https://wmich.edu/writing/punctuation/hyphen

This would’ve helped

Interesting. So the terms of service have not changed, and yet people are saying that they did. I wonder if there are criticisms that are still valid. For example, the terms of service that you linked:

• do not let me use a VPN (¶6.4)
• do not let me use glitches (¶6.4)
• do not let me own the copy of the game that I bought, but instead give me a limited license to it (¶2.1-2.2)
• do not inform me about future updates to their terms of service (¶10.2)
• force me to enter arbitration and do not let me be part of a class action lawsuit or have a trial by jury (¶17.5)
• link to their privacy policy, which:
  • does not let me opt out of having my data bought, merged, and sold through ad networks or data brokers (§ Categories of Information Collected, § How We Use Information and Our Legal Grounds, § Sources of Information We Collect, and § When We Share Information ¶ 5— all sources combined)
  • does not attempt to deliberately minimize data collection to protect my data. With the only exception of children’s data, their purposes are extremely vague (§ How We Use Information and Our Legal Grounds, as well as the entire document, because they do not attempt to do this in their privacy policy)
  • does not attempt to anonymize my data (I cannot provide a citation because there is no attempt to do this in their privacy policy)
  • does not specify the purposes of gathering and using information about any installed application on my device (§ Categories of Information Collected— this is especially worrying)
  • does not let me opt-out of data collection categories for specific purposes (cannot give a direct citation because they simply do not do it; instead, they wrote vague types of information they collect —such as “details about… other information related to installed applications” in § Categories of Information Collected, as well as vague purposes in § How We Use Information)

So, coming back to the original claim you were debunking:

They added spyware to it.

Your response was

No, they didn’t.

And I agree with you, now that I have read their terms of service and their privacy policy. Of course, we’re assuming that they haven’t changed their terms of service. If we assume that, then their spyware clauses weren’t added. No. They were always there. They have always said that they gather “details about… other information related to installed applications” on my device for purposes that can include merging and selling my data to data brokers and ad networks.

The problem you’re describing (open sourcing critical software) could both increase the capabilities of adversaries and also make it easier for adversaries to search for exploits. Open sourcing defeats security by obscurity.

Leaving security by obscurity aside could be seen as a loss, but it’s important to note what is gained in the process. Most security researchers today advocate against relying on security by obscurity, and instead focus on security by design and open security. Why?

Security by obscurity in the digital world is very easily defeated. It’s easy to copy and paste supposedly secure codes. It’s easy to smuggle supposedly secret code. “Today’s NSA secrets become tomorrow’s PhD theses and the next day’s hacker tools.”

What’s the alternative for the military? If you rely on security by design and open security for military equipment, it’s possible that adversaries will get a hold of the software, but they will get a hold of software that is more secure. A way to look at it is that all the doors are locked. On the other hand, insecure software leaves supposedly secret doors open. Those doors can be easily bashed by adversaries. So much for trying to get the upper hand.

The choice between (1) security by obscurity and (2) security by design and open security is ultimately the choice between (1) insecurity for all and (2) security for all. Security for all would be my choice, every time. I want my transit infrastructure to be safe. I want my phone to be safe. I want my election-related software to be safe. I want safe and reliable software. If someone is waging a war, they’re going to have to use methods that can actually create a technical asymmetry of power, and insecure software is not the way to gain the upper hand.

Oh. Shoot. I’ve bought those in the past. So they’re lying about being flushable, I suppose.

We share the goal of making the world more private. I’m not trying to be cheeky or mean. I’m genuinely curious. Would you be against reading to learn how to talk more compellingly?

Omg I just squinted and saw the pirate ships. Thanks for your contribution.

Actually, you made me wonder if CodeWars and LeetCode are comparable. I do remember CodeWars having relatively simple problems.

CodeWars is way cheaper.

Would Project Euler satisfy your requirements?

Some people understand the history and the opportunities of living in a country without tying their identity to the country. They can contribute to it, accept diversity, and yet have a more trascendental sense of self. They understand the state can be helpful for certain goals, and not for others.

It’s like money. If we all agree that a piece of paper and some metal is valuable, then it is. We don’t have to worship it. We can use it when it’s helpful and not when it’s not.

Turns out, the more educated, wealthy, and connected a whole population is, the more they are able to go from conceptual senses of self like “I am French” to a more trascendental sense of self like “I am a living being like so many others, and I happen to live in France”. This can also be achieved with certain wisdom traditions, like with loving-kindness meditation. More broadly, it can also be achieved with reflection.

To get organized, Getting Things Done in Standard Notes and my email’s calendar app.

To work, Scrum in Taiga.

To handle life, the Healthy Minds app and Calibre to read Acceptance and Commitment Therapy books.

Thanks for the suggestions. Had time to try to print it. Didn’t work. I’ll try the other options later.

You have a good point! It does sound like my suggestions only help for repeated behaviors. For example, Tiny Habits seems to indicate that it’ll work for habits but not for novel situations.

You explicitly mention that it’s unlikely that research covers situations that are entirely novel and rare. Do you know about schema theory or relational frame theory? I ask because both of those theories explicitly deal with how entirely new information (such as entirely new situations) is processed in the human brain and how, depending on the schemas or relational frames that a person already had, the person will react in different ways.

But we don’t have to go into the theoretical weeds. The popular books that I mentioned earlier deal with novelty. For example, Lakoff shows how, inside the head of any person, a small set of beliefs can end up guiding most of the person’s moral thinking and therefore their choices. Not only that, but even the book titled Tiny Habits has sections dedicated to one-off behaviors. Heck, the book Drive deals with teams that are at the bleeding edge of knowledge and techniques, technologies and workflows that no human has ever dealt with before, and yet the book is able to show how there is a set of evidence-based principles that consistently motivate (or not) those very teams.

The fundamental issue is whether humans are able to recognize a situation and know what to do about it. Our brains have been endowed with the capacity to derive thoughts, to think up entirely new situations, to imagine scenarios. We can use that to increase the odds of responding effectively to situations we have never been in before.

Sure, recognizing the light when it’s eclipsed by plenty of shadow can seem cartoonish. We can decide to close our eyes and be left in the darkness. We can decide not to pay attention or learn from something we deem unacceptable.

Is there absolutely nothing that China is doing that the rest of the world could learn from? Do you know how much China is investing in green energy in relation to the west? Do you think I am unable to recognize problems in China while at the same time recognizing that it is the single largest investor in green energy on Earth today? Do you think I’m unable to recognize that the United States has a great elite educational system? Or that I’m unable to recognize that the USA has amazing elite research facilities? Or that during the twentieth century it was a world leader in terms of State investments in strategic technologies?

It sounds as if you’re frustrated at her for not recognizing that people disappear in China, sometimes people like critics of the government. Do you think there’s absolutely nothing good that China does?

I understand you’re trying to increase the odds that people will intervene and that this horrible kidnapping would not be successful.

However, the fund for rewards is not the way to go.

Psychological research about human motivation shows that expecting external rewards reduces personal motivation (or, as psychologists would say it, extrinsic motivation can hinder intrinsic motivation). When humans do things because they expect external rewards, they stop doing it for the sake of it and expect higher and higher rewards over time.

Pay children to draw and they lose their interest in doodling or drawing for fun. Pay your team members for being kind and they will be less kind overall.

So what can we do? You talk to people. You understand their concerns and wishes, and you have them understand your concerns and wishes. You use frames that they already have in their head so that they can see your point of view. You set implementation intentions.

It’s a matter of values and the capacity to do the behavior.

Of course, if you’re in a dictatorial regime, stopping a state-approved kidnapping will be illegal and get you in lots of trouble. That’s why activism also seeks to change root causes. What kinds of root causes? That will depend on who you are. Some people blame the electoral system in the USA, so maybe changing that could help. Other people will blame other causes and therefore will suggest other changes.

This may be abstract, and I wish I had the time to make it less so. Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now, but you can check out sources that talk about this. Check out Drive by Pink to learn about motivation. Check out Don’t think of an Elephant by George Lakoff to learn about moral reframing. Check out Rethinking Positive Thinking by Gabriele Oettingen or Tiny Habits to learn about implementation intentions.

If you’re going to download it, try the torrent option! That way, you can give back to the community that gives you LibreOffice.

Europe isn’t a brand, it’s a life/style.

Yes. I suppose I’d like to try it. Maybe the cost is worth the benefits.

That’s alright 🙂

No login at all. You just open the URL and there’s a text box waiting for you to send a message to me.