Yeah, for sure, but I don’t want to be Brin, I want a llama farm. 🦙

Give me a salary that guarantees $1 million a year post-tax, and I’ll do it for a couple of years until I’ve saved up for a seaside llama farm I can fuck off to. But even at Google, almost no one is making that as an “IC”.

100%. Even them saying “But (using a cert to unlock the device) is crossing the line.” is the sort of arbitrary moral line-drawing that tech bros are prone to, where they think they deserve to dictate what people can do with their products/ code. The same as LLM companies saying it’s wrong to train on their output, while training on everyone else’s.

I’ve tried this route before, but honestly I don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze for the average person. There’s also almost no way to assess its effectiveness.

You know, at least it’s not Brave, throwing in cryptomining bs, getting caught selling data without telling anyone, or using the profits to push COVID conspiracy theories and anti-LGBT activism, or getting their funding directly from Founders Fund (Peter Thiel).

deleted by creator

I tend to trust Mozilla (more than other browser-owning companies), but they really should just clarify exactly what they do that would be considered as sale of data in any jurisdictions.

They seem to be implying that the data is just metadata that has been abstracted for (presumably ad-targeting) commercial purposes, and there are jurisdictions that consider derived metadata as still being “user data”, but in that case just make a blog post laying out what and where you are sharing. If your “partners” are opposed to people knowing about them, or you are scared that people would not like who you’re in bed with, that is a problem.

Russia bombards all the civilian infra immediately anyways, because it creates a crisis that the defenders have to manage. It’s better to have a your defensive forces close to your civilian populace, than having to fly over to them once the attack has already started.

Remember, day 1 of the current Russian invasion, they tried to seize Kyiv airport, to bring in transport planes. The civilian airports are strategic targets even without any military presence.

This is what Switzerland does. Saves a ton of money on infra and maintenance costs, and keeps your defensive forces closer to the cities that enemies will be attacking.

Also, it’s dead simple to send someone else (or tell them over the phone) 6 numbers, when you’re being phished. Much harder for people to send someone a QR code.

MLK never stops being relevant and right to a ‘T’.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

You’d be surprised how many won’t put 2 and 2 together (or will otherwise feign ignorance) without a news story laying it out in detail.