I'm not sure in this case, that's true. But whether or not this was illegal I generally support skirting laws if it makes everyone else more secure. To that end, I also support Snowden.
This isn't all that complicated, as far as I can tell.
Guy discloses a vulnerability. He knows it potentially has wide reaching security concerns, and downloads enough data to prove that if necessary.
Guy gets shortchanged on the bounty, indicating that either a) facebook is trying to shortchange him, or b) facebook doesn't realize how big of a vulnerability this truly is
Everything about Facebook's response indicates b): they didn't realize how big a vulnerability this truly was. Otherwise, the data he downloaded would have been useless by the time he used it.
You can argue that the guy "went rogue" by hostaging information, but fact is he deserved to be paid more and he was able to prove it. Now facebook looks bad.
This is interesting only because Mark didn't address it head on from the start, but honestly it's not all that surprising.
Private foundations have something called "expenditure responsibility" which makes giving funds to a taxable entity (a grant) tremendously annoying. Any misstep makes you liable to some massive surcharges, public scrutiny, and potentially major headaches. It's the antithesis to Mark's "move fast and break things"
There's some argument he should push for a public charity instead. There, expenditure responsibility isn't expressly required, but you're still expected to see that the money you grant is used for our charitable purpose, and still subject to audit.
I'm expecting them to write quite the essay in response. On it's face, I don't think people should fault this decision. I'm fully expecting a strong effort to use this money efficiently, which is no easy task with such a massive sum. Check out GiveWells recent post about trying to "give away" Dustin Moskiwitz and Cari Tuna's money - which I believe is an order of magnitude less in volume, but still very challenging.
"To say that more of their ideas will help to solve the very issue they created..."
I don't see how I did that.
I do appreciate your perspective that I spun a cultural issue to support my political agenda. I'd argue that I'm actually doing the opposite, but I agree I did nothing to make that clear
In all honesty, I've long thought that parental influence on college students' decisions - whether it be the choice of college itself or the concept of "helicopter parenting" within college - has the single greatest negative influence on top universities. Without a consistent "expected contribution" across colleges, cost is a dominant factor in the decision process, and we end up with students that don't necessarily want to be studying where they are. I loved my school, and while I felt bad for the kids who complained about being there because they had no choice, I often just wish they'd leave and stop dampening the culture. At top universities, it's similar to someone in YC constantly complaining that they have to try this pesky startup thing.
I also disagree that the effects have existed forever. I think it came with the cultural shift of helicopter parenting, and parents generally making more decisions for their children.
Ultimately though, I support the Bernie Sanders bill because I think it's an interesting way to try and resolve the negative impacts of the cultural shift. It's a bit like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail, but I'm not one to complain about free college (and I do think free public tuition will extend to the private sector, especially quickly at the top university level)
Universities love to complain about needing to react to what parents are saying, but this seems like something they bring on themselves. With such expensive tuition, a student's choice of college often cannot be made independently, and parents feel like they are buying their right to hassle higher educators. I would love to see a world where students truly decide on their own university and the ability for parents to affect the day-to-day of a university is drastically reduced. To me, this is the most interesting aspect of the push for free college.
Like many here, I'm confused with how people could be upset with GMOs but not random mutation. Either could result in the same vegetables.
It turns out - when talking to strongly GMO-opposed persons - it's usually not the genetic modification they're worried about. Instead, it's that a crop has been showered in roundup before we eat it. Saying "anti-GMO" has become a simpler way of saying that you're anti-roundup-sprayed-crops.
Even though I disagree with this redefinition, I've found it to be common among anti-GMO parties. I also consider their real argument much more respectable than actually being opposed to arbitrary genetic mutations.
The business community has figured out a lot of things great for business. Non-Discrimination is on the list, but so is wage-fixing (on one hand) and providing alcohol to minors (on the other).
Leveraging Apple's weight here just seems inappropriately selective to me.
The other day I noticed that they're inlining image data in the src attribute instead of pointing at an external URL. Really taking things to the next level all-around - I wonder when that will become the norm instead of css image sprites.
Wiki suggests measles has 1 in 100000 mortality rate. It's really not a terrible prognosis, especially in the first world where the vast majority are not immunocompromised. More serious than a common cold, but I personally can't blame people for accepting that risk and using vaccine injuries as justification. I haven't found a way to present a convincing argument against them. Can you?
The best I have is that they're helping society. But putting kids at risk for the safety of others is not something many families are tempted to do. Think about the FDA recommendation against fish for pregnant woman. So many people took it too seriously that the FDA now has a minimum recommendation for fish.
What's really interesting is that several of these families, in addition to avoiding the vaccine, take any step possible to bolster their immune systems, thus trying to further reduce the chance of fatal prognosis. It's a totally non-western approach to medicine, and probably a Steve Jobs-level poor decision, but these people are fully conscious of the decision they're making, and are arguably acting rational given that decision.
So you're right, people are acting stupid. But I can't get too mad about it because it's predictable. We need to find a solution instead of just calling them stupid.
Yes I'm old enough. I don't think that really matters for this argument.
I agree, and you can certainly base a pro-vax argument off of this opinion.
What frustrates me is that the vast majority of anti-vax critics are uninformed. Most insist that vaccine injuries do not exist. Several are unaware that immunocompromised or allergic patients cannot be given the vaccine. Emotionally charged arguments from these people ("your kids are putting my kids at risk!") are what I consider the least productive. That argument will never convince an anti-vaxer, who is usually only concerned about their families direct risk of vaccine injury. It's just two people with different viewpoints on how best to keep their families safe. And listening to the arguments feels a lot like listening to politicians.
Also I think it will happen, and I think this outbreak will end up putting pressure on science to make it happen. The bio people I've talked with think the answer is in individual gene therapy.
Wondering if this is disagreeable or just unpopular. I've been talking to people on both sides, working to hone my stance since the measles outbreak. It's unfortunate but I think this is where we stand.
Although some may be "turning" defensive against measles, there is a fairly large percentage that are aware of the risk of measles and simply consider the risk of vaccines higher.
Measles doesn't scare these people, for the most part, as they're confident they can fight the disease off.
The way vaccines are going, we can find a common cold vaccine, and any "outbreak" of the common cold will result in the same hysteria. The survival rate for measles is actually quite high. Schools are responding appropriately. People who know they're at risk are responding appropriately. This isn't going to turn into mass deaths.
I support the unpopular opinion that the growth of anti-vaxers is primarily caused by improvements in technology and a failure of modern medicine.
YouTube is filled with examples of "vaccine injuries" - ASPCA-style image slide shows of kids before and after receiving a vaccine. The effects are scary, and not proven uncorrelated to the vaccine itself. Antivax communities are more comfortable exposing their families to risk of measles than risk of the vaccine injury, despite the risk being much, much lower. This is irrational, but also understandable human behavior, since the prognosis is perceived to be worse in a vaccine injury case than in a measles case.
The recordkeeping of vaccine injuries are also horrible, so trying to make any rational, numbers-based argument is impossible.
Ultimately, the spread of vax-injury videos is no different than the spread of the Eric Garner video on facebook. That's something we never would have heard about 10 years ago, and would never have caused such a national uproar. People are acting irrationally despite the very low chance of being affected.
Bottom line - if you want to stop anti-vaxers, you need better prevention (pretty much elimination) of vaccine injuries. The anecdotal evidence against vaccines can't be on Youtube or people will continue to avoid them. Science is working on it, but we're not there yet. For now, I think we need to be realistic that measles and other "eradicated" diseases will have a growth in occurrences. Chances are we'll see very few deaths or long-term effects, though.