"Amazon's Fire-tv/tablet/etc forks of Android are fighting hard with Apple / iOS for the title of most obsessively walled-garden ecosystem."

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

You can side-load Google Play on Kindle Fire tablets (and then install anything you like) and you can side-load APKs on Fire TVs (I haven't tried Google Play, but I installed Kodi this way).

This doesn't differ much from any other AOSP (not licensed for Google Play) version of Android.

The verge published a similar piece about 18h ago: https://www.theverge.com/2020/...

Original source: https://twitter.com/KYWeise/st...

As you can see from other threads here, Amazon gets a list of 501c3s from the IRS and filters out bad actors from a list managed by the SPLC. If the government views it as a legitimate not-for-profit and the SPLC doesn't classify it as a hate group or other socially undesireable org, then Amazon is trying not to be in the business of curating which nonprofits are good or bad, given that there are apparently around a million on this list.

Maybe there is another category of organizations that support unscientific treatment of medical conditions? I just think that would result in blacklisting tons of charities that people want to support because a lot of people believe in woo nonsense. If Narconon is breaking the law and hurting people (beyond just fleecing then out of money for woo BS), then the government should be going after them, revoking their 501c3 status, pursuing the individuals involved, etc.

Amazon processes donations through smile.amazon.com to random PTA groups, to major charities and everything in between. I don't know much about Narconon, it may be shitty and Scientology associated, but if people opt in to supporting it on smile.amazon.com that is their business.

I personally use smile to support a charity in New York that develops schools and employment opportunities in a developing country in Europe. If that's not your cup of tea, that's cool, Amazon making that available on smile isn't an endorsement of the particular charity.

I hate Scientology personally, but Amazon processing donations to a vaguely Scientology-affiliated charity is no worse than lots of other causes or charities that I don't support or agree with and is not some sort of secret endorsement by Amazon of Scientology.

"Presh Talwalker of Mind Your Decisions says the above riddle was used as an Amazon interview question."

Amazon interviewers are advised against asking ridlles as part of an interview, and I haven't been on an imterview loop where I have seen a riddle used.

Was the interviewer an ex-Googler?

The final evaluation claimed that AWS didn't adequately satisfy all of the requirements, however the prior evaluation (before Trump started saying that he would punish Bezos) showed that AWS far exceeded the requirements.

Also, changes to the requirements after Trump's statements against Amazon/Bezos could effectively increase the cost to the government by not allowing any sharing of infrastructure (e.g. not even power/cooling/DCs) between existing classified AWS regions and the JEDI region(s).

See the original protest submission: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters....

There's quite a bit of evidence there that Amazon seems to have a solid case.

I think a reasonable balance of improved security and convenience would be to allow default password iff the device cannot assign/accept a default gateway/route when the current password matches the default password (and have first-time setup prompt/require changing of the password).

Sure, this would allow lateral movement in a subnet that already has compromised devices, but if all devices did this, compromising one would be less likely.

> Ironically, the Washington Post...is owned by Amazon.

No, The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, not Amazon.

Been to Venice recently?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world...

See https://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/...

And you can disable it, see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Secur...

Regarding OSes, why do you give MacOS, ChromeOS, iOS and Android free passes here?

I only trust Firefox binaries from/running on a non-US, non-corporate-controlled Linux distro with private information, and Firefox on Android for less sensitive personal info, and Firefox on work-mandated hardware and OS purely work purposes

<sarcasm>Yes, because there couldn't possibly be any more important traffic on that link than video streaming ...</sarcasm>

A better option may be using multiple TCP connections, possibly with better pre-fetching (assuming non-realtime streams), or using bittorrent :-p.

"12 Mbps is fast enough for 1080p. They are claiming you need the 50 Mbps plan for just 720p. That makes no sense, and what it tells me is that ..." ... you haven't factored in the latency. Go find a TCP throughput calculator (e.g https://www.switch.ch/network/... ) , and plug in the values into the bandwidth-delay-product.

At e..g 300ms with a 64kB window size, 50Mbps becomes 1.75Mbps.

This is why CDNs changed the internet (and why Youtube built one of the first), especially for people (like me) in countries ~200ms from major internet exchanges, 250ms from New York and 300ms from the U.S West coast.

"Let's just get to the end game where women achieve equality."

We're obviously not there yet, because a male CEO in a company with a toxic culture would be held accountable for it (and blamed in media, both traditional and "social" for creating it, regardless of the facts), but a female CEO will be (as in this article) be excused from that responsibility.

Why are you booting with net.ifnames=0 (or similar to disable predictable interface names) when it seems you should be?