If you take psychedelics and go outside, no one is going to arrest you. Consumption of drugs, in most western nations, isn't a crime. Stop spreading this sort of asinine fear.
it kinda depends. simply being high/tripping is not illegal in most places, but you can still be arrested for public intoxication if you make a scene or just appear very fucked up in the presence of a police officer. they are obligated to detain you if they judge you to be a danger to yourself (often happens with drunks). better hope you don't have any contraband on you if that happens.
a lot of people are overconfident in their ability to handle psychedelics. some people really are capable of maintaining a totally serene presence when they're tripping, but many don't realize just how weird they look to sober observers.
With all the great encryption utilities like age[0], Signal, or Veracrypt, can anyone please tell me what the point is in using pgp anymore? It's old, it's clunky, it requires careful use to be safe.
Signal and veracrypt are not PGP replacements, not even remotely close.
Regarding age, one reason is that it only supports a small fraction of PGP functionality thus useless for many real world applications. Another is that it operates on top of a fundamentally different model and for many folks that model is worse and potentially less secure than PGP's if you try to replicate PGP functionality by composition [1].
Modern doesn't necessarily equal good. PGP is mature and solid which is why it's still widely used and remains popular.
I'm not sure where that's the case, but it's certainly not the case with cryptography, where "clunky" means "mired in design decisions made before the era of authenticated cryptography".
To me, "old and clunky" also tends to imply "memory unsafe", or "written in Perl so old that a pipe filter in the wrong place in the input coughs up a shell", or "better make sure nobody's name is O'Connor because that includes SQL metadata", or "lol remember temp file races". But I'm prepared to concede that there may be places where the old stuff is better than the new, and eager to hear examples.
My 10Mbps hub (yes, not a switch) has been with me for decades. I've owned lots of smarter (switched, managed) and faster (100Mbps and then 1Gbps) devices that used less power (turns out when 10Mbps was invented nobody cared about "power saving"...) but over the years lots of those have dropped dead whereas the 10Mbps hub still works, which is why I still own it even though it isn't currently wired up, I know that sooner or later a 1Gbps switch will die and I'll hook that 10Mbps hub in there until a new one arrives.
Now, is it "better"? Overall, no. Or else I wouldn't keep buying Gigabit switches. But is it more robust? Yes. And if that's what you care about...
Thanks very much for the additional depth on what “old and clunky” could mean in cryptography. I am no expert in this area, and I agree that all these nightmare scenarios you mention (and many more, I’m sure) are very concerning. I prefer to use old (tested and tried) Unix/BSD tools for interactive development rather than their latest rewrites or modern GUIs. In drug design, I’d rather have a clearly understood 30-year-old assay with known failure modes rather than the latest promising experiment that may still have unknown failure modes. But generally speaking, I am a sucker for new tech and I seem to never learn to stop playing with new shiny toys. In a field with explosive growth field, like machine learning, at least I can use the benchmarks against the state of the art to help me decide how or when to advance technologies (every month or so, it seems). So.. is it worthwhile to learn to use age?
cperciva's spiped is, at least, deliberately old-fashioned; and I'd be inclined to trust it over most newer designs. (Wireguard does appear to be pretty awesome.)
I do agree that lots of legacy cryptosystems just aren't very good.
stop with that FUD. PGP is a standard and an implementation. You can have secure (Open)PGP implementation. at least there's a official spec, which is not there for age, which complicates reimplementation
This article has absolutely no substance in it. Nor is "cryptocurrency traded at $60k" - that's literally only Bitcoin, and today that is roughly cut in half!
> Besides, an open patent scheme means that any pharma company can sell the vaccine. And I guarantee that the vast majority of companies that will start doing so will be fly by might operators that will take advantage of desperate countries to sell them crap that will end up killing people and simply damage vaccines in the eyes of people all over the world.
This is a completely unfounded claim. You have no evidence, no data, etc to back an argument such as this one.
Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise that doesn't reduce to your dilapidated pessimism?
You know how defensive proponents get when critics of cryptocurrencies say the space is risky and full of scams? This kind of scrutiny is normal in the business world, especially when trying to raise money on the stock market where there are rules and regulations about accurately disclosing information to potential investors.
You appear to be invested in the space so ask yourself whether reflexively blowing off routine financial reporting helps or hurts that “full of grifters” reputation.
One small thing to note is that as it says in the article, Coinbase isn't actually trying to raise any money (it's a direct listing). IMO this actually makes it worse as much of the rationale for the company going public in the first place is these same insides wanting to cash out.
A company cannot identify an independent board member randomly. There are laws for that as well:
e.g. * When determining whether the members of a committee of the board of directors are independent, the registrant's definition of independence that it uses for determining if the members of that specific committee are independent in compliance with the independence standards applicable for the members of the specific committee in the listing standards of the national securities exchange or inter-dealer quotation system that the registrant uses for determining if a majority of the board of directors are independent. If the registrant does not have independence standards for a committee, the independence standards for that specific committee in the listing standards of the national securities exchange or inter-dealer quotation system that the registrant uses for determining if a majority of the board of directors are independent.*
There are different kinds of labor from immigrant populations, one is mostly brawn, the other is the one that brings brains (and conversely may cause brain drain in the source country).
That said, China has been successful (there are others) and have achieved success without this input. So I don’t think it’s a necessary ingredient. That said, talent improves economies. Imported labor (as well as automation) drives down labor costs and affects unskilled and semi skilled workers the most.
On the contrary, China's success comes from exactly this form of migrant exploitation, only internal to the country, and codified by law and culture into a two-caste system. Urban citizens get one set of opportunities, rural citizens get another. Legislation and opportunities overwhelmingly favor the urban citizens, and massive wealth transfer occurs between the two groups.
"Today, holders of rural hukou are ostracized and discriminated against by their fellow citizens, and have little choice but to take on the most dangerous, demanding, and low-paying jobs that those with urban hukou wouldn’t dare involve themselves in."
What China isn’t doing is importing labor. When it does it makes sure to get the good end of the deal: a foreign concern wants the Chinese market? Ok, invest, give us access to IP, show our people how to make the enterprise work. Then they copy once they have leaned.
Not many expats get to become citizens of China despite the wealth and power they have contributed to China. Chine see it as them doing _you_ a favor, not the other way round.
If China were like the US you’d have people from all over Asia streaming in to cash in on a growing economy, instead they make sure this wealth is spread amongst themselves rather than putting the poor against others willing to work under poorer conditions.
You guys can both be right (and I believe you are). Instead of attacking the GP, why not find middle ground?
Population growth could be changing the ability to easily get a low skilled job, but I personally believe offshoring is the biggest issue. There's simply less places to go.
Anecdotally it used to be super common to walk out of a job on Friday and find another by Monday. We need that back for the sake of worker's rights.
Because corporate interests are hell bent on stopping the people's will. Immigration gives employers a huge amount of power over workers and they will call normal people of all ethnicities racist in order to shut us up.
NuCypher (YC S16) | Rust Software Engineer | Remote | Full time
NuCypher is building a distributed threshold cryptography network based on the Ethereum blockchain. (https://nucypher.com/). We launched our main product offering which leverages Proxy Re-Encryption to offer decentralized access control in October 2020.
We're looking for a rust developer who has a keen interest in cryptocurrency and distributed systems to work on a new product offering. You will be a core member of the team working on bleeding edge cryptocurrency technology. As such, this role is ripe for an ambitious person to help lead engineering efforts and make a dent in the space. We understand that finding experienced folks in this niche category of development is rare, so don't let your lack of experience prevent you from applying - there's a beginning to all journeys - all we ask is that you have a sharp ability to learn quickly.
Bonus points for experience with Tendermint or have contributed meaningfully in the cryptocurrency space before.
Email tux@nucypher.com to begin the conversation. No recruiters please.
Lots of comments here hating on TikTok, so I'll offer another perspective:
TikTok is instrumental for offering children and teens an "in-group" and finding their interests. If you're LGBTQ, you find really wholesome content. If you're depressed, you can find people being open about their depression. If you self-harm, you can find other people discussing and opening up about it. If you're in a toxic household, there's basically a whole support network for you. It's an exceptionally human way to interact with people online, and it's so much fun.
IMHO, TikTok has been the most wholesome social network I've ever used and participated in. Even as an adult (24yo), it's even helped me explore my own identity and how I relate to the rest of the communities I'm a part of. Legitimately, TikTok has helped me feel comfortable opening up and be more "myself" in public.
Yeah, I don't buy it. I've made a few attempts to get into TikTok, because my wife and friends are into it, and I have not been able to find any positive or quality content. It's mostly low quality memes and rude or otherwise vulgar attention seeking. I understand the appeal, given my experience with other social networks, but I definitely don't buy the narrative that it's in any way "good".
I agree with you - it rewards attention seeking behavior and short attention spans.
That said I understand the term of good quality - in that it isn't vitriolic political messaging, conspiracy theories etc. It's mostly devoid of any true meaning - more like entertaining, sometimes hilarious content. I wouldn't say it's enlightening or provides much educational value. As I said early it also probably reinforces short attention span, attention seeking dopamine feed back loops... likely long term damage to brain development.
It also creates this expectation that your life is a performance for other people or that you produce content for other people to digest to get your dopamine rewards. There's going to be a strange generation coming down the pipeline.
yes to an extent, but there is a spectrum. I would count most forums under the umbrella of "social media", but for the most part I don't find them to have that performative aspect. platforms where your account is more strongly tied to your IRL identity and photos/videos are the main thing shared tend to be a lot more performative.
Tiktok has exceedingly powerful filter bubble effects. As a result, the nearly universally derided "straight-tiktok" (which is where you start and dominated by conventional social media influencers) is fundamentally different than other parts of the app.
My fyp is a combination of good natured dancing, linguistics, crowd sources music, hank green, a few comedy creators who engage positively with mental health and feminist topics, and animals doing silly things, recently a lot of possums. That's interspersed with memes and jokes, but very few that are particularly rude.
I agree. My fyp also has Dad Green, older LGBT creators, young PhD & postdocs explaining science Qs, lots & lots of dogs, linguists, cooking, trees, lakes, geology, etc. Plenty of light hearted dancing, but everybody seems to be pretty chill and glad to engage with their audience. It's pretty easy to get responses from creators, as compared to YouTube creators.
You have to scroll through for maybe ten minutes and interact with posts that you actually like. Their system very quickly figures out what to show you. The general population of tiktok videos is pretty bad.
I know I risk sounding offensive but please accept that this is just an honest inquiry. Have you considered that you are causing that sort of content to hit your “for you page” by how your engaging with it? I ask because if someone asked me for a description of what’s most on tiktok based on what is in my feeds, it would be woodworking, cooking, arduinio projects and 3D printing stuff, with a bit of stand-up and DnD. I didn’t set any preferences or such to make it so, it just ender up that way through what I liked and the half a dosen people I follow.
I am in no way under the illusion that this is what most see. But i have to question if people that complain about Charlie Damelio and similar people being shown too much, just aren’t spending a lot of time watching the videos, commenting and liking them. If you scroll past they stop popping up.
Overall the content creators I see content from seem extremely good for these smaller niche communities.
As a plus, the most unbiased source of content for the BLM protests I found was tiktok, because it was just livestreams and videos from the protests with little possibility to editorialize it. Instead of anchors screaming “violent!” Or sternly saying “peaceful!” You got streamers on spot showing exactly how violent or peaceful certain situations were.
Yes. Use the search, find a few videos you like on topic X. Interact with them (like them, comment on them, follow creators). There that is most of the interaction needed to influence your feed.
Then as you encounter stuff you like click hashtags that look interesting, explore sounds to find similar videos, checkout a producers other videos.
Thought of this wholesomeness aspect today as well:
I watch a lot of strength training/weight lifting videos on TikTok, and I would say the vast majority of the comments are supportive, positive and/or constructive.
I appreciate a lot my comment is apples vs oranges (because times are very different) - but I can still remember using MySpace, Facebook and Twitter for the first time. They all started pretty wholesome and pretty great before 'the real world' kind of seeped in.
Early Twitter (in particular) was a game changer for me, who was working from home for the second time in my life. I had people to talk to and bounce things off and all of a sudden work wasn't so lonely (as I had been the first time I tried). There was a genuine community feel without all the snark and unpleasantness.
I don't use TikTok, but I hope they'll be prescient enough to see where the others have struggled and keep on top their content policies, communities and moderation.
I think one of the problem is when networks start mixing topics and people.
If it focuses on people, you can meet with real friends, and that's fine, because you get along.
If it focuses on topics, it is also fine, you meet people you don't know, but because you talk about subject you all enjoy, that's fine.
Problem starts when the two mix. If you enjoy astronomy for example, the other guy may be an asshole, but you probably don't even know and you get along fine, because all you do is talk astronomy. But if the network thinks that because you like the same thing, he must also be your friend, then your feed starts filling with assholish things.
I have seen this play out on Instagram a few years ago.
Stage 1: The person is relatable, the videos are simple and to the point.
Stage 2: The following has grown, and the person now posts more frequently, however the quality/humor/personal touches are reduced. Less content about fitness, more about personal lifestyle
Stage 3: Monetization. Workout PDFs, constant advertising of fitness products (protein shakes, weight belts, etc), lots of hollow 'motivation' posts. The audience keeps growing, but the community has disappeared.
Isn't the problems from precisely what you are saying? If you fall into a recommendation hole, as long as they don't get moderation right it might be the wrong kind of hole. For impressionable audience, it might not be a good thing.
TikTok's moderation team is pretty on point. Far better than any social network I've ever used before.
I don't think the commenters who say they only get weird or bad content actually know how TikTok works, or how to use it. You can't just scroll your FYP and expect to get new content, you have to go out of your way to find it. FYP is just a feedback loop of videos you keep watching.
If you want to start getting more queer content, for example, start searching the #lgbt or similar tags and watching/liking/commenting. Your FYP changes really quick.
> for example, start searching the #lgbt or similar tags and watching/liking/commenting.
What if some hate video for the community gets posted under the same/similar tag? I am not sure how it is now but mid last year one friend saw something very offensive on a tag related to his nationality with a lot of likes.
This isn’t much unlike the question of moderation in regards to Parler for example. We need to talk about all views and ideas and opinions, whether it’s political or about your mental health. Well, maybe sometimes it’s both.
But you can’t bar talking about it because sometimes it’s bad. It’s tough.
Not saying you’re wrong at all. Just suggesting there’s a lot of nuance here and it’s difficult to manage. Your point is very correct and important.
I think glorification occurs because it’sa much easier way to, at least temporarily, alleviate the struggle some issues can cause. It’s an understandable response to pain, especially in young people confronted with complex internal problems.
Also your point about children not being able to judge these things for themselves immediately made me think... It seems a lot adults can’t be relied on to do it either.
He specifically said there is a support network for him thru tiktok. How can you say ‘keep watching those videos are bad for you’. That is dismissive at best.
That's such a weird way of making statements. We do make decisions about who we make friends with, who we engage with, without the need of someone to decide those for us. and even more importantly, who?
> If you are depressed or self harm, maybe keep watching those videos are bad for you.
This may sound counter-intuitive, but please don't judge that sort of thing until you've gone through it.
There are many online communities that seem dangerous or destructive to people who haven't gone through the issues, but are actually incredibly helpful to those who do.
There really are so many trash self-help internet communities in the wild. These algorithms are amazing at placing people that share an interest in re-experiencing their buried childhood insecurities together and hire the most active commiserators to build their community.
It definitely doesn't seem like the communities that actually help each other gain a sense of security required to pause and self-reflect and unpack their issues get very popular because the click-optimizing algorithms don't give them a chance.
I feel like all the hate is aimed at the stereotype that TikTok is before they actually use it. If your view of TikTok is through the lens of media or the occasional repost, you'll find that it's mostly teens dancing to catchy music, which there is a ton of on the platform.
But there's so much more content under the surface that doesn't get talked about. Travel TikTokers give me ideas of where to go in 2021, I stole an Oatmeal recipe from a bodybuilder on there that I still make every morning. I took some ideas about Lightroom from a number of Photography TikTokers, the rabbit holes are endless.
TikTok I think it in it's "pre-mainstream" phase where you get the best of user content but it still hasn't been muddied by promo deals, partnerships and big media. Sure big media is there but most of the content I see reminds me of YouTube in that magical time between when it went mainstream with users but not big brands and corporations.
How is that different from any other social network though? Even when I was a teen, there was no shortage of message boards and forums having these kinds of discussions. Sure, the video aspect wasn't there as in general, people stayed anonymous, but the sense of support was still there.
Pockets of supportive communities feel rare online that when you hit one, especially at a young age, they feel incredibly refreshing. Most of my early internet experiences were hard lessons but once in a while I ran into a group of nice people who taught me a lot and were supportive when I was getting started. It impacted the way I think about online communities.
Personally, I've enjoyed TikTok. I find the different cultures around the world making videos about their cultures to be very informative. And I'm amazed at some of the level of comedy available on the platform.
there is nothing wrong with being LGBTQ+. to insinuate "corruption of Western children by China" is extremely bigoted in several dimensions. I'm disappointed to this sort of thinking on this site of all places
nothing, of course children shouldn't sexualize - however that is not what they were discussing. they were reinforcing the harmful & factitious association between being LGBTQ+ and "corruption" or whatever
> of course children shouldn't sexualize - however that is not what they were discussing
That should be part of the discussion, though. It's difficult to separate Queer philosophy from predatory pedophilia. It's part of the system of thought, back to the beginning.
Age becomes relative, and Parenting is seen as an oppressive structure that is imposed on children.
what? what parts of queer theory deal with normalizing pedophilia?
any sane individual studying queer theory is still going to understand the relationship between consent & age, and how pedophilia is a mental illness and not a sexual orientation specifically because it violates the ability of younger individuals to give consent
Even if they don't believe in abolishing the age of consent laws like Michel Foucault did, they still believe that children actually can consent. Pat Califia makes this argument explicitly.
They believe that "normal" sexual ethic is imposed on children by oppressive power structures (enforced by parents). So they believe that they're liberating children by exposing them to queerness. They don't see it as peer pressure or coercion because they see sex as something similar to choosing between ice cream or cookies, which a child is capable of.
That would depend on the transaction size and market, no? As early as yesterday, any single transaction involving ETH would have cost no less than $3 due to gas prices even at the slowest acceptable pace, and that's before the bid/ask spread on the exchanges eat some more
I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that while crypto cuts out a lot of the obvious middlemen, there are a lot more hidden ones. It is currently non-economical to do small transactons.
If you take psychedelics and go outside, no one is going to arrest you. Consumption of drugs, in most western nations, isn't a crime. Stop spreading this sort of asinine fear.