The reasons are even in the summary. If the other party has your phone number, they can more easily screw up and text you something sensitive rather than using Signal.

Consider that you are someone interesting enough to have a really skilled adversary with some resources. You're a journalist some powerful person or company doesn't like.

If someone compromises the person on the other end of your chats, they now have your phone number. They can now use your phone number for all sorts of phishing attacks, and have a much wider set of paths to attack *your* device. If they just have your Signal username, it's much less useful to them.

It's also often wanted for a much less technical sort of privacy. Women in particular give out fake numbers all the time, and many prefer to share Instagram and the like instead of a phone number. You can just block someone on Instagram, if they have your phone number, that at least feels much more permanent.

$8 Trillion? Citation needed, I think you're thinking of TARP, which was about $800 billion. A lot of money, but nowhere near $8 trillion.

And two, I don't think you understand what TARP was. It was in no way like just forgiving $800 billion in debt. They basically *gave* loans, and many places estimate that when the recovery bounced back, the government effectively turned a profit.

https://projects.propublica.or...

The comparison is just silly.

I really wonder, maybe more accurately assume it will happen, if these cancellations go through, will people who paid off their loans sue the government?

Myself, I went to school part time for over eight years. I had federal loans the first year, and then just worked myself to death (pretty literally, my health got terrifyingly bad) working multiple jobs and paying it as I went. Now that they've apparently changed the deal . . . can I sue the government?

Maybe I can't and win, but certainly a lot of people are going to.

You don't even have to follow a link, it's in the summary. Even right after the word "untrusted." I won't spoil it for you, but you might have to consider what the word "so" means.

I'm pretty skeptical what they're doing is actually more secure than a local container. The complexity will probably open them up to all kinds of ironic security problems down the line. It probably monetizes better though.

It's almost like all these developers paying for Unity would have been much better off contributing to an open source project.

It's a long shot, but it seems Godot and a few others have seen an uptick in both interest and funding. Hopefully some of both will stick around.

So how do you fund the research that go nowhere?

I mean even in all public model, "at cost" just isn't a thing here. I'm extremely pro for reigning in the ridiculous amounts of money pharma makes off not treating everyone, but this post is fundamentally misunderstanding how it would work.

You're kidding yourself if you really believe that HBO is the only brand they have of any value. Warner Brothers is a freaking empire and the fact that you don't know it is a big part of why it works.

The Barbie move was WB, by far the biggest movie of the year. It was setup to succeed by a wild marketing machine, WB's CEO said something along the lines of "for a solid month, every cake on HGTV was Barbie themed." HGTV is wildly valuable.

The long game they're playing will likely work. They are destroying the HBO brand because they don't want it in the way of these other brands. They want people to come for HBO shows, and stay to be cheaply sold Barbie by reality TV. It's a possibly brilliant move as Netflix, Amazon, even Disney, all continue losing huge amounts of money.

You can hate it, but you shouldn't dismiss it.

It's kind of weird to claim it's all marketing and not, you know, respond to what their marketing says. From what I can tell, they literally only make one claim about it:

"Titanium has one of the best strengthtoweight ratios of any metal, making these our lightest Pro models ever. You’ll notice the difference the moment you pick one up."

Is that not true?

The main complaints I can see is that its cost isn't worth shaving off a tiny bit of weight, but it isn't all marketing, it's still just fact that no one is disagreeing with.

They already charge as a percentage of transaction size, and are making ridiculous profits, you know, like a monopoly does.

But never forget, Bitcoin is a scam with nothing to offer. Your benevolent financial institution overlords are looking out for you.

Setting aside the uhm, rhetorical quality of this article, this is an utterly bizarre take for a Mongo employee to take.

There's a very pay no attention to the man behind the curtain quality to that reality. Mongo's business pretty thoroughly depends on their license so Amazon can't just run whatever they want. Their head of developer relations has to know his argument is nonsense. I suspect they just want people calling things like what Meta is doing open source so the door is open for Mongo to be similar and be called open source too.

Developers just need to start building things with no regard for the license, and pay whoever they need to pay, forever, and like it when they get sued. Don't pay attention to those pesky licenses.

IBM owns Red Hat. Red Hat is IBM at this point.

This is just fact. It doesn't need defending, or explaining, but it does have to be accepted. If Red Hat does something, whether it's being led by old Red Hatters or old IBM folks, IBM is doing that thing.

. . . why the heck is Betsy in quotes? It's literally her name?

This is not true at all. I spent years working at one of the universities mentioned in the article after graduating from it. It's a gravy train, and they are smart enough to play a long game. While in a sense you're right they don't care if the government gets paid or not, they care very much, they've literally staked their whole existence on, the government continuing to pay them in the future.

It's not even an open secret, it's just an open thing they discuss regularly.

They know full well, if student's expect loans to be forgiven, they will borrow more in the future, and will raise prices accordingly. I guarantee you every school mentioned in this article has five and ten year budgets based on scenarios where student loans are forgiven at different levels and rates go up, and where they aren't and don't.

Every single one has an economics department.

If I had mod points, I'd mod this up, it should really be the whole conversation. I consider myself awfully left, but the whole student loan forgiveness thing is the straw that drove me to stop identifying Democrat. It's just such an obvious lie. I mean they both don't intend to do it at any really large scale, and on top of that, I can't find a single economist worth a damn who will say it's a good idea. Because it obviously isn't.

It is pretty much the *most basic* economics. I know because it was like the second week of my economics class . . . in college . . . .

The whole story is irrelevant. "Wealthy traveler uses product as it was intended, buy this product to be like them" isn't a story, it's an ad.