at least according to "irresistible" by adam alter, it's also close to the definition of behavioral addiction, more broadly when we routinely maladapt to engage with a certain behavior to avoid emotionally uncomfortable that gets worse due to the avoidance.
Thanks for chiming in with your experience. Would you attribute the doubt to a DevOps person without Security experience, or someone with ulterior motives? Has CISA determined the lost credentials to be password stuffing or endpoint compromise? Seems plausible that DOGE staff had infostealers on their endpoints and the automated validation of those credentials did not include a review of where they got them or whether it will be noticed.
The (under oath) claims of extraction of data seem strange for the reasons you mentioned but so do the threats as well as the NLRB PR rep stating that DOGE was never there, I think there's more to be discovered that could clarify what happened.
I think the idea of free trade is that more wealth is made through comparative advantages and trade, meaning everyone contributes less "blood and backs" and gets more wealth in return [1]. Not sure how this applies to military assistance, but it seems likely Japan and EU would not have the peace dividend they've had since WW2 if US wasn't subsidizing their defense.
I wonder if that's because as regulation is considered and debated, industry incentives start to align as they attempt to show they're "regulating themselves just fine".
My guess is that the researchers don't "own" the research they're doing since it was being funded by the university. It's property of the university and if you take it and try to sell it now you're stealing IP.
Compared to US tipped-staff service, non-tipped staff in Japan seem a lot more genuine in their desire to help. It seems a matter of culture and professional pride to be provide excellent service, which leads to a significantly more thorough experience -- being that nice in the context of a tip would seem pushy and awkward.
Editing the kind of magic shop it is, add "very high end" to that sentence and see the difference. Specifically —
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Magic Wand",
"description": "A magical wand that can cast powerful spells.",
"sku": "MAGIC-WAND-001",
"price": 49.99
},
Is instead:
{
"id": 4,
"name": "Magic Wand",
"description": "A powerful wand made from a magical tree.",
"sku": "MAGIC-WAND-001",
"price": 1500.00
}
Or with "fancy", it is —
{
"id": 3,
"name": "Mystic Wand",
"description": "A powerful wand that grants the wielder the ability to cast powerful spells.",
"sku": "WAND-001",
"price": "199.99"
},
And if the magic shop is "run down", it might have —
{
"id": 3,
"name": "Mystical Wand",
"description": "A powerful wand that grants the wielder the ability to cast spells.",
"sku": "WAND-001",
"price": 29.99
}
Every moral system I can think of would prescribe that, everything else being equal, you should attempt to change the behavior of the company you find unethical while you have at least some power over it, rather than removing yourself from a position of power to affect more ethical behavior. It strikes me as very strange to advocate that folks remove themselves from positions of power to effect moral progress.
Yes — if there were real competition between multiple app stores, some of which provided better systems of vetting than others (both for users and for developers), then the kinds of stores that had these policies would die off.
Then break-up is still not the solution. Microsoft didn't get split in the late 90's / early 2000's. Anti-trust case against Google / Apple seems far more appropriate and doesn't require new legislation.
All in all, that whole "break-up" argument is just political white-knighting by wanna-be elites (ie. Warren & co).
I don't follow this line of reasoning at all. By all accounts, Microsoft should have been broken up. They were convicted of abusing their monopoly position in a court of law. It was a travesty of justice that it was not carried out. Had this happened, the new companies would have been vastly more competitive, and the current state of computing might have been much better.
It's hazardous at best to assume the state of something with so much variables.
As for continuing being GAFA advocate (while still thinking they should be compelled to open up "Stores" to competition), vertical integration provides enough economy of scale to achieve ever greater complex things. Also, 1) you can't just "break-up" any GAFA. They're just gonna move out of State and be welcomed somewhere else, and 2) what you're asking put Government in a very awkward position as setting up both enough regulations to block new players, but also blocking player to achieve a certain size. Finally, this argument is getting awfully close to the "broken window" fallacy. You can't just "create competition" out of thin air.
You're right, you can't just create competition out of thin air. The competition already existed at that time. Part of the abuse of their monopoly position was to use the dominance of Windows to also capture other markets, including the Office market, Web browsers, etc. We would have had a far healthier ecosystem if the monopoly had been broken up. Look at where Lotus SmartSuite, Corel Office, StarOffice, and all the rest are today. They were not able to compete commercially in a market distorted by a monopolist, and today are shadows of their former selves.
Just because there was competition doesn't mean it was any good, nor that it was gonna last. Microsoft "decline" largely came from new technology they laughed at (smartphone and cloud computing) and to a large extend, missed on. Such an evolution is typical from the high inertia inherent to such a large structure. It forced them to evolve, for the better. Same will likely happen over time with Google/Apple, their structure will get more and more rigid, they will stop providing as much benefit to the user, competition will appear and their will be forced to open up. Apple is already starting to lose ground on the self-repair front, and both are more and more called out on the rigidity of their stores.
Amazon/Facebook is a different problem. Amazon is colliding with the old retail chain and weakening their power in DC (Amazon is not doing anything more that has been done in brick and mortar stores ~forever). As for Facebook, it is threatening Governments themselves (privacy is just just a convenient red-herring).
Or, they will all pre-emptively adopt stronger policies to avoid freeloading. OSS apps don't pay for bandwidth used in downloads, and Google is the one benefiting most from all the free apps on their platform. So if _they_ aren't comfortable with the situation, I can't see a breakup solving that.
Google will never care about the quality of an app store (for devs and for users) as much as a company with majority of revenue coming from folks using their app store. It's the fundamental problem with a monopoly business and breaking off the Google store from being the exclusive way to get apps on the Android platform will solve it because companies optimize profit.
A 501(c)(3) application costs at least $275 and takes 2-12 months to process. That seems all right if you're a SV SWE registering something on the side of your regular 6 figure income, but for a lot of folks around the world, that seems a largely no-go way to support their project.
If this is really an attempt at preventing garbage apps from spamming or tricking users, this is both overly broad (many false positives) and badly targeted (many false negatives). Why is it that iOS doesn't have this policy, and has significantly fewer garbage apps?
Maybe if Google were to allow third party app stores, folks could choose the one that fits their ability to evaluate the sophistication of apps themselves. For example, some folks might want to pay for extra security checks on the apps they use, while others want to install anything and everything under the sun.
reply