Given that it now takes an order of magnitude more time than it used to for newly added contacts to appear in my list of Signal contacts, I assume /something/ has changed with the way they exchange contact data.
> “Society is more willing to accept wealthy people paying higher fares,” said Chris Knittel, a business professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “But if the repercussion of lower fares in lower-income places is longer wait times, that’s probably what they want to keep an eye on."
I can't help but recall all the times Uber or its defenders claimed that its supposedly uniform fare scale meant that it could serve all neighborhoods equally, unlike the taxi companies. It will be interesting to see if this policy reproduces the same behavior while laundering it through machine learning.
Interesting, I hadn't heard that defense before. It seems like Uber's app-based hailing is the reason why poor neighborhoods are able to get serviced.
Previously, no taxi driver would drive around in those areas - because of opportunity cost of higher fares in richer areas, and fears of getting robbed when there was tons of cash in the car.
> Previously, no taxi driver would drive around in those areas - because of opportunity cost of higher fares in richer areas
Well, if Uber is using dynamic pricing to ensure fares from richer areas are more expensive than those from poorer ones won't that have the exact same effect?
No, because Uber publishes all of the ride requests, regardless of fare. As long as there is one driver willing to go there, the ride gets fulfilled.
If you are leaving drivers to their own devices to try to find hot spots, they have no way to know someone ten blocks over needs a cab right now from a poorer area.
This is really interesting! I can imagine it might feel quite different if, rather than having a persistent ability to ever retain short-term memories, you lost a small period every few months.
The author's experience seems quite different from yours, though, and I can imagine she might disagree with your evaluation that "Actually, it's exciting".
Yeah bro, that's right, it's not so exciting for me at all at first, but actually I have to accept all those stuff in my life anyway, I am glad that I finally reach here. Thanks!
On the other hand, I think there are really good reasons for co-living beyond saving a bit of money. There's a great community aspect to it as well. On the occasions where I've lived by myself, I've mostly ended up bored and sedentary, whereas in co-living arrangements, there's always people to chat or cook with, hang out, etc.
Of course, I'm still in my late 20s, so take this with a massive grain of salt. But if my salary doubled tomorrow, I still wouldn't give up my flatshare. I don't see myself wanting to leave it for another several years.
I also could afford to live on my own but I prefer to have roomates.
I live overseas,where as a foreigner a personal network is even more important that back home.
Having roomates makes my social life easier. No need to spend so much energy meeting new people outside. There are often people hanging out in the living room. I rarely feel lonely and often meet new cool people,at home.
Plus, you aren't really there except for sleeping and maybe a meal. You're always at work, with friends, out to dinner, at the bar or coffee shop, hiking or biking outside...
> Reading about a patriarchy in the US makes me escpacially angry, because it belittles the suffering from women under actual patriarchies.
Oppression isn't a contest. It takes different forms in different places, and all of them merit smashing. This is not an "extremist" view by any measure.
Patriarchy is a clearly defined term and most western societies don't have one. Much like Hitler comparisons, it only dillutes the term and makes the original concept look more harmless.
"patriarchy: a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it."
"Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage.
Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[1] Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal.[2]"
Women running the Boston Marathon were not recognized as completing it until 1972.
Abortion was illegal until 1973, and it has gone back to being quasi-illegal.
Women here didn't have the right to open a line of credit until 1974.
Until 1978, a woman could be fired for being pregnant.
Until 1980, you could be fired from your job for complaining about sexual harassment.
Marital rape was not criminalized until 1993.
In 1994, women were banned from serving in armed combat in the military. It was finally lifted in 2013.
Women were not allowed to breastfeed in public until 1999.
Women are generally not allowed, or severely frowned upon, joining male-dominated sports such as football.
Women are not allowed to show their nipples in public, except in a few states in a few designated places, and never on social media (well, except maybe Tumblr).
In many states, getting an abortion (read: having full control over your own body and the things that come out of it) is illegal, or so completely difficult as to make it impossible.
When it is legal, women may be forced to undergo a very painful procedure that has been compared to rape, for no medical reason whatsoever.
When it is quasi-legal, you might still not be able to get one, even if your own life is at risk by not getting one.
Or it may only be illegal to have the abortion if the fetus is intact. You may instead have the fetus cut up into little pieces inside you, and then removed, which would not be illegal. (Yes, this is a real federal law)
Since the 2010 midterm elections, over 240 restrictions on abortion have been adopted, mostly at the state level. There are charts to help understand what you can and cannot do with your body depending on the state and county you live in (because most states have over 50% of their counties with no facility to perform abortion, and 28 states have over 90% of their counties with no facilities to perform abortion).
If you can get one, you can afford it, and there is access to a facility, you may need a waiting period, a mandatory unnecessary vaginal ultrasound, counseling, at least one parent informed, and parental consent (even if your parent raped you).
Oh, and women still make 79 cents on the dollar to what men make. A 2015 World Economic Forum report predicted that global gender parity, or the economic and social equality of the sexes, would not arrive for 177 years. This time last year, the Institute for Women’s Policy made a similar assertion, arguing that American men would significantly out-earn American women until 2058.
I could go on, and on, and on, and on. Women are oppressed in this country, by men and the 'moral conservatives' who wish to continue dominating women. It is a patriarchal society because women are treated as second class citizens, and our laws and "free market" reflect that many, many times over.
Yea, sure. A country where not so long ago women couldn't vote or own property, no patriarchy there.. Suddenly things have drastically changed and women have complete parity with men in society. /s
She didn't say this was the case everywhere, but I wish it was surprising at all that she would have her experiences dismissed or excused. Seems like it would be easier to criticize that situation and wish it didn't happen again, but so many would rather insist it never did in the first place.
Its worth recognising that until the 1800s the US was a country where most people couldn't vote or own property -regardless of colour, creed or gender. Voting was restricted to landowners, and that was concentrated among quite a small minority.
I would absolutely start by running a threat modeling exercise, as that will help you focus on the important things and tune out unnecessary FUD (e.g. do you really need to PGP-encrypt everything and run TAILS if you're not being targeted by the NSA?).
Once you have an understanding of what you need to protect and who your main adversaries are, choosing the right tools should become more straightforward.
EFF Surveillance Self-Defense (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) also has a guide to threat modeling, as well as a lot of good resources around how to use various tools.
But my advice: don't choose the tools first, or the non-techies won't understand why they have to use them and may become discouraged by the friction and poor usability they encounter.
Ross Ulbricht was crushed by a mountain of evidence generated by the FBI simply by snatching his laptop from him when he was arrested and not allowing FDE to kick in. Had he compartmentalized and separately encrypted his files, much of that evidence might not have been available to the court. That might have been the difference between a few years in prison and the rest of his natural life.
So, the idea that people should be blasé about encryption is worth questioning. If your threat model includes "law enforcement", then there's not much difference between "ostensibly NSA proof"† and "protected from police".
† Security people have a bit about this, which you can find by searching for "you're gonna get Mossaded".
You're proving GP's point. If you're running the largest darknet drug market in the world, you should probably have stronger security and assume a group like the NSA, or with the means of the NSA, is targeting you.
Local police aren't going to be able to tap into the power of the NSA. Your local country sheriff isn't going to be able to tap into NSA resources, it's going to be difficult enough for them to tap into the resources of the FBI.
For the average person participating in activism of whatever sort, it's going to be perceived as more effort than it's worth if you suggest that they compartmentalize and separately encrypt all their files, keep several burner phones etc. etc. Simply encrypting their full drive is enough.
There's diminishing returns the further down security rabbit hole you go.
MLK's inner circle of most trusted associates included a photographer who was an FBI informant.
It may limit your choices for civil disobedience that breaks laws, but the only reasonable assumption is that if a state actor wants access to your information, they will get it. I suggest reading "This is an Uprising" which has a fantastic history of activism.
> In the real world, threat models are much simpler (see Figure 1). Basically, you’re either dealing with Mossad or not-Mossad. If your adversary is not-Mossad, then you’ll probably be fine if you pick a good password and don’t respond to emails from ChEaPestPAiNPi11s@virus-basket.biz.ru. If your adversary is the Mossad, YOU’RE GONNA DIE AND THERE’S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. The Mossad is not intimidated by the fact that you employ https://. If the Mossad wants your data, they’re going to use a drone to replace your cellphone with a piece of uranium that’s shaped like a cellphone, and when you die of tumors filled with tumors, they’re going to hold a press conference and say “It wasn’t us” as they wear t-shirts that say “IT WAS DEFINITELY US"
> Threat:
Organized criminals breaking into your email account and sending spam using your identity
Solution:
Strong passwords + common sense (don’t click on unsolicited herbal Viagra ads that result in keyloggers and sorrow)
> Threat: The Mossad doing Mossad things with your email account
The registry existed under Obama, but it was created in 2002 after 9/11, partially suspended in 2011, and fully suspended last month [0], though it looks like it remains to be seen whether the suspension will be undone.
Thanks for the link. Looks like that program was only indirectly about religion. It provided a list of countries whose citizens were subject to more intense scrutiny. Most of those countries were majority Muslim, thus most people affected by the program were Muslim. There were successful civil rights complaints about this.
Trump, of course, has suggested a much more aggressive and less subtle program that includes an explicit religious test.
NSEERS is not even remotely a Muslim registry. It says if you're from one of five countries or are specifically selected, you have to pass additional scrutiny to enter the US and are subject to additional notification and reporting requirements.
Well it is effectively the same as what Trump wants to implement. So it is as much of a Muslim registery as his plan. (which, as you argue, is not at all)
No it's not. Trump said he wanted to register people based on their religion. NSEERS says if you're from one of five countries or are individually selected, you have to have additional screening. Also NSEERS doesn't even exist anymore.
I travel DB long-distance twice weekly for commutes. The 116€ "standard fare" is actually the maximum fare. It only gets cheaper if you buy in advance, buy saver tickets, or get a BahnCard.
I have a BahnCard 50 (50% discount on flexible fares). It paid for itself in about three weeks. It cost 255€ and I've never had to pay more than 47€ for a flexible ticket, even last-minute on high-speed lines.
For anyone interested in Sebastião Salgado's work, I can highly recommend the documentary The Salt of the Earth[0] directed by Wim Wenders. He's done much amazing, gripping photography on ecological catastrophes and the people affected by them, and quite a bit of great nature photography as well.
>Average rents, meanwhile, increased by 4.1% to $1,248 in the first quarter from a year earlier, compared with the 2015 first quarter’s 5% increase, according to Axiometrics Inc., an apartment research company.
So rents increased 4.1% instead of 5% as they did a year ago. Both of these numbers are higher than the rate of inflation [0]. So rents are still rising in real terms.
Can we really say the market is "cooling", then? I would think that the "heat" of a market would be measured by the first derivative of price, rather than the second.
Sure, but in the article (and your metaphor as I understand it), "heating" and "cooling" refer to the rate of change of the rate of change, i.e. whether the year-on-year increase in rental price is increasing or decreasing. "Hot" (and presumably "cold") would then refer to the YOY increase itself.
I'm wondering whether the clearer metaphor isn't to use "heating" and "cooling" to refer to positive/negative YOY increases, respectively, and "hot" and "cold" to describe the average prices.
I guess "Market still heating up, just not as fast" makes for a less compelling headline.
