seems like they ought to be responsible for their failure.
But another, more common scenario here is that I convince the bank that I'm you and get a credit card or loan from the bank. Now the bank is knocking on YOUR door asking you to pay them back for the cash they handed to some random person... but they're the ones who messed up by giving cash to a random person and not verifying that they are who they say they are!
You aren't really involved... the bank messed up by going "Oh you say you're Bob? Okay here you go!" Why is it your fault that they failed to accurately verify the identity of the person they gave THEIR money to? You didn't play any role in them deciding who to give their money, nor in their ID verification procedures.
To just straightforwardly answer your question: Move or stay wherever you want, and wherever you are, be a good community member by supporting initiatives that will help the area remain affordable to everyone.
I've been a "gentrifier" in several places and never had any issues; its as simple as being thoughtful about your role in the community and respecting your new neighbors
if you clicked on the article and read even the sub-title you'd realize that your comment is ridiculous. The full title is "The Real Villain in the Gentrification Story: It’s not young, upwardly mobile college grads."
The article is about how we need to build more housing immediately, which would make everyone's CoL lower, everyone's lives better, and would also go a longgg way to resolving the exact tensions you describe.
The point about NIMBYs is that the key factor preventing us from building more housing is local opposition from people who are primarily concerned about protecting the value of their house so they can resell it later.
This is awesome! It seems like you've paid close attention to security and privacy, but I would love a clearer, stronger guarantee. "We truly cannot access your data, will never access your data, and will never, ever sell your data." That would go far here.
Sorry if I’m missing something, but… what’s the problem with that quote? That’s a widely-used heuristic that helps to estimate doubling times without using a calculator (see [the Wikipedia entry](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72).
He does walk the reader through a lot of “back of the napkin” math, in order to help the reader get an intuitive sense of the models he’s using. But my impression overall is that he backs those hand-wavey calculations up with more serious calculations throughout the book.
It would be more honest to say that "this is no longer true." For the majority of Gmail's existence, Gmail did use your actual email content for advertising.
And Google still processes the content of your emails, no? Are all of those smart features like identifying flight bookings done completely client-side (hint: they're not)?
> Although Google stopped scanning email content to tailor ads in 2017, last year the company started showing shopping ads in Gmail. And it still scans emails to facilitate so-called smart features such as the ability to add holiday bookings or deliveries straight to your calendar, or to autocomplete suggestions.
> Every way you interact with your Gmail account can be monitored, such as the dates and times you email at, who you are talking to, and topics you choose to email about, says Rowenna Fielding, founder of privacy consultancy Miss IG Geek.
There is a very big difference here. In your example, you've clearly entered into someone else's property; in the case of reading the info sent to your computer... I am reading a thing you sent me!
A more accurate version of your analogy is if I asked to hold a police officer's tazer and he handed me his gun by accident... or even if I asked to see his gun and he handed it to me thinking it was empty, but it was in fact loaded.
Point being, the website essentially put that information on my computer! I am asking for something from them, but what they give me is 100% their business! They don't have to obey my request but they do have to not-send-private-data-to-random-people-who-ask-for-it
I'm not a logseq user but have toyed around with it and am really hoping it gets to a rock-solid state soon. Development has been moving super fast but I'm not quiteeee ready to trust it with all my notes. I'll probably switch once they release a beta (as it's currently alpha software).
Google Meet is unusable on Firefox... about 1/3 of the time, 30-50min into a meeting, my whole computer starts to freeze up. Using Chrome fixes it. So now I have Chrome on my computer and use it exclusively for Google Meet (I have to use Google Meet for work).
This happens even with all my browser extensions turned off.
I love QBserve! It's been really useful for me (if somewhat terrifying to see the amount of time I spend on social media haha). And it's the only product I've found that is both completely functional (a lot of OSS in this space is missing major functionality) and that I trust to not be sending my highly detailed, highly-personal data to... some random server.
Something this article doesn't mention is that FB's glasses, because they look extremely-similar to normal glasses, will face less opposition simply because many regular people won't realize that they're being surreptitiously recorded by a mega-corporation with a track record of serious privacy violations.
There's something even creepier about this. "Oh wow those video glasses that were clearly-identifiable as video glasses were met with violent opposition... well I guess let's disguise our version as regular glasses! Problem solved :)"
I agree, especially about the poor communications from leaders part... the overwhelming official message (as I have experienced it) has been "vaccines will save us". There was never any serious attempt to add ventilation to schools and public places, nor to set reasonable expectations about how much a vax can do when it isnt distributed to the whole world (aka there is still a ton of circulating virus & new variants forming all the time).
I have found this immensely frustrating. And now people who have been trusting those official sources are finding themselves surprised, confused, and, yes, scared.