121–130 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure why you are getting so many down votes, it's a legitimate point. We tend to forget that it was Obama who was in his second term when the Snowden revelations hit the papers. It was Obama who approved the drone strikes on US citizens. It was Obama who was in charge during Manning's court martial, conviction and sentencing. I appreciate the complexities of each decision, but it shows he understood and accep…
>If it were Exxon-Mobile doing the same thing, you would have pause, even if they were saying the right things. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil is going to be Secretary of State.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Trump probably will win the next election because he knows how to attract populace. Trump only won because fewer Liberals voted. I don't think that will happen 4 years from now.
Fewer liberals voted because a lot of people couldn't stomach Hillary, and a lot of people were apathetic toward her. She didn't excite many people. If the Democrats run someone less entitled, less establishment, less robotic (for want of a better word), then that should help. On the other hand, Trump needs to deliver, or have a mighty good reason why not. Talking big won't be enough next time. If he hasn't actually…
Not to be confronting but Obama got elected twice. Did he delivered the first time?
> we have a defeated majority I take this to mean HRC supporters. It's also important to realize and recognize the pains being endured by the "minority" (I hate that word when it comes to binary politics and the "minority" is only 1-2% smaller than the "majority") that caused them to support Trump in the first place. Failing to do so, or treating them as idiots, is only going to exacerbate the problem. Bruce Schneier…
Second: Complaining about Hillary winning the popular vote is like complaining that a football team lost even though they had the most yards of offense. The rules say that's not how the game is scored. Saying that the rules should have given victory to the other team is after-the-fact sour grapes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very hard to be the only person promising to revolt, but it gets easier the more people that do it. What's the threshold percentage of Google or Facebook's workforce that would need to commit themselves before it would not only be safe to join them, but their demands would need to be reckoned with by management? I don't know (I'm really asking) but my gut says it's nowhere close to 51%.
"It's very hard to be the only person promising to revolt, but it gets easier the more people that do it." Been there, done that. Several times. It's why I don't do it anymore. That threshold is higher than many people think. What happens most is insider attack where a person unsure will sell the people out to administration or management. Revolt gets squashed with that person maybe getting some compensation for it.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fewer liberals voted because a lot of people couldn't stomach Hillary, and a lot of people were apathetic toward her. She didn't excite many people. If the Democrats run someone less entitled, less establishment, less robotic (for want of a better word), then that should help. On the other hand, Trump needs to deliver, or have a mighty good reason why not. Talking big won't be enough next time. If he hasn't actually…
> That won't be enough to get Trump another four years if he doesn't deliver during the first four. Not to be confronting but Obama got elected twice. Did he delivered the first time?
Did he deliver? Well, the economy didn't crater into a Great Depression, so kind of yes. But he left us with a not-really-recovered economy in 2012, so kind of no.
Look, I may be under-rating Trump's ability to genuinely inspire trust. He may be able to bamboozle enough people into buying more empty promises and lack of substance in 2020. I just don't think the "true believers" were enough of his voters this time for him to be able to pull it off.
[Edit: If, by some stroke of insanity, the Democrats run Hillary again in 2020, Trump may well win.]
I was watching the 'Dunkirk' trailer the other day and a line stuck out to me: An older fishing boat captain is talking to a younger and soggy rescued solider and says: "There's no hiding from this, boy", referring to the coming of WW2 in general and the captain having to turn to boat back into the melee to search for more survivors. I think that line is also what Bruce is trying to say to a lot of the EFF supporters…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's very hard to be the only person promising to revolt, but it gets easier the more people that do it." Been there, done that. Several times. It's why I don't do it anymore. That threshold is higher than many people think. What happens most is insider attack where a person unsure will sell the people out to administration or management. Revolt gets squashed with that person maybe getting some compensation for it.…
What other similar things have you tried to organize? How many people got involved? What were the outcomes?
First one all but me backed out on key moment with one selling me out. Others had similar pattern with lots of support in those that talk, too few actually acting, some ratting, and it fizzling out as actors get scared or removed from a situation with too many talkers. All went that way. Im actually doing another right now but directly and in open since I anticipate others will bitch out.
In any case, the pattern I describe seems very similar to large-scale activism work or just how people in this country talk vs respond on big issues. It's either human nature itself or a weakness of American culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose however it is hard to revolt against the hand that feeds you more than 2x market rate. "Everyone has their price" sort of thing ..
It's very hard to be the only person promising to revolt, but it gets easier the more people that do it. What's the threshold percentage of Google or Facebook's workforce that would need to commit themselves before it would not only be safe to join them, but their demands would need to be reckoned with by management? I don't know (I'm really asking) but my gut says it's nowhere close to 51%.
In fact, you don't even have to look at just the Bay Area. Americans don't want a Muslim registry. They don't want mass deportations. Even Trump voters don't want mass deportations [1]. Tech companies need to remember that if they facilitate mass deportations, they are working against the will of the American people.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/trump...
Interesting read, but I can't imagine how anyone could convince Google and Facebook to change their business models at this stage unless the market truly revolted and started moving away from their products due to privacy issues. I think change is much more likely to happen through disruption (which perhaps is the other side of his ideas, coming up with business models that are more privacy-friendly). I think securit…
IMO there are only two companies in the world right now that could possibly compete against Google and Facebook on that kind of scale but with a different, more privacy-respecting business model. Unfortunately, the one in Cupertino only takes a lukewarm stance on privacy despite being in an excellent position to make it a distinguishing feature of their platform; and the one in Redmond with its always-calling-home op…
(EDIT: read your reply further down; okay, we're not as far apart as I thought; in fact, I think you're spot on. I'll leave this here anyway.) Wow, do we have differing points of view. The way I look at Apple these days is that privacy is the distinguishing feature of their platform. What other device maker is visibly working to ensure that even they themselves cannot access the data on your device?
Now, any contrarian argument is sure to point out the holes, but IMO it's the best we've got at the moment, and Apple appears to me to give a message of "we don't care about your data, we're content to collect money from you by selling you shiny trinkets".