>even worse, your phone that you carry around in public
Sorry to attach on to such a small part of your comment. Why do you think having it attached to your phone is worse? In my understanding phones are WAY more secure than any run of the mill laptop or desktop due to a variety of security measures like sandboxing, encryption by default, and secure elements. If I came home to a break in I would be way less nervous about them swiping my phone than my desktop.
Personally, I like if not everything is going through my phone.
It can be distracting. You have social media, messages and apps on the same device you need to login. Already makes it harder to put away the phone for a while.
It can never be "cold": You have your phone always with you, which means the risk of it being stolen or lost is higher than with something you can keep in your desk drawer for 99% of the time.
It's a single point of failure: If you should lose it, you potentially have a huge problem: You're right that a thief couldn't make much use of it and we have sophisticated tech to remote-lock and locate phones now. But that won't help you if you need your phone to log into your Google or Apple account to access that tech in the first place.
(Yes, I know there alternative ways to regain access to Apple or Google accounts, but those all rely on you having something... not on your phone)
I don't really own the phone. I know it's paranoid, but I don't like the idea of some update being able to change the way authentication is done. (Even if this is improbable in practice)
At least FIDO2 firmware has a fixed interface.
Contributing to Open Street Map has given me a ton of satisfaction. Knowing that my somewhat minor efforts to correct one address, add one feature, correct one trail will propagate to so many different places and help other people not get lost, find something new, or just be able to navigate more safely in the world makes me feel like I am leaving the world a better place more than a decade of working at FANG ever did.
THIS. My comment is somewhat tangential but I thought still relevant. I used to work for huge financial investment company with over a trillion dollars of assets for over 10 years. I never thought I was making positive difference in people's lives. However, my job offered me so many opportunities to volunteer and I would jump on every single one of those, and that made working there totally worthwhile. I still work for another huge company these days, which offers similar opportunities to make a difference in the community and that is what keeps me going here too.
There is something to be said about building tools out of kindness and not for greed. Thank you for your contributions to OSM and Thank you OSM developers too - big fan and user!
True, I use mapcomplete or streetcomplete to kill time when traveling. I use public transport a lot. I've racked up thousands of minor edits, addi g opening hours, accesability info and what not to the map. It's been very satifactory.
I work in public service and I've grotten so many people on board that the map in my region is pretty darned good.
I want to start contributing. I want to add some hiking trails that are not mapped around where I live. However, the process seems a bit complicated. Is there any documentation you can provide for how to contribute to OSM?
The iD editor built into the openstreetmap.org site is really easy to use. Sign up. Navigate to where your trails are. At the top left of the page, hit 'Edit'. At the top of the map area, select the Add Feature > 'Line'. Left click on the map to start drawing your line. Press escape on your keyboard to quit drawing. You will be prompted to select a feature type, which you'll probably want a Path or Foot Path (click the 'i' icon next to the feature for more information from the wiki which is very helpful).
Keep in mind no changes are made until you commit them using the 'Save' button at the top right of the map area. You also have 'Undo' available. You can also make changes to your line before saving. Right clicking the line or one of the nodes on the line will give additional options (such as being able to continue drawing your line).
Hit 'Save', add a descriptive Changeset Comment and add your source (usually aerial imagery).
If the trail is tree-covered and not visible on the map, you may have used GPS to record the track. In that case you would want to use something like the JOSM desktop editor that has more capability. It can import GPX files, etc.
You can record the track with StreetComplete [0] and upload as a note (records tracks only in foreground). Then convert it to actual path in website editor. [1]
Why you want to enable one of the biggest monopolies on the planet, that gatekeeps innovation? [0] [1]
Lets say you are building a delivery robot. You need not just situational awareness with LiDAR, but also a map for route planning. Will Google give you access for such technology if your innovation is a direct competitor?
If its not a delivery robot, but firefighter robot?
Correcting anything on Google Maps takes years. You report the issue (clearly visible against the aerial photo, for example a road that appears on the map but it's not actually there - and Maps insists routing you through) to the void and after 2 years you come back and it's still not corrected.
I build and maintain trails for hiking and mountain biking. We build a new trail or change a route and I can just put it in OSM and off it goes into all the other systems. And then I can pull the data back and use it to make maps for planning, signage... whatever.
Google you just give them data, in their format, without all the nice OSS tools that have developed around OSM and... Let them use it. I'm wholly uninterested in contributing to Google, most especially because the barrier to entry is so high.
I've always loved the ridiculousness of the "going dark" label when law enforcement can't access encrypted chats or a back door isn't built into a piece of software. When there are security cameras on the vast majority of houses, stop lights and in people's hands, and when so much meta data about people's associations are shared from Google, Facebook, any other social platform, how in the world can they say they are "going dark". How did they ever solve crimes before these things?
With fewer and fewer interesting things getting added from one generation to the next, freedom, security, and privacy have become my main selling point when deciding on a phone. 7 years of updates, strong hardware enforced security and the ability to run graphene is have been the deciding factors in the last 3 phones I've bought for myself and my family.
With direction Google has chosen to go with the Pixel 10, it might as well be that GrapheneOS will never be available on the Pixel 11. They started by not publishing device trees anymore, squashing commits in AOSP, publishing open source drivers as a tar ball dump only after the requester has entered personal data in a web form, instead of having them public in an version control system. I wonder what dumb ideas they come up with next in order to make the GrapheneOS people suffer even more.
Which was not the point. Each one of these changes made it harder, not yet impossible to make a custom Android or Linux variant. The harder it is the more likely people will continue. At some point it might be too hard. Or, one of these changes will finally make all of that impossible.
Stop manipulating our markets under the guize of national security or protecting Americans. If we need to be protected from bad behavior we need to be protected by all bad behavior regardless of it's origin.
Has back doors? Ban it. Has awful security around sensitive data? Ban it. Makes technology available to the masses that is a national security risk? Ban it(if you most). Why give US companies a pass on this? It's because the US government wants in on using the products with bad behavior while still trying to stop other governments the same power.
The idea is to provide protection for incubating a local industry in what's deemed a key strategic sector. But that's not the best way to do it. See what the Jones Act did to US shipbuilding.
We should make foreign companies manufacture here, just like China did. It also works as a jobs program and builds up and industrial base and skill, as we've seen with the Japanese automotive sector.
Unfortunately, they're half in the bag of running the country like a business. People, the rich ones, the ones who manage this site and who buy things like twitter, CBS, CNN, etc etc, want this.
This isn't anything more than grift for grift sake.
They should have never been deployed to begin with.
How expensive are drones? Way less expensive than a police officer. They can be deployed at scale. You can imagine a world where every move everyone makes is tracked. If you don't think public spaces hold any 4th amendment protections, they can also see much better into private property that police officers can't see from the street. Back yard, second story windows, all angles into windows, and that is only considering if they use regular cameras, imagine when they have thermal cameras or other sensors.
I have fairly simplistic view of the economics involved here. Could you explain why the ability to sell more chips wouldn't be sufficient enough incentive to increase supply?
Not the person you’re replying to, but RAM has historically been a boom-or-bust business, and companies that invest to meet demand during a boom cycle usually have that new capacity come online just in time for the bust.
If it was just variable costs and new capacity was available today they’d do it. But there are substantial fixed costs and delays to increasing capacity, and that uncertainty makes it risky.
That's such a nonsensical argument, it holds for every other business too and in this case it's just a lame excuse for monopolization. If you are that chicken and can't stomach competition you should not be in business anyway.
The current RAM manufactures were convicted of conspiracy to manipulate prices back in the 2000s or thereabout, doing so is their modus operandi, but this time the government is participating in the racket.
Chip manufacturing has unusually long spin-up times, high capital costs and relatively thin margins for anything but the latest and greatest processes, compared to most industries.
There are other boom/bust businesses that have had waves of bankruptcies. The commodity sector is of particular note. You're seeing the same reluctance to spin up new oil rigs in the shale industry for similar reasons, despite record high energy prices.
Bringing on new fabs takes many years and billions of dollars. You're exposing yourself to a lot of risk if you build now and find that the gold rush is over by the time your new capacity is online.
Let's imagine you're drilling oil instead. You have to spend billions of dollars over years finding and developing a new oilfield to make any profit back. And once you have it, you have to continuously spend enormous amounts of money to keep producing it, which means your effective price floor is higher than the current stable price.
Now it's 2021 and someone gets a tanker stuck in the Suez, sending the price of oil sky-high. How long does the ship have to be stuck before you spend those billions of dollars on a bet that it'll recoup before someone gets the ship out?
Although on the flipside, let's pretend it's 2017's and you are Nvidia selling GPU's for Bitcoin - maybe demand will dry up at some point? Do you stop scaling production as this might be the max of the market, or do you follow the market and increase production?
It's always easier to see the right move in hindsight!
Nvidia doesn't own fabs though, TSMC does. By 2017, ASICs for Bitcoin were well underway. Ethereum hadn't switched to PoS, and wouldn't until 2022. For that specific question, the answer is yes, because the GTX 1080 Ti is/was a monster card, and the crypto miners have a somewhat predictable demand for them, so there's some modeling you can do based on demand for the 2016 generation of cards. The question is ofc, if you're Nvidia, what are you optimizing for? Let's say, without foresight that Ethereum would move to PoS in 2022 and that AI would replace that demand, how many 1090 Ti cards do you make, how many 1070s, how many mobile 1080s,
how many Titans?
In order to answer that, someone at Nvidia would have to have, for better or worse, really had to have gotten into cryptocurrency in order to understand that market. Because you, as Nvidia, know how much better the 1080 will be for mining Ethereum, certain predictions can be made on demand.
Question is, without hindsight, 2022 rolls around, Ethereum moves to PoS, do you sell NVDA?
TSMC doesn’t get to take the profit that currently accrues to Nvidia and Apple, even though they absolutely could from a business/leverage perspective, because they are an economic colony of the United states and hiking their prices (which Apple and Nvidia would have almost no choice but to pay, but would upset their benefactors) would jeopardize their national security/defense.
In a world where TSMC is functionally capable of the same level of production but not in such a complicated geopolitical situation regarding semiconductor manufacturing, things would be quite different.
TSMC builds new bleeding edge fabs and then amortizes them for many different customers over a decade or more, starting with higher margin customers (apple, nvidia, etc) and working down as time goes on and the higher margin customers then move on to newer plants. Today's bleeding edge fabs become tomorrow's mass market fabs for lower margin chips that go into cars/toasters/etc. The idea is that the early adopters pay for a decent chunk of the CAPEX and then it becomes a commodity play. It's the same way some auto manufacturers put new tech into their premium cars, then it trickles down to the mass market cars over time.
It's the main reason outsourcing fabs is so much more economical. If NVIDIA built fabs just for itself, the fab's CAPEX would be amortized over fewer components than if a third party did, even if NVIDIA was the largest customer. It's also one of the main reasons Intel fell behind. So much of their cashflow was to build fabs that made an order of magnitude less chips than TSMC. Even worse, they had to write down the CAPEX for the fabs, which affected their financial statements.
Anyways, companies like apple and nvidia have very long term horizons and contracts, which probably have first right of refusal contracts on capacity, etc. In the short to medium term, apple probably isn't paying much more for most components. If this memory shortage lasts decades, they'll eventually end up paying more.
The price has doubled but it takes 10-15 years on average just for the permitting of a new mine in the US.
Offshore drilling for oil is a 7-8 year project.
People in software I think can't but help to have a Laissez-faire bias because software is so Laissez-faire. Most other businesses are highly regulated.
Just this morning I listened to an EFF podcast episode (Effector) about how license plate readers tend to suffer from mission creep. They might be deployed for one of the "reasonable" purposes you list but when the tool is available to lawenforcement it almost always becomes used for more and more purposes, like the example given in the article about tracking a woman who had an abortion.
The problem with these types of tools are that they provide a foothold into absolute enforcement, not just for current laws you find reasonable, but for all future laws from all future administrations which may not be reasonable.
Why should these cameras used for speeding enforcement today be used to track down protesters the admin decides to label as terrorists or legal immigrants who attended a pro Palestine rally tomorrow? They shouldn't.
As usual, it's a question of balance. In a country where people trust the government enough, or at least trust the system of checks and balances that must keep the government at bay, the idea of the benefits provided by proper use of the cameras outweighs the fear of the scope creep.
In a country where people expect the government to act unreasonably and to flout legal constraints, the fear of the scope creep and total surveillance outweighs the perceived benefits of legitimate use.
By answering this question, it's easy to determine how people feel about their country :-/
If a ALPR search was gated by a search warrant, upon probable cause by witness and signed by judge, I would have much less concern. Its still surveillance capitalism, but that at least would be due process.
Might be nitpicking, but USC 1983 does not prevent anything, it is an attempt at restitution after the fact, and even then, when qualified immunity in play the efficacy of even that is questionable.
What does it cost a police force to abuse this technology? Maybe down the road they'll have to spend an afternoon in court explaining how they were just following orders or they were doing as directed by the department's policies at the time. What does it cost a citizen? Beyond the legal costs, it could cost their job when they don't show up because they were unjustly arrested, it could be a chilling effect on their speech when they see their politically active neighbor targeted.
I stand by my statement that nothing prevents the creep from happening. There is no realized cost to those who make it happen.
I don't think "could" is doing a lot of work here at all. It seems logical that if cases where the misuse of flock systems were discovered only when the same officers misbehaved in other, more visible situations then there are officers that avoid the more visible situations and continue to use the system that does not expose their bad behavior (flock).
Logical as in fits your world view or as in can be backed up by observable evidence?
The IJ (which I financially support) is a very serious organization that understands datasets, rules-based evidence and also public relations. If there was a stronger case that they could have made with the data that they had available, they would have.
I've already stated that I agree with the premise suggested, but I'm making the point that if you actually want to do anything about it, you need the evidence to back it up.
I can't go to my boss with a proposal to do something significant without measurable evidence to back up my reasoning and neither can you.
I have personally had a traffic ticket thrown out because the officer had a DV case brought by his spouse, who worked in the court. This caused the officer to be fired. I'm VERY aware of problems with LEO, but if you want to do something with a high administrative or human resources cost like any change to the status quo would obviously have -- you need real hard proof. Not "oh isn't it obvious"?
reply