Tom Scott has a great video about the issues with electronic voting, chief among which is a lack of trust and understanding by the general public of how electronic voting would work.
On the other hand, however, the outcomes of a breach are vastly different. An individual who fails to secure their information is liable for only their information. If a "big-tech" is compromised, they are liable for everyone's information.
If users are still unwilling to run their own infra, then that seems like a great opportunity for Identity as a Service. I'd feel much more comfortable handing identity to a firm whose entire business model revolves around securing my information and protecting my privacy rather than a big-tech.
"I'd feel much more comfortable handing identity to a firm whose entire business model revolves around securing my information and protecting my privacy rather than a big-tech." - in order for that company to be rock solid, trusted by most of the world and with a proven track record of top notch security, would mean that the said company is a big-tech.
I would call okta, auth0 and iWelcome big-tech already, even if they're not FAANG-level big tech yet.
>>> I’ll proceed to give them a two minute tour about what you can do with tmux. After that they’re either hooked and want to try it themselves or they tell me to go away with my ancient neckbeard tools and just use iTerm2.
FYI, iTerm2 actually has a tmux integration. Allows you to get the best of native paneling and persistent sessions.
TL;DR the objects are grouped into categories which determine the "Key points" on the objects (similar to this 'skeleton') which the robot knows how to interact with in order to bring about the intended manipulation.
It seems like they're selling ASICs. It would be useful in something like an embedded system where you train a model beforehand, deploy it, and then let it go. On top of speed improvements, they're generally more efficient, so something running on battery power could last longer.
> The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange.
The leak informed major corruption by the government. That's what the leak has done and I don't think any person in their right mind argues it's a wrong thing to do.
Even the U.S. has whistle blower protection laws to allow such leaks. I'd argue that this would be a very good example of WikiLeaks doing good.
I come from a corrupt, third world country (Iran), who has recently had it's share of corruption and violent election issues.
Anyone exposing those crimes of the government would be a champion. What happens after the leaks, the uprising and violence, is not the responsibility of whistle blower but people who commit those specific crimes.
Yes, this is the entire premise of extradition treaties. If you conspire to commit a crime in a different country, you are potentially able to be sent there to be put on trial. As to whether or not those laws are just is a separate issue.
This is not a good understanding of Extradition. Extradition before the age of the internet involved identifying people who had in the past committed a crime in a certain jurisdiction and transporting them back there to face justice. So for example, I murder someone, I flee to the UK, the USA asks the UK to extradite me back. Or indeed JA (allegedly) rapes someone, flees to the UK, Sweden asks for extradition.
What's at question here is: Given Assange was never in the US, how has he committed a crime in the US and the answer is that the US has a funny idea jurisdiction.
Crimes committed against the United States are seen as crimes committed in the United States. This is an issue of sovereignty, as there is no (for most intents and purposes) higher, international court to pursue the case in. Therefore, the case is tried in the United States. It's similar to any other foreign national conspiring in crime in the United States. They don't have to physically be in a country to break a country's laws.
The country that the individual was in when the crime was committed can certainly handle the issue and not extradite, however, generally these agreements avoid that.
If US acknowledged international courts, you could make that argument. But as of now, the US doesn't acknowledge some of the most important international courts, like the ICC. Thus the argument that there are no higher courts is entirely bogus, as it is so by choice.
That's the point of extradition agreements. If we're worried that Brazil's Senate has passed morally incompatible laws and wants to extradite folks from the US, then we won't agree. The State Department is (or tries to be) on top of any foreign legislation that would change our agreements.
I'm not talking about morality but legitimacy, why are you bound to follow laws that were not voted for representatives you chose on a country you never been?
That's why I think there must be limits regarding what reasons a country can use to ask for an extradition, specially if you want to extradite a person that's not even an American for treason, espionage or stuff like that.
The idea of extraterritorial jurisdiction has existed for centuries with piracy laws being some of the earliest examples. Most countries have enshrined the idea into their laws in some manner especially when it concerns laws in which the victim is the nation itself. Many countries go way beyond what the US has. For instance France claims the right to prosecute anyone for any crime committed against a French national regardless of where the crime was committed.
Correct, cities in Virginia are independent [1]. Falls Church, for example, is an independent city, and has the governing power of a county, but is not in and of itself a "county" [2].
https://youtu.be/7vsCAM17O-M