This looks great except for something I spied at the end: "Efficient mode" and "Fashion mode", where one looks like Windows and the other looks like macOS. There is obviously a great attention to detail in the trailer. But there might be a great misunderstanding of macOS that they call it "Fashion Mode". Furthermore, I think pursuing two window manager designs/desktops is a poor use of resources. It shows a reluctance to choose a target market as well. I wish them luck and hope they'll make some hard decisions and maintain the support of large tech companies. The ecosystem developing around RISC-V and Linux is exciting.
Invention is the child of necessity, and the global unease is creating necessity for software and hardware not reliant on US/UK technology licensing.
Open source folks should be excited about this side-effect of the unfortunate global tensions and posturing. There shouldn't be anti-Chinese comments here, but positive ones. It can't be that after years of Linux and open source evangelism, folks are dismissing or gate-keeping the movement based on race, language or anything.
Stallman is giving talks at Microsoft, who historically attack open source and bought the world's biggest open source resource (Github). We're told to play nice with them now and they're an ally. And yet there's knee-jerk dismissal of an open source OS because a Chinese company used it on their devices.
Gatekeeping Chinese out of open source is not only the worst possible thing to do for open source, but probably the worst thing for your career. Folks ought to be keeping up with these trends as China grows and spreads it's technology and brands. Resisting these positive changes because of the anti-china-rhetoric-of-the-day is foolish in more ways than one.
Please excuse the rant. To whom it concerns: I'm a caucasian male in North America, with no financial or employment ties to China, so far as I know.
So skimming to awful rant, I see it says Stallman "didn't say the abuse victims were willing" but actually said "the abuser may have thought they were willing". This is awful and Stallman's gross ways have gone on too long.
I have the opposite problem: DO seems to keep my stuff "up" and keeps charging me. I go and shut stuff down, delete droplets, etc, then months later they warn me about my invoices adding up at a rate of $80/mo. At this point I am suspended, but apparently still being charged. So I owe them hundreds of dollars despite repeatedly shutting down and deleting all droplets.
No, all authorities will use this one way or another. Simply contract private companies to analyze the footage, and do it out-of-state, if need be. This isn't a dystopian future problem. The worst part is, you may never have a problem with it. Those making $5 an hour, as they try organize, will be monitored and silenced.
Any attack vector that would otherwise be foiled by a bank is a vulnerability in the case of Bitcoin. It has no consumer protections, like chargebacks or other fraud protections (lost or stolen "cards" or PIN-codes/passwords). There is no automatic or manual review of large transactions built into Bitcoin, which large bank transactions undergo to prevent theft.
Bitcoin has exactly one security measure: that it's mathematically very unlikely that someone will guess or generate the same private key as you (IF you don't use one of the many faulty ways of generating your own key, which are widespread online). From there, the sky is the limit.
You can hack someone's computer or server using whatever vulnerability you wish and steal their private key. You can physically gain access to a computer or simply use violence to demand someone's keys. You can offer a product or service, receive payment, and then simply never deliver the product or a refund. Or someone can seem to pay, you give them a product in return, but the transactions are later unconfirmed after they're long gone.
Some of these things are possible with regular banking, but in nearly all cases funds can be recovered or reimbursed to the account holder.
Bitcoin was not made with these protections in mind whatsoever. And the high-level platforms, even after more than half a decade, have failed to secure themselves or their customers consistently. They are often hacked and resort to going into hiding or creating complex ICOs, IEOs, "haircuts" or other trickery to cover up losses.
What's to stop Zillow from making fake low-ball offers on homes, then making their own offer under a fake name, and thus getting homes at a discount and flipping them for profit? Likewise, they could simply buy homes, leave them vacant, and then sell them once prices are higher. Realtors (tech or otherwise) probably shouldn't be buying and selling homes themselves, but rather facilitating the buying and selling. Otherwise they will exacerbate housing bubbles, which are already past crisis levels in major cities.
Part of what discourages interaction is toxic behaviour by a small group. This drives out most folks, and creates a validation gang that all reinforce their shared toxic behaviour. This has been observed and studied from the earliest days of online forums.
I feel the solution is to aggressively enforce rules against toxic behaviour in order to keep the broader user base from leaving. The users remaining are ones that interact online the same way they would offline; in a more human manner.
The problem is platforms often follow the models of popular platforms before them. Toxic validation gangs, "edge lords" who depend on anonymity, are a measurable target market because previous platforms provide figures on how much engagement they bring in. What I think isn't accounted for is _how much engagement they drive away_, and how much more engagement could be gained by removing them rather than attracting them.
Reading your question, it's slightly unclear whether you want more in-person interaction, or whether you see this as a means to create better digital interaction (or perhaps bridge the gap both ways).
In-person or otherwise, platforms should stop seeing themselves as just turn-key operations--a bunch of code that automates everything. Like a physical venue (hotel, bar, restaurant, etc) has rules and security, a good social network should take on more responsibility for ensuring comfort and safety.
Arranging meetings between online strangers is risky, and those aware of the risks won't show up. People with malicious intentions will. Consider Pokemon Go: they place attractions not in the wilderness but at churches, restaurants or parks. (Even this system is imperfect. I've had unsupervised pre-teens hang around and chat with me as we caught Pokemon in a park. Predators could easily do the same.)
So I guess the short answer is: you should do more than create an app, you should ensure safety. I've seen innumerable meet-up app ideas from new-comer developers, students and entrepreneurs. The successful ones are Meetup.com, "Tweet Ups" and Pokemon Go because they at least ensure public places and groups (rather than one-on-one).
1. Could this work with a remote iMac rather than a VPS?
2. Any idea if running a Webpack dev server type dev tool, or React Native stuff? This stuff runs a command which does builds and then runs a local server. Maybe ngrok could be used on the remote to make that server accessible from the non-cloud dev machine. It also listens to local file changes.
Despite live-streaming to a global audience of folks who likely share the same race, gender, religion and ideology as him, he'll be called a "lone wolf" as always. The truth is, he's part of a global terror network.
EDIT: The LAPD says "this attack appears to be an isolated incident".