I gave you examples. :) Europeans who wish to wear a hijab may be abused based on where they are; that simple! It is not illegal to cover your face in public in America, and even if it were, the Hijab covers hair; the burkha might cover a face. This article is not what I would be worried about—rather, the anarchist handbook, for instance, or an explanation of encryption, or how to fool facial recognition in public.
Nonetheless, you are extraordinarily correct about citizens united, though I would more finger the blame there on corporate personhood, not free speech. The protections still make sense for individual; corporations do not make sense of individuals.
First of all, I have literally never heard a critique about the negatives of american free speech. Could you help me understand the negatives?
Second, I do think americans are majorly better off than western europeans for free speech. Consider efforts to ban wearing clothing: that is not how you build a healthy, supportive, productive society, though it is perhaps how you let a culture stagnate. Or, perhaps consider this very article: it is not illegal to read something. (Possesion and distribution are another thing entirely.)
Finally, for better or worse, american free speech has plenty of bounds. Critically, those bounds are typically nowhere near politics or morals, except perhaps reflected in hate speech.
Except if they invest a whole $0 in a letsencrypt cert or any service with one.... or have they persuaded the services to allow them to MITM their own citizens?
My issue is not that they had the vulnerability, but that the vulberability allowed full access to social security numbers and it wasn’t even the “critical” database!
You can take proactive efforts to minimize the risk of breaches; they appeared to store large amounts of unencrypted (or encrypted in aggregate) personally identifiably information together and allowed a single struts vulnerability unfettered access.
For instance, one could not duplicate social security numbers, or could allow you to encrypt your data so you need to provide a key for others to access it. The possibilities are endless.
Frankly you shouldn’t ever look at porn on a work machine, no matter how much they encourage you to think of it as your personal machine. It is only a liability.
Yes, you can. The cookie settings are per-container (and there’s a surprising amount of customization per domain, though I wish it had decent wildcard support, it turns out to not be much of an issue).
Yea, it definitely continues to be an annoyance. I have some great bluetooth headphones, but if I forget them I can’t exactly pick up a cheap pair. The adapter works well but it’s easy to lose, especially if you want to use it in a car and also have to remember the lightning splitter so you can charge your phone at the same time.
That said, totally worth the improvements in water resistance. I use it in the shower all the time.
> I'm sure you could get by working part time for 15 hours a week if you gave up all of your modern conveniences and lived outdoors in a tent, but it wouldn't be very enjoyable.
It’s interesting you’d say that. I agree on average, but the enjoyment in that lifestyle would be hard to imagine in ours. I don’t think it’s hard to see our perception of pleasurable things is different from frequency.
Frankly I think there are only small, incremental improvements to happiness possible after modern healthcare and plumbing. Which are, granted, still extremely expensive where I live.
Well, I think the obvious way to solve this is simply to make it obvious the translation is occuring with a third party (who may do anything with the data). I think this is still fantastic technology even if it is limited to public conversations.
I have committed myself twice, once for being suicidal and once for life-ruining anxiety. It did not help in the way I expected. You are essentially not allowed to express confidence in your own health because your caretakers will assume you’re overeager and take it as evidence you need more time in the hospital. Don’t get it twisted, though, your stay length is entirely determined by convincing health insurance companies that any time there will reduce recidivism.
The smart people “play” healthy, not admitting ongoing doubts and concerns. Why? Because you go to the hospital to make rapid medication changes. The therapy offered is often insufficient, both in terms of one-one-one therapy and simply what you can cover during your stay. Overstaying is enough to make anyone clinically depressed. It can also cost a lot; while it is illegal to fire for mental health leaves, it is not uncommon to get let go for “unrelated reasons”, to prevent paying for future stays, or simply because they’re uncomfortable supporting their employees to this extent.
Mental health hospitals are aimed at maximizing the number of beds in use, ensuring everyone is at least as medicated as the doctor thinks they can handle, and pumping insurance companies for money. If you are considering one, use it to prevent crises, not to expect any kind of therapy suited for long-term help. The simply do not have the available attention, funding, or even reliable pharmaceutical research to make a dent in the latter.
To be honest, I have high hopes for psychedelics to make fruitful, therapeutic use in a short stay. As it is I’ve lost faith in the pharmaceutical industry to demonstrate the pills they make are effective, let alone not harmful to the general population. 3/5ths of the mental health prescriptions I’ve been given have been pulled from the market, linked to high suicide rates, or linked to other serious medical issues (no shit, Risperdal made me lactate as a male.)
...and of course, the absolute worst part is seeing people you know will never function in society, many rimes without family. I suppose better the asylum than the street, but we will likely always need long-term mental health care in publicly funded facilities.
Nonetheless, you are extraordinarily correct about citizens united, though I would more finger the blame there on corporate personhood, not free speech. The protections still make sense for individual; corporations do not make sense of individuals.