>And that's OK - if you're good with that. Now go and ask some women you know whether they have all that trust? Or minorities. Or activists. If you were a Muslim or Mexican in the US right now - do you suppose you'd be happy leaving an Uber app with "Always" location tracking permission on your phone past Jan 20th?
The NSA already has the ability to track cellphones, regardless of what Uber does with their app.
Fingerprint readers seem to solve that problem. Booting the phone requires the secure password, but after that a fingerprint will suffice until the phone is powered off or left locked for 24 hours.
Those boundaries are fairly irrelevant to the presidential election process. I believe only Maine assigns electors based on who wins a particular district versus who wins the overall statewide race.
I was just curious whether there was any historical evidence that the state borders themselves were ever a result of gerrymandering. Then I remembered an exhibit over at the Oakland Museum of California about proposals for the borders of California at the time of its statehood, which included debates about the effects of including lots of Mormons to the east (or not). A discussion summarizing some of these debates, but with a slightly different emphasis, can be found in
It might be possible to interpret some of the proposals for the shape of the California-Nevada border as reflecting a kind of gerrymandering or considerations of political strategy. Maybe that's historically true of other U.S. state boundaries? (But the states haven't generally redrawn their boundaries in response to demographic changes over time.)
I have no background in this area, but saw an interesting allusion to your idea the other day[1]
Republicans in Congress passed the 1862 Homestead Act, offering free land to settlers who would move to territories
that would eventually become states — creating more Senate seats and Electoral College votes for a Republican Party
eager to keep government control away from Southern Democrats. They even managed to divide the Dakota Territory into
two states, worth twice the political power.
That is true, but don't forget that those boundaries also come into play wrt polling place count and convenience. And that's been a clear attack vector this year in states like NC.
>SARs only apply to suspicious activity. CTRs are what your bank has to file for every transaction over $10000.
For every currency transaction, not every transaction. (if you deposit a check for $50,000, that doesn't get reported unless the bank thinks something about the transaction is suspicious)
Are bitcoins classified as currency for the purposes of CTR reports?
I could be wrong, but it seems like none of those apps are really mass marketed to consumers (versus power users). The goal for Signal is to make it something that could gain mass adoption, and requiring users to install plugins in order to do simple things like attach photos would be a serious hinderance there. It's hard enough to convince non-techie friends to install another messenger as it is.
While I see it as a competitor, I can't see their target markets being the same. Signal, I feel, is targeting average users. Threema's sign up process and verification makes me feel it's for the power user.
I used Threema with my extended family for a while (so not power users). Sign up and (optional!) verification was not a problem. Group management was and ultimately made everybody switch to WhatsApp. Things like "group creator left group, now we must create a new group..." and "identity-only backup means you lose group admin rights".
>. So if a product is intended to be consumed as 100% of your diet
Soylent isn't marketed as being intended to replace every meal anymore. I know some of their earlier press focused on the founder replacing all of his food with Soylent, but they've transitioned from that approach more recently.
It might be my non-nativeness but a meal replacement doesn't sound like a food replacement to me. At least, not if you don't want to.
The whole concept is experimental and everyone knows that. Doesn't mean they should be allowed to sell a product known to make people ill, but if you replace 100% of your food you shouldn't be surprised if it turns out they forgot an ingredient or put a little too much in for your specific lifestyle.
Too late if they have already lodged that in everyone's mind - they should have gotten a new brand if the brand proposition was going to be radically different.
I guess future viewers of Wall-E won't get the joke now. (for those who didn't see the film, the robot main character made the Mac startup chime when he finished charging)
