gress

7 ms·

1.
by gress 11y ago
Punishment and reward are very limited mechanisms for learning behavior. Mimicry is one of the others and is much more powerful.
2.
by gress 11y ago
The headline 'Obama administration quietly rejected ways to bypass smartphone encryption' would be more true and less sensational. I said nothing about not reporting. It's the distorted headlines laced with innuendo that are
3.
by gress 11y ago
Actually we know enough to know that assuming that discrimination and perverse socialization is at least part of the cause is totally rational . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_Association_Test
4.
by gress 11y ago
If Google thought there was a problem with intrusive ads, they would penalize them.
5.
by gress 11y ago
That was true when the incentive was for vulnerabilities to be disclosed and fixed for the good of all, but sadly today, vulnerabilities are extremely valuable and so the incentive is for them to be sold to the powerful.
6.
by gress 11y ago
The police use violence to protect the regular market. One could just as easily say that violence is market related.
7.
by gress 11y ago
Obscurity is not security. True. Transparency is not security. Also true.
8.
by gress 11y ago
Personalization is not a problem. Systematic bias is a severe problem , even if it is not intentional. The 'one true web' idea is a red herring. We absolutely need to know how google biases the results.
9.
by gress 11y ago
Clickbait and sensationalism is a thing in journalism. It is morally wrong because it spreads disinformation and is harmful to both individuals and democracy, but it is legal and profitable, and we haven't done enough to shun it, so i
10.
by gress 11y ago
Yes it would. Cybercriminals are even more of a threat than spy agencies to most individuals. [edit: in case it is unclear, I am saying that cybercrime is as strong reason for individuals to use ubiquitous encryption as government snooping
11.
by gress 11y ago
Sure, but the stock market is not valuable as a prediction market.
12.
by gress 11y ago
The responses on this thread seem to prove that Apple knows what it is doing with its security strategy. The fact that people blindly disable protections and end up causing massive malware outbreaks is exactly the reason they are introduci
13.
by gress 11y ago
Why would you do that?
14.
by gress 11y ago
Why would you do that? It it exposes you to risk, and as has now been proven, if adopted as a general practice it exposes everyone else to risk too.
15.
by gress 11y ago
So Apple is putting user freedom ahead of advertiser freedom in this case, whereas Google is siding with the advertisers for obvious reasons.
16.
by gress 11y ago
Perhaps because that's more costly? Sometimes the disallowed frequencies exist within a range of allowed frequencies. A hardware limitation would involve filter stages that would add cost.
17.
by gress 11y ago
Did you read the article or are you just deciding it's bullshit because of the title?
18.
by gress 11y ago
Do you have any information at all about what they are doing?
19.
by gress 11y ago
How do you suggest dealing with drunk drivers or getaway cars?
20.
by gress 11y ago
Separating out 'Desktop Chrome' from Android makes this a deliberate Apple's to Oranges comparison. They are both Google products. You're free to run 'Desktop Chrome' or Firefox on Apple's 'Deskrop&#
21.
by gress 11y ago
What has malware got to do with anything?
22.
by gress 11y ago
This is not accurate. Using an ad blocker makes no demand whatsoever of people producing content, who are completely free to stop displaying it in public. Imagine the following: In a busy shopping mall, a busker starts to play music. A cro
23.
by gress 11y ago
We do know for certain that the ad is at fault. We can see that the ad is what is flickering into blocking the text. We also know that the NYT doesn't have a flickering block on every page.
24.
by gress 11y ago
Can you give us any details of what you mean by 'horrible' or 'worst'?
25.
by gress 11y ago
This scheme isn't needed with Android since most devices are vulnerable to well known exploits.
26.
by gress 11y ago
How is 'not visiting sites with obtrusive ads' meaningfully different from just blocking the ads?
27.
by gress 11y ago
We're in agreement on that - which is why I made the comment about Android. We had a chance for that to be open, but Google wanted to retain control.
28.
by gress 11y ago
Over what time frame?
29.
by gress 11y ago
The recursive problem is the problem. If the utility function is arbitrary, then utilitarianism is just a tautology.
30.
by gress 11y ago
He said it, therefore it is his character .

More ›