Forgive my ignorance, but who is doing the blocking? Is it American sites willingly censoring for legal reasons, or is the Cuban government blocking them for the country's own ISP?
For as much as AMD shows promise in their graphics line, if one thing is clear it is that the Bulldozer architecture has been a humiliating failure on the CPU side: extremely high TDPs and terrible performance vs. equivalent Intel *y Bridge/Haswell cores. It's been universally panned for most workloads since its release date made worse by AMD's marketing efforts leading up to its launch.
I wonder what has happened to the Bulldozer design team at AMD at this point and whether or not they even still work there at all.
Nope. Unless it's something I need to keep around (taxes, insurance, usual "business of life" things,) I don't keep any of my email, messages, etc. for more than a few months at best. Nostalgia can prove to be an enemy of progress, and not having a lot of things to look back on keeps me focused on the future.
If this is going to become a pattern, it probably makes more sense to allow the browser chrome to be manipulated in a way so progress bars aren't redundant (i.e. 'pjax' style loading uses the same bar as if you did a real page load, just like pushState allows for history manipulation.)
It would be cooler to see some guys get together and make a de facto standard, and then implement this type of control into extensions for FF/Chrome.
> Maybe there are better ways of monetising than forcing multiple pages of ads down your users throats? :)
Kill the CPM model and your wish will come true. Unfortunately, advertisers often first ask "Well how many pageviews does your <site/app/whatever> have?" Most advertising metrics are still stuck 10 years behind where we are and where we're going.
> Intrusion prevention via fail2ban and rootkit detection via rkhunter.
Semantics, semantics, but rkhunter is intrusion detection, not prevention. I don't know what rkhunter would do to stop an intrusion, and fail2ban stopping a brute-force on your SSH login is hardly the likely intrusion vector for a server running this many services.
These tools still require a huge amount of systems administration work before it really counts as a "personal cloud". rkhunter looks for some basic rootkits but will not really protect you from emerging threats, other than to tell you you have a file integrity mismatch on a common file such as /usr/bin/login.
Since this is installing everything, it seems wise to add better host-based intrusion detection/file integrity checking across all services and configurations, via AIDE[1] or Samhain[2], which you could do with this type of automated setup. Both can then use the local MTA to alert you directly to your mail client if something is compromised, plus you gain the security of your configuration files for these services not having been tampered with.
What about running unattended-upgrades[3] for security patches to things like Apache et al? Given the adversaries expected here, I assume that we aren't worried about false packages, etc. as a risk.
> The cost of healthcare alone makes subsistence living impossible.
No. Subsistence living is entirely possible - there are millions of people doing just that somewhere in backwoods wherever, across a multitude of political systems and states, all over the world.
What you want as "subsistence living" is not its definition. What you're talking about is "how much labor cost it requires to maintain your current lifestyle in this current political system".
You don't see it in Singapore because Singapore is a heavily-controlled state where tons of things are capital offenses and you are subjected to physical violence (caning) for things as minor as vandalism.
Nice opinions, but the primary feeling I get from this is "Designers are closed-minded prima donnas, and the only way to work with them is to talk their language and care about the same things they do."
As far as I am concerned, the primary job of a designer is communicating a message. If anything, designers should probably be given less slack over time for their personality flaws, because their whole job revolves around communication and empathy toward a user.
Why not reflect that same empathy inward toward the company? If your design team is the center of your empathy toward your users, your design team should equally be trying to lead positive communication efforts with engineers and PMs to find a common ground, build a common vocabulary, and understand everyone's stake in the game from the onset in a diplomatic and friendly fashion, especially so as the designer becomes senior. After all, what problem is more abstract than the meta-problem of intergroup communication?
I don't think posts like this help construct meaningful dialogue between departments and only serve to reinforce existing clique-oriented behavior. Interdepartmental/inter-role communication is "us vs. them" only if these types of attitudes are allowed to foster in the corporate culture.
Brilliant advice, but I would (optimistically) assume that Coinbase is doing some or most of these things? Fraud is a pretty well-solved problem for most payment processors.
It's a "user-friendly" feature that sacrifices some of Coinbase's own bottom line (and security) for the sake of those that want convenience over security. I wouldn't be scared unless this is enabled on your account. (In fact, from the usability end, it should require some serious hurdles to be enabled in the first place for that reason, to protect against unauthorized enabling.)
The sacrifice for Coinbase seems to be that the people that would enable this feature are accustomed to calling up Visa/MC, reporting a fraudulent transaction, and getting their money back + an affidavit in the mail, so Coinbase will have to be able to cover a fraudulent bottom line either out of their own finances or a good insurance policy.
"I'd like to know what exactly is entailed in becoming compliant with money transmitting and laundering regulations."
This. Someone with more understanding of financial regulation, please step in and explain what it is the government would actually want from the currency. This sounds scary to some extent but there's no real reason that it needs to be. I assume it is to enforce real-world identities at the USD/BTC exchange point.
According to Facebook[1], they exist to "give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected."
I think it is arguable that Facebook has improved the human condition based upon anecdotal evidence of it mostly being positively regarded in our culture for exactly the mission statement above.
Whether we personally agree or disagree with this, right now, most of the world's population still seems to believe that Facebook is a net positive, and I would argue that even if people turned away from Facebook, it would still be positively regarded with some nostalgia by the majority of its members after its obsolescence.
Perhaps Facebook has strayed from that optimistic (and potentially naïve) goal, but in its infancy it didn't even have advertising, then had shitty banner ads, then had a pretty bad ad product, etc. Now they have a decent ad product. That is not very indicative of some type of pervasive corporate culture that exists to serve advertising.
You think your cognitive dissonance is bad? You're heaps ahead of where the people that "don't care" are. I try to evangelize privacy to friends and family all the time, and 60-80% of the time I am written off or ignored.
Most people don't seem to want to accept the fact that something terrible may ever happen to them, and will gladly drown out the pain of dealing with a potential future threat to prolong happiness in the short-term. How's that for dealing with cognitive dissonance? After all, the easiest way to remove the dissonance is to render the counterargument false without resorting to reason that might shake your emotional foundations.
As for your own cognitive dissonance: I don't believe that you are death, destroyer of worlds, by default just because you have the ability to build technology, no more so than a man with the capacity to develop firearms is by default a murderer. Improve the human condition, engineer systems toward that goal, and just pay more attention to the question of "what would somebody evil possibly use this product for?" and try to mitigate against the evil bits.
If you are terrified of ever having unintentionally built a weapon, then it is best not to be an engineer at all, as nearly every tool can be weaponized in the right environment with some degree of effectiveness by someone that means harm.