What I want is a set of receipts for all of my iTunes Stores purchases, so I have proof that I purchased them if iTunes Store is discontinued and I have to rely on my local backups.
I've actually stopped buying from them based on this.
If we were actually interested in getting things done, we'd get them done, right? It seems like the core of the problem is people having priorities imposed on them that don't match their own, actual priorities. When people aren't getting things done, they're usually doing other things, their actual priorities, not staring idly into space. (Usually. And maybe staring into space is fine too).
If your well-being or the well-being of others is at stake, then you got to do what you got to do, and "get things done". But a lot of this sounds like people feeling guilty about not going the extra mile on things they don't actually care about.
EDIT: Wow I guess this struck a nerve.
EDIT 2: And I think "people having priorities imposed on them" would also include people imposing priorities on themselves without sufficient self-reflection.
It would probably be easier for Facebook or Google to just reboot their headquarters, in multiple offices, wherever their labor pool migrates when their homes get flooded. For the most part it's just people at desks in buildings, which can be set up anywhere there is electricity.
These companies would take a freebie if municipalities decided to mitigate flooding on their behalf, but it wouldn't end up being an existential issue for them to just move elsewhere if things became untenable.
You can't have a fraction of a person. The probability of having .65 out of 100 people working for Amazon is zero, no matter which 100 people you select. 1 out of 153 can at least happen.
If more than 51% of BTC mining eventually takes place on machines rented from AWS, could Bezos flip a switch and take control of the blockchain (e.g. by shutting down the miners running on the AWS hardware, and rebooting it all with miners he controls?)
Just because it doesn't serve a clear purpose doesn't mean it should be banned.
If governments simply allowed cryptocurrencies to exist outside of any regulation except the obligation to pay taxes on transactions and gains, eventually participation would decline as users of the currencies lost their money to scams or mismanagement, in the absence of a state interest in
protecting participants.
If the system is designed to resist state intervention, maybe letting it run as designed, and suffer the consequences, is the best approach. There's no need to regulate it out of existence just because it serves no apparent purpose. This is one case where the market will sort that out if we let it.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't think I've ever actually clicked one of those "social networking" icons so didn't realize that's where it was going. (I had grepped the text for the name instead).
It seems like a statement in today's announcement...
> Personal results in Search include... Personal answers based on info in your Google Account, like “my flights” from Gmail
...makes some aggressively ambiguous wording in a previous announcement [0] apparent...
> Consumer Gmail content will not be used or scanned for any ads personalization after this change.
So I guess anyone who assumed that "Consumer Gmail content will not be used or scanned for any ads personalization" meant that your Gmail was not being scanned at all was mistaken, since today's setting implies that it was still being scanned for Search personalization?
The chart does indicate 9% of fully vaccinated people believe that the vaccine microchips the population, with another 9% not sure.
I wish they'd done a follow-up question where they asked that 9% "do you think your vaccine contained microchips" to see if the answers were logically consistent.
I've actually stopped buying from them based on this.