> The Services may contain information, text, links, graphics, photos, videos, audio, streams, software, tools, or other materials (“Content”), including Content created with or submitted to the Services by you or through your Account (“Your Content”). We take no responsibility for and we do not expressly or implicitly endorse, support, or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of Your Content.
> By submitting Your Content to the Services, you represent and warrant that you have all rights, power, and authority necessary to grant the rights to Your Content contained within these Terms. Because you alone are responsible for Your Content, you may expose yourself to liability if you post or share Content without all necessary rights.
> You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content:
Twice you have deliberately left out literally the most important bit. I'll quote it for you:
> When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.
It's theirs the moment you click post - and there's nothing you can do about it.
> The Services may contain information, text, links, graphics, photos, videos, audio, streams, software, tools, or other materials (“Content”), including Content created with or submitted to the Services by you or through your Account (“Your Content”). We take no responsibility for and we do not expressly or implicitly endorse, support, or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of Your Content.
> By submitting Your Content to the Services, you represent and warrant that you have all rights, power, and authority necessary to grant the rights to Your Content contained within these Terms. Because you alone are responsible for Your Content, you may expose yourself to liability if you post or share Content without all necessary rights.
> You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content:
> it was inevitable Reddit wouldn't offer free services to businesses making profit off of their content forever
Their content. The audacity. Reddit is built on users' content and on free moderation. Sure it was inevitable that Reddit would lock things down for profit. But lets not pretend that this is Reddit's content.
For the 3rd time you are entirely incorrect. I won't quote the TOS again for you, as I have done twice already.
The moment you post to reddit, they can do anything they want with the content. It is now theirs.
It's also naïve to say reddit was built upon users' content. Yes the content is the most important bit and the reasons users are there today - but that ignores all of the software and infrastructure that made it all possible. There's a reason reddit is what it is today, and it was not an accident.
Set the bar for admission as you described. Have two options for admissions for those who meet the bar. You can choose one and only one of the two systems per admissions cycle.
Option 1: Lottery. Every student is entered into a drawing.
Option 2: Auction. The highest bidders get admitted.
The proportion of slots available for auction or lottery is the same as the proportion of students choosing auction vs lottery.
This allows the rich to buy their way into the school while keeping the majority of the slots available for everyone without extreme wealth.
Now I know what you are thinking, "why should the rich get to buy their way in?" To which I reply, why not? We only sell a small percentage of the slots, only to otherwise qualified applicants, and only to the highest bidders (meaning they necessarily overpay per the winners curse).
I think the crucial part of OP's proposal is that the number of slots allocated to each system is proportional to the total number of students who have applied for that system. In practice this would mean that most slots would be allocated through lottery, because the bidding game would be too expensive for most.
I'd argue that it's not the current system, and also not how the power-brokers who designed the current system want it.
One of the important functions of the current university system is to cherry-pick the smartest, most charismatic, most driven, and most ambitious poor children and give them a seat at the table, indoctrinating them in the ways of the well-to-do and providing them opportunities within polite society. Basically, take anyone who rolled an 18 on one of their D&D attribute scores and make them a lord. By doing this, you decapitate the leadership of any potential revolution. Anyone who has enough charisma, intelligence, ambition to organize the poors into a movement that actually has a chance of success instead has a much easier pathway of going to university, getting a degree and a middle-class job, and enjoying a comfortable existence without the risk of being killed in the revolution. Keep your friends close and your (potential) enemies closer.
Pure lottery admissions doesn't have this property. The biggest threat is that you miss someone talented, who then gets pissed off and overthrows the system. You want to have humans looking over the application packets of everybody, and you want lots of competing admissions departments so that if one of them screws up, that person gets snatched up by another university.
> Legacy admissions at private universities are not blind auction
Donor admissions. I’ve literally heard Hamptons parents timing pregnancies to not overlap with billionaires’ kids, the theory being a million can buy a seat in an “off” year that would cost far more in an “on.”
Harvard takes about 2,000 kids a year. The Dean's or director's list is about 200 of those [1]. If a few more kids come from families giving tens of millions, that will absolutely reduce the odds of a family giving high hundreds of thousands making the cut.
> Telegram’s encryption and anonymity provide a readymade technological platform for illicit activity, helping people to overcome information barriers and gaps in the circulation of information
That sentence is definitely in the "services like Telegram should not exist" camp. I wouldn't call the entire article a "hit piece" but the author is definitely trying to sway minds in favor of more government crackdowns on apps like Telegram.
My understanding is that groups in Telegram are not encrypted and the document mostly refers to groups. When it comes to e2e encryption of one-to-one chats Telegram is not unique in that space.
It's not even considered a good implementation. It's opt-in instead of by default and uses non-standard cryptographic techniques.
People who are critical of encrypted apps like to use Telegram as the chief boogyman but the real reason that Telegram is preferred by criminals isn't the encryption, it's that Telegram has a history of not moderating at all, allowing huge private groups, and refusing any cooperation with law enforcement or CSAM reporting groups.
Better for a central source to not have the data, like Signal, than to refuse to cooperate. Now Telegram can be compelled to disclose what they do have.
Telegram encryption is not opt in. End-to-end encryption however is.
Also this always get mentioned and everyone confuses encryption and end-to-end encryption.
What seems to never get mentioned here unless I do is that there is more to security than end-to-end encryption or not:
WhatsApp would (will? I don't use it since years ago) happily upload your data unencrypted (actually unencrypted not not-end-to-end-encryted!) to the biggest data harvester of all -Google if you or anyone you chat with enabled cloud backups.
Signal had months I think where they had a weird bug were tje client would send pictures to people without the user triggering it.
Facebook Messenger besides leaking all your communication patterns to the second largest data harvester also have this nifty feature were if someone reports your message an unencrypted message goes to Facebook.
Facebook was also the ones that suggested people uploaded nudes so the could "know what they should remove", wasn't it?
Signal also had a nasty exploit that would let anyone who sent a specially crafted message take control over the signal users computer if they opened the message in the desktop client.
Telegram is also the only one that I am aware of that has reproducible builds for both Android and IOS. For every other client you have to trust them. With Telegram you can (could at least last I checked) check out the source, build it and compare it to the version on the App Store.
What I mean is not that one should trust Telegram (there are things I use Signal for), only that when it comes to security engineering there is a lot more to consider than end-to-end encryption and HN really struggles to see this.
seems like meta and google jump thru a lot of hoops to maintain the sharade of e2e-privacy whereas with telegram you know upfront that everything goes to someone else's computer and call it a day
Signal I think is very good with the two major exceptions:
- AFAIK they don't publish reproducible builds
- They've (IIRC and AFAIK) at times had lower quality when it came to the non cryptographic parts.
So if someones lives depend on e2e-encryption Signal is the only recommended messenger IMO.
For following public news channels from Ukraine and the Middle East there is no alternative to Telegram.
And if I have to organize something and not everyone is ready to install Signal (i.e. all the time around here) I try to use Telegram. That way I'm at least not spoonfeeding Google and Meta at the same time.
If FSB sits on my weekend plans that is annoying but no big deal.
(I was however rather annoyed when I realized local police used Telegram a while ago. I think that was very irresponsible.)
Signal has reproducible builds on Android. If they have on IOS like Telegram then I have missed it.
I realize now that while I wrote reproducible builds on both Android and iOS further up the thread I forgot to in my last reply. It was an honest mistake, I forgot.
Telegram is open source.
And has reproducible builds.
So anyone can audit it and verify that
a) end-to-end encryption either works or does not (but I guess someone had told us if it was broken)
b) it is not enabled by default
c) in the default mode data is sent encrypted to Telegrams data centers, after that you have to trust Telegram not to snoop in it.
Does not mean it is perfect or even good, but for its use cases it is a lot better than HN gives it credit for.
I am not conversant in this field, but this portion of the author's profile made me think that she favors the money launderers on some libertarian grounds:
> Her dissertation explores how the illicit market intersects and coexists with Cambodia’s political and economic systems in the cybercrime sector, breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence and intersecting with transnational business networks to form a global illicit network.
"Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" would seem a good thing only if you think that distributing violence more widely should be a social goal.
> "Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" would seem a good thing only if you think that distributing violence more widely should be a social goal.
I think that a reasonable and useful distinction can be made between
"Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence"
and
distributing violence more widely should be a social goal.
The first would be every ideological 2nd amendment supporter (as opposed to criminal, practical, contrarian or stick-it-to-the-libs 2nd amendment supporters).
Here is a fuller expansion of the thinking behind my sentence you quote.
The usual construction is:
- in order to have a peaceful and ordered society, citizens renounce the use of violence and interact only by peaceful means
- citizens of a city/region/country delegate the use of violence to the government (the "sovereign state")
- the government's use of violence is carefully circumscribed by laws and use of governmental laws outside these circumstances is forbidden
Which ends up defining government as the agent with the exclusive authority to use violence in a geographic region. And by extension has a monopoly on the use of violence, for the safety and freedom of all concerned.
"Breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence", in this interpretation, would be to say that some or all people have recourse to violence, and in the worst case are not restrained by law or government. It's in this sense that I think that "breaking the sovereign state’s monopoly on violence" amounts to distributing access to violence more widely.
The consistent application of these ideas would require that citizens not have the right to resist government application of force. In my view, the second amendment is not a carve-out of (i.e. an exception to) this doctrine if it is understood to be applicable to resisting force applied by other citizens, not by government.
To try to explain were I come from in this discussion:
I live in one of the Nordic countries in the suburbs.
From what I know two of my immediate neighbors have firearms. I suspect there are a lot more nearby because gun ownership is very common and most people don't talk about it - I only know they have guns because they sometimes go hunting.)
Growing up I knew about three houses with complete, working assault rifles and emergency depots of ammo. (This was completely normal until a spectacular robbery were the robbers used stolen assault rifles early in the 2000s.)
Switzerland and Austria I understand is the same.
All three known as very peaceful countries.
From what I read most of the absolute worst crimes against humanity has happened by the government against the citizens, not by citizens against citizens.
I am aware of the risks of pervasive weapons ownership but I think of it as an insurance policy against much much worse problems.
So I feel quite confident that there is a huge difference between having access to violence and using violence.
> first would be every ideological 2nd amendment supporter
Owning a gun doesn't break the government's monopoly on violence because owning a gun isn't violent. Firing a gun at a shooting range isn't violent. (Most people don't consider hunting violence.)
Reasonable 2nd Amendment supporters grant the state its monopoly on violence. They just want the means by way to revoke it. (Or, more realistically, make its abuse more difficult.)
> the government's monopoly on violence is more about its power to engage in violence than literal acts of violence
Power being capability and willingness. Guns give a private citizen capability, same as anyone who can make a fist. They do not extend to signalling a willingness to shoot someone. (Threats, on the other hand, are illegal. Partly because they're no fun for anyone involved. Partly because that crosses from potential to actual.)
SpaceX is not a private space agency though, it is a private space launch and satellite communications company, which has revolutionized access to space and access to communication, providing enormous social benefit.
People use SpaceX every day even if they never connected to a starlink -- the lower costs that governments pay for space launches means more money for other things, not to mention no longer paying Russia for launches or engines.
Its interesting how first impressions can be so deceiving. The world's largest private space agency (SpaceX) has completely changed the game in rural internet connectivity. Once upon a time, large chunks of the US had no reliable high speed internet. SpaceX has brought high-speed low-latency internet to every corner of the globe, even the middle of the ocean and Antarctica. This isn't going nowhere even if it seems that way.
> The jury only provided the unanimous guilty verdict. After that point, the defendant has been declared guilty beyond all reasonable doubt by the state, and it's up to the judge to determine the appropriate punishment for someone guilty of the crime of 1st degree murder, robbery, etc.
In Missouri (as in most US States with capital punishment), the death penalty must separately be approved by the jury after the jury convicts.
> 5. Your Content
> The Services may contain information, text, links, graphics, photos, videos, audio, streams, software, tools, or other materials (“Content”), including Content created with or submitted to the Services by you or through your Account (“Your Content”). We take no responsibility for and we do not expressly or implicitly endorse, support, or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of Your Content.
> By submitting Your Content to the Services, you represent and warrant that you have all rights, power, and authority necessary to grant the rights to Your Content contained within these Terms. Because you alone are responsible for Your Content, you may expose yourself to liability if you post or share Content without all necessary rights.
> You retain any ownership rights you have in Your Content, but you grant Reddit the following license to use that Content:
https://redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement-september-25-2...
reply