Even if any of us was lucky enough to be hired, we'd still have to follow what the leads say and not rip out every bit of intrusion and data gathering in chrome (harder than I can imagine) less we get reassigned or sacked. I bet there are plenty of devs there who already have their reservations but for obvious reasons not publicly vocal about it or had their views dismissed for again obvious reasons.
Once again another reminder that the need for open source alternatives with minimal to no logging is shown to be a greater necessity in an age where these companies know us better than the government. We can continue to pretend these companies are non-partisan and won't use the data collected for political influence, everyone here is obviously impervious to such influences, but the bigger concern is its influence on public perception.
I think people would rather trade their security for convenience, which in the first place is why Chrome is so popular, with its inbuilt tie-in to Google services. Sure, you could provide an open-source browser that's security focused, but what makes it compelling to the end-user to switch away from Chrome? I don't think many laymen particularly care about this situation.
I'm sure people thought the same way back when personal automotive transport was owned by very few people. Even trains were for the wealthy for a time.
This cycle of "harmony" is futile and not a constant state that would exist without humans, unless any organism within that cycle recognises that it's simply an evolutionary race to the top as we have, with the reward being dominion over their respective territory. Only until some cosmic entity comes and ends it, or an extinction event occurs, putting the slate clean again for any traces of life left to begin the evolutionary race, repeating until that harmonious life as we see it can no longer exist.
The answer is obvious conservation until we as a species are immune to single planitary extinctions, but the romanticised view of our worlds ecology as some living entity, rather than a number of organisms interacting independently and adapting doesn't give a clear objective of what we should be doing and more importantly why.
Isn't it kind of crazy how such a huge company can be so outlandish that it requires the general public and a musician with enough following to question such absurdity to force a human response?
No, its not even a single bit outlandish, it is the normal procedure how cooperations operate that are too big to be affected by markets or laws. Google, and Facebook are big enough to have a virtual monopoly in their respective domains, so the logic of markets doesn't apply to them anymore. They are also big enough to brazenly ignore certain laws, soley based on the size of their legal departments -- they might be successfully sued in some instances, but it doesn't really matter in the big picture, as long as the average joe is deterred from taking action ("they have so much money for lawyers, you don't have a chance").
These conditions make actions like this not only "not outlandish" but outright reasonable (as seen from the logic of the cooperation). If the system that encourages this behavior doesn't change, the cooperations certainly won't act any different.
And most African nations would disagree with Venezuela. But many governments have been overthrow for much less or in cases where a government is so authoritarian that a coup is very difficult. Not saying America is in that situation, but something has got to give, especially when you look at how far wealthier certain people are living in your country.
That's generally the problem is that people can only ever see a solution that mirrors our society as is which means voting for the same politicians talking about the same neo-liberal capitalist economy, people need to be a bit braver ideologically if they don't want the wealth gap to increase and when the time for peaceful solutions has passed. We see the rise of the far right, it's slow but there's no denying those people are there in significant numbers and won't go away by calling them all sorts. It would be easy for me as a generally liberal middle-class white man to say everything is fine now but there are some issues which are still prevalent that can't be ignored.
The only thing immature is the reaction, it's not a professional setting and he's not abusing the substance. It's purely just down to shock media reaction. Nobody mentioned the whiskey they were drinking either but that doesn't make a headline.
They did mention it in TFA but regardless CNBC clearly thinks smoking pot is “bizarre” which I suspect is actually a pretty mundane and socially acceptable thing.
It's more than that. Journalists hate Elon Musk because he called them out a few months ago.
The same media outlets ranting and raving about how terrible our marijuana/drug laws are and how we need to legalize them are whining about musk smoking weed in california ( where it is legal BTW ).
It's just your routine biased hit piece by the media.
These articles talk little to nothing about the legality of it. Not one article claims that Musk has broken the law and should be in federal prison right now. I'm talking about the general attitude to something that is clearly no more harmful than the drink on the table or the tobacco in the joint. Everyone knows several states have decriminalized it and many celebrities and business people that have even openly supported it.
I'm pretty sure the federal government will do nothing about this, as the resource implications, political will, and the reaction from other business leaders who will look on skeptically at the governments actions over what has already been deemed to many as a victimless crime (with regards to the actual possession).
That's a legit distinction, especially for a company that wants to work with/stay in the good graces of the Federal government (e.g. now the Air Force is pondering how to respond, given their relationship with Space X).
But it's apparently too sophisticated a point for the article, which is pure clickbait.
It's more about being fair on the kids, the only pictures of me when I was a kid was on photograph film, later digital but most pictures of my childhood are somewhere in the attic where they get taken out once every few years maybe. And while everyone can appreciate having those memories available, having instant access to them by friends and family isn't something I'd ever want as a child of my parents.
Apple users stuck to facetime which probably broke up whatever contacts that people had through skype. As an android user I just slowly stopped using skype in favour of discord, except when required for job interviews.
