Challenge accepted

Big Tech has redefined privacy to mean who they share the datat they collected. It should be what they are collecting and an explicit consent to be required for doing so.

If the data was analyzed and any "metadata" saved forever, deleting the data is effectively irrelevant.

Apple should have pulled Facebook's development certificates for Facebook as a whole

I think that's exactly what has happened, as evidenced by Apple's statement : Any developer using their enterprise certificates to distribute apps to consumers will have their certificates revoked, which is what we did in this case to protect our users and their data."

You should acquaint yourself with the basic facts of the story instead of relying on Reason Magazine. The "learn to code" shit was included in a barrage of death threats from 4chan users. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/t...

No, there are things the Americans don't do.

The Russian government requires all software companies there to include whatever code they give them. You should never run closed-source software on your machine if a Russian company was involved.

Unless Windows 10 arrives and sends your laptop into an infinite boot loop.

I think he means turning CO2 into methane and then releasing the methane.

Somehow I don't think the greatest threat to Amazon is not being able to identify unproductive warehouse workers in time who are earning $15 per hour. That's the type of problem you have with engineers.

Netflix has a lot of cash. They'll usually stop by your local ISP and offer them a big DVR along with money to pay for the electricity.

They don't need to doctor the images to make the Earth look spherical!
They built the cameras using tiny black holes instead of glass lenses, in order to focus the light in a way that makes flat things look round.

Kim's strategy here is obvious. Start by offering to give up North Korea's supply of depleted uranium, and see where it goes from there.

We're replacing it with a power source that doesn't make environmental conditions fluctuate, moron.

Any polyatomic gas is a greenhouse gas. If it's airborne and has three or more atoms, it qualifies.

Low energy infrared photons (like those emitted by a body at 300K) can cause bonds to bend side to side in a flapping motion.

Oxygen and nitrogen are diatomic molecules. They can stretch, but there's no way they can bend because there are only two atoms. So they're transparent to IR emitted from the ground and are not greenhouse gases. Molecules that can bend need three atoms or more, like carbon dioxide, which gets hit by an infrared photon and moves like a bird flapping its wings before reemitting it. H2O is also a greenhouse gas but its long term atmospheric concentration is stable over the long term and doesn't rise year over year. Methane is a potent gas because it's tetrahedral and its single bonds are easier to flex than e.g. the double bonds in CO2.

HFCs and CFCs also have tetrahedral shapes with single bonds, but they're more potent greenhouse gases than methane, because the fluorine and chlorine atoms distort the charge concentration and give the molecule a dipole moment that makes it better at scattering photons. They also provide it with more possible bending motions.

I'm not sure why this article is talking about illegal fluorotrichloromethane being a greenhouse gas. It's illegal because it destroys stratospheric ozone. Gram for gram, sarin is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, but that's not why it's illegal.

The article is poorly written. Yes CFCl3 is a potent greenhouse gas (and so is ozone actually), but the issue here is the ozone destruction, not the greenhouse effect. One shady factory in China manufacturing CFCs will warm the earth about as much as the factory next door legally manufacturing HFC. Sarin is a greenhouse gas too, but that's not what makes its release newsworthy.