This article is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Probably the only truly honest thing in there is their admission that they have services available. It is not a "study" in any reputable sense of the word, and Softpedia is basically lying to you by calling it that. Softpedia is also very blatantly conflating vulnerabilities with mere attack vectors.
Let me highlight for you the most glaring example of "using a lot of words to lie" that are in the "study" they're linking to... Starting right in the middle of page two they try to compare and contrast a malvertising attack that uses flash as a vector and one that uses HTML5. Unfortunately for them, their HTML5 example is not only fairly nebulous but they cite a redirection to the Angler Exploit kit as if this really meant anything more than an attempt at compromise. One might then ask... what mechanisms does the Angler Exploit Kit use to compromise the system running the browser? Well... That's primarily exploiting vulnerabilities in Flash. This sort of logical shortcoming means one of two things... Either the author is too ignorant to speak authoritatively on the matter or they're just lying. Take your pick.
Google got where they are by doing a good job--not through anti-competitive practices or corporate skullduggery. If Google somehow irrevocably deletes a significant portion of the internet and then calls it "a natural network correction" while taking home millions of page views, then maybe we can talk about regulating them. Until then what they have isn't a "stranglehold" it's a winning approach.
Epstein is apparently just looking to score readers by raising ire, because most of his arguments are deeply questionable. The bit about the payday loan companies being turned away from AdWords is a fairly disingenuous point for him to bring up. For one, Google didn't blacklist them from anything but AdWords. Search results for payday loans still find and return hits to all the shady operators out there.
Here's an idea... How about instead of blindly blaming the tech workers, someone makes an attempt to assign blame for the out-of-control rents to the people who actually have control over them?
I know it sounds like a wild plan, full of risk and possibly requiring an hour or two of actual research, but it seems to me that calling out the property holding companies and landlords would be a far more effective way to put a stop to the rent crisis in San Francisco.
I know it doesn't fit the narrative of xenophobia at all, because most of those people have lived in San Francisco for some time now.
...or could it be that San Francisco's "natives" are really turning into a bunch of douchebag hipsters that think voicing their opinion is more important than having an opinion based on common sense and knowledge?
Can we stop with the fanboy nonsense already? "Faster performance"? Tell us how is this relevant with context? The ODROID requires markedly more power than the Pis do, so if it didn't run faster they would simply have made an inferior product. Considering that power draw is generally a factor in these things, it's simply disingenuous to even mention "faster" without considering work-done-per-amp-hour. Just because it's posted on Phoronix doesn't automatically mean it's not just meaningless fanboy jibber-jabber designed to generate clickthroughs.
Otherwise, a good desktop PC is an "alternative" that "exists" and can stomp them both into the dirt--if one ignores the wildly greater power consumption, heat production, massive increase in size, and cost.
Please read http://deirdre.net/the-puppy-f... and then say that again.
Short version: The SJW camp was campaigning for people to vote "no award" just to thwart the people who refused to vote for authors simply because they were bisexual or whatever. The Puppies' camps were talking the entire time about voting for works based on the quality of the work, alone. They did not feel someone should win an award for fiction writing simply because they were of a non-traditional gender or the other reasons the SJWs were nominating stories that were not quality related.
This is a lie and nothing but a lie.
If you do even the least bit of research, you will find pages like this one...
This is where one of the "your genitalia is more important than your writing skills" people was instructing their camp to vote No Award because otherwise the Puppies people might cause an author they voted for based on the quality of the work to win an award.
You have this entirely backwards.
It was the SJWs who were picking authors based on their political viewpoints and their willingness to deal with people who are obsessed with what everyone is doing with their genitalia.
The Puppies groups were campaigning for works to be judged on their quality alone.
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell them, not what you want. -- D. Cohen