The more surprising thing is that the common invasion soldier also benefits financially. So far we only knew that the oligarch system that is currently controlling the USA, also benefits massively - the stock market changes with regards to Iran showed this already, but also see the more recent comments made in regards not just to the orange king himself, but his family dynasty and their involvement; in particular orange king jr. is involved a LOT here, also with regards to that mentioned soldier (see the companies that were involved, crypto-stuff and so forth). This reminds me a bit of Epstein, in a way - so far the US justice system claims that only two people (the dead Epstain and his wife) organised all those naughty parties. Well, that is logistically simply impossible, aside from the question how they had all that money. How deep do these networks used by the superrich go? You have more and more victims who claimed not only to have been underage, but also service-sold to other rich people. Why are these latter people not in court? How corrupt is that system? Evidently we now know that these invasion soldiers also bet on their own invasions - I guess when they claim "we are doing work for Good" here they mean this with regards to their own pockets.
Just as Smedley D. Butler once stated, many many years ago: "War is a racket"
Everyone know what Palantir was. The name is a dead-give-away.
I think it is really time that the superrich are downsized.
Certain companies that are working against the people also
need to be removed. Key considerations in any democracy need
to be consistent. Palantir (and others) create inconsistencies.
Granted, none of this will be fixed while the orange king is
having his daily rage-fits, but sooner or later this is an
inter-generational problem, no matter which puppet is taking
over.
The palantir of the novel weren't surveillance tools. They were a party line, the Gondorians used them to talk to their various outposts throughout middle earth, the three we see in the movies (there may be more in the books, it's been a long time) were at Isenguard, Minis Tirith and the Palantir of Minis Ithil (now Minis Morgul) that Sauron took to Baradur.
When Sauron took Minas Ithil and captured the Palanir that was kept there the Kings of Gondor forbade the use of them. It is shown that Sauron can use them to corrupt and read the thoughts of the other users. We also see him use them for their intended purpose when he conspires with Saruman.
All to say Peter Thiel doesn't understand Lord of the Rings.
Interesting. I speculated not long ago that Microsoft is really taking a dive here, and other companies may look to provide better alternatives to GitHub, as one idea. Today I read your comment about self-hosting here; while that is not quite what I compared or had in mind, it is interesting to read about it, of people who go that route. Microsoft is really putting themselves into trouble in the last year or two. Some things no longer work, so much is clear here.
> These things will never change if the only penalty the company/agency gets is
I do not think penalties can prevent these situations. Perhaps they may be less frequent; perhaps people would get more compensation, but ultimately I do not think these can be prevented. The first consideration is why the data has to be stored in the first place. Naturally one can say "the government needs to know who is a citizen and who is not", and I can understand this rationale to some extent, but even then I wonder whether this has to be correct. Perhaps we could have a global society without any requirement to be an identifiable citizen per se. Things such as mandatory age verification-sniffing to never become an issue, because it is not needed and not possible and nobody would have an addiction-need to sniff for that data (we know Meta and co want that data, this is why their lobbyists run rampage via the "but but but somebody protect the children" lie).
I think it depends. I used to buy hardcopy books on
Amazon, in particular scientific books. They were usually
worth their money, but still it did cost a lot.
When Amazon Prime came, I noticed the quality of amazon
went downwards a lot. There were additional reasons -
e. g. the USA under Trump becoming hostile to Europeans -
so I decided to abandon Amazon completely. Never regretted
that move either. But for the most part, I also stopped
buying hardcopy books; the cost was one factor, but storing
books was another big one. I still have books but I don't
want to keep on adding more and more books that I may read
once and then never again. For the most part I transitioned
into .pdf books (I hate epub format though, so I don't use
that).
Some time ago I had to purchase a book for a local discussion;
it did cost less than 10 euros, so that was not much (it was
a thin book though, about 200 pages in DIN A5 format, e. g.
the small format). That cost was not too high. I am not a
"zero hardcopy books" person, but the books I purchase are
significantly fewer compared to, say, 15 years ago. I still
like books; easier to concentrate without being distracted,
but I kind of prefer not having a lot of books in my apartment.
It just is easier to organize things when I don't have to shuffle
the physical location of hardcopy books.
The books on amazon were very expensive though, so I disagree
on the title chosen. I think amazon became too expensive and
the quality became worse. People who still use amazon should
seriously consider whether they really need amazon in their life.
Would it though? I guess state agencies already know all nodes or may know all nodes. When you have a ton of meta-information all cross-linked, they can probably identify people quite accurately; may not even need 100% accuracy at all times and could do with less. I was thinking about that when they used information from any surrounding area or even sniffing through walls (I think? I don't quite recall the article but wasn't there an article like that in the last 3-5 years? The idea is to amass as much information as possible, even if it may not primarily have to do with solely the target user alone; e. g. I would call it "identify via proxy information").
Just as Smedley D. Butler once stated, many many years ago: "War is a racket"
reply