Agreed, you can see this now with them using big tech platforms to try to get Americans to believe you can't trust elections (replacing who's in charge every 4 years, yikes!), don't trust journalists, vaccine isn't safe (can't have the US bouncing back too fast), and ubiquitous surveillance is the only way to stay safe.

Hopefully YouTube and Twitter figure out the game they're playing and put a stop to it.

Great response by The Intercept. Pretty much sums up the comments on the previous thread. I do enjoy this new normal, Ok boomer, way of responding to the Greenwalds of the world. Instead of wasting time refuting every ridiculous conspiracy theory or accusation, they treated him like the child he's acting like, gave him the boot, and moved on.

What ridiculous conspiracy theory are you referring to?

Stoped reading after the author made an equivalent comparison between NYT and Brietbart...I mean, you're not fooling anyone with the "un-biased, unaffiliated voter just searching for the truth" shtick. It's 2020 buddy, we see what you're doing.

OP here, the statement mentioning Breitbart alongside the NYT isn't meant to make them equivalent. It's meant to point out that I follow media outlets with major influence for their respective audience. Breitbart is unfortunately a favorite for Republican audiences alongside Fox News, which is why they're mentioned. It's important to track media outlets that have large influence over Democrat and Republican audiences to be aware of what the parties will use as "evidence" to their position and the downfall of those sources.

true brietbart and fox are influential over their readers, bu t they cannot be compared to responsible publishers in respect to their commitment to the truth, and therefore do not deserve respect of those of us who are committed to the truth.

Yep pretty much this. And luckily this will definitely work because none of these companies have a history of making secret agreements not to poach each other's talent after making a 15% pay cut.

No. You don't get to invalidate someones right to privacy because you've given yours up.

The argument that if you don't have anything to hide you don't need privacy has been beaten to death already.

And when it comes to sexual preferences there are still many countries/states where being able to hide it is a life or death situation.

> I am not invalidating someone's right to privacy.

You are saying that not having the choice to choose what to share is acceptable though. Privacy isn't about having something to hide, it's about having the same rights you have with your day-to-day thoughts; you aren't forced to shout every single thought that pops into your mind, you are able to pick and choose what you would like to express and share. Privacy and encryption aim towards that goal.

You sound bitter. You should be bitter. Your gut instinct is right and you probably are the least paid senior there. Not because you bring the least value but because you refuse to negotiate. Read the article, know your worth, and get outside your comfort zone.

I'm more surprised they hired him as a senior then whatever salary they gave him.

Why bother fighting over 4 or 5 percent when I can just get another job in afew months that pay 10 or 20 percent more? I don't see the value, and obviously they don't either. I'm more astounded by the number of people who stick around at jobs for years getting very little pay or loyalty in return.

Thanks for this. The original article seemed too much like a PR puff piece.

“a significant portion of the lobbying done in favor of” the bill “was bankrolled by tech companies.”

Why any IT professional would trust in the big lobbying tech companies to act in their interests is beyond me.

You're absolutely wrong. It's this attitude toward security that is a main factor toward most of the Ethereum hacks to date.

- brilliant exploit by a hacker who was both skilled enough to outsmart many, many world-class developers all working together.

- malicious enough to forgo the generous bounty awarded for disclosing the exploit to the Common Colony security domain.

- detestable enough to willingly crash an enormously successful DAO

If you think one or all of these attack vectors are not something to be concerned about (or worse, be sarcastically dismissive about) you have no business writing smart contracts or anything security related.

Whoa, ok, let's back up here for a second, because I feel like this got a little lost in the shuffle: the dismissive sarcasm was a response to something specific, not to smart contract security of the Colony Network.

The three points above are all valid and absolutely important, and should be consistently and properly considered by anyone developing smart contracts or anything security related. There's no disagreement about that.

popcorncowboy, however, wanted to make an argument that assumed a security breach in order to make a broader point about "code-is-law" and DAOs in general, but was waiting for a response to unveil his second statement (which you can read now). The sarcasm was a response to the rhetorical and argumentative style of popcorncowby, not an illustration of the Colony dev attitudes toward the security of the smart contracts that will comprise the Colony network.

EDIT: phrasing

This is what bothered me too. "Hey everyone, we delivered to our first real customer!"

Then shows the "customer" with a full camera crew, obvious UI mocks, and great looking warehouse workers I have a hard time believing aren't paid actors. Like most things these days, it's probably a paid for PR article lightly disguised as authentic.