I imagine the next logical step would be for Netflix to start having their own (inclusive) movie competitions, and in the process more than likely become far more relevant than the exclusive competitions.
I was just thinking. What is a good way to phrase the problem in order to understand whether there are more pros / cons to having the client vs server decide which algorithms to use in a transaction.
I haven't thought this through fully, but as far as I can tell ecosystems on the web evolve. And so I think it's probably a good idea that we architect things for the web in such a way that we don't inhibit that evolution. When you put a decision like encryption algorithm in the client's hands does it feel to anyone else that the security will evolve more rapidly, and thus remain more robust? When the client is deciding, there's a larger pool of people "voting" for what is an acceptable level of security. Even though a lot of those "votes" will be based on the default settings of a library, that library will over time become less popular as more and more people consider it unsafe.
By the same token, if a particular service (server-side) does not keep up with that evolution, fewer and fewer people will use it as other (safer) services pop up.
If the specification requires the server to decide which algorithm to use a naive client, who doesn't know which algorithms are safe or not, is just as dangerous.
As far as I know there are no algorithms that exist today that we can guarantee will never be broken in the future. So algorithm choice inherently must be decoupled from the specification.
EDIT: Or a naive server implementation for that matter...
I used to get annoyed by all the negativity Soylent received from people. Now I just get amused by it. Soylent has been nothing but a positive addition to my life.
Do you think it's more difficult for a person to comprehend that the "workshops" are just as much an opinion as the "hate speech" they're trying to target?
Although that point of view appears to miss the point. It appears the inability to pay for food with the health budget would hide / obfuscate the data that might have otherwise shown a direct correlation between malnutrition and poor health.
Sure you could read a study to get the same information, but unless your own data screams to you what the problem is it's not always easy to convince folks you should be doing anything about it.
I don't blame the bureaucrat who denied this claim. While food is clearly required for your health, and there is a strong connection between healthy diet and general and specific health issues, including death, pharmacies don't dispense food. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that insurance would approve supplements, not food, for malnutrition since that is something traditionally associated with health care.
What would you say if the family was providing unhealthy food, and the doctor prescribed a year of vegetables from Medicaid? I agree, that would be a great program, but federal agencies can only do what they're specifically allowed to by law. I would imagine there is much data gathered on what conditions Medicare patients are suffering from, and i presume if malnutrition is common, that would be addressed in agency reports and in congress.
I'm not sure what data you're envisioning 'screaming' to responsible parties or what method they would be encountering this data by.
Granted, I don't yet know the scope of the project precisely (ie. how detailed and how much information was collected), but if it's as big as I think it is, Steve Ballmer has instantly become one of my favorite people currently inhabiting this planet.
It was created by someone who was at Microsoft. If the past is any indicator, you will see a splashy introduction, the follow-up and follow-through will be horrendous, and in the end everyone will hold their noses and still use it anyway.
My experience with FedEx's technology stack is minimal, but I can tell you that all publicly exposed FedEx technology (ie. apis, etc) confirm without a shadow of a doubt that FedEx is not a technology company and they should leave the evolution of the web to others.
I think hindsight will reveal that the things that make a "distributed company" successful are really the same things that make a "localized company" successful. I think it's just that having all employees on-site probably makes it easier for companies to "fake it" and stumble into success through sheer grit and determination. Probably a lot of times even when they have less-than-adequate (but highly motivated) human resources.
When everyone is on site, there's enough implicit communication going on that you can get away with not documenting things in writing for a lot longer than in a remote team.
