We should know it's too good to be true for Google to a offer something as useful as maps without eventually letting money fuck up the relationship. Google maps already has too many internet dependencies for a GPS Nav app. If they plan on hitting me with adds and monetizing the location info, then society needs a better alternative. I already hate you Google, don't pervert a single purpose app into a bloated advertising vehicle. Fuck you Google, give me free stuff and stay out of my way.

Scooters allow poor people who can't afford cars to get out of the ghetto. Tracking is needed so they can make sure not too many undesirables are traveling to areas where they aren't wanted.

Why is Illinois the only state with a common sense bio-metric law? We need the same in every state if we are to have any hope of avoiding facial recognition and bio-metric data abuse by corporations and government. My gym tried to get me to give a thumb scan to access the gym, but at least they had a practice of allowing showing ID at entry as an alternative, else it would have turned into a rather unpleasant conversation. My wife wants me to get TSA pre-check or Global Entry to speed up our travels, but I'm not sure I can stomach sharing full fingerprint data with the U.S. government.

We should prepare for a zero trust model with China. If the product can be compromised in a way that impacts the security of western interests, it should either not be produced in China, or a strict audit control practice should be imposed. Currently the threats are not causing any huge impact, but imagine a future in war time, or economic strife that increases the adversarial nature of relations with China. The U.S. and western allies would be wise to setup supply chains where threats to our economies and national interests are minimized with regard to Chinese influence. This means we need to have operational plants and foundries in the west that are capable of sustaining a secure supply chain for defense and for economic survive-ability. I would say the same irrespective of the Bloomberg report on Supermicro, that's one case, that whether legitimate or not illustrates the threat in clear terms.

One aspect that I see continually see overlooked is that the forces threatening threatening jobs are ultimately choices. Businesses can choose to automate as much as possible and cut production costs without regard for social costs, or they can value people and respect the dignity of work and benefits to society of having strong employment. Similarly sending jobs oversees to the lowest bidder that will work for exploitative wages is a choice. Legislators also have a choice, in fact policy can be crafted that provides incentives for employing human labor, or performing work in the domestic market, or paying ethical wages to foreign labor to support the global economy. I know it's not likely that the largest companies are going to develop an actual sense of ethics or loyalty to the people or to their own nations, but it doesn't mean that destroying the value of labor is an eventuality, it is in fact a choice. The people also if they so choose can influence this outcome, by choosing which business we buy from and what priorities we communicate to our lawmakers.

You can block domains for Amazon.com, AWS, s3, etc... It doesn't impact that much. It doesn't mean some of the sites you hit aren't hosted by Amazon, but a least it reduces your analytics footprint. It's not impossible, only inconvenient. I block all of it and if something doesn't work, I make a judgement call if it's worth it to allow it for 5 minutes while I do one thing, and then block them again. It takes commitment to truly ban evil from your life, but it doesn't hurt to limit what we feed the machine.

The Supreme Court of The United States has four and a half stars on 134 reviews. Maybe they just don't understand how damaging false negative Yelp reviews can be to your business. Personally I'd have to give them three Stars until they reverse Citizens United. If they take up any Right-to-Life cases that goes to two stars.

Because as you are highlighting, it's a false narrative. Just like when Eric Schmidt said "Worrying about a computer reading your email is like worrying about your about your dog seeing you naked". It's a false narrative because your dog cannot record everything it sees and play it back on command. Maybe sometimes data is like sunlight, other times it's like a searchlight coming in your bedroom window illuminating for the company wielding it, all sorts of things you would not voluntarily allow to be illuminated.

I did some self reflection on that one. For the same reason that "Bro culture" is a useless overly reductive term, I'll have to admit so is SJW. Whenever we try to reduce anyone's perspective to a derogatory label it weakens any argument. I'm going to make a personal effort to drop SJW from my vocabulary, but I still hold that "Bro culture" is a stupid, useless and overly reductive term that should just go away.

After more than 20 years working in the Silicon Valley tech industry, I still have yet to encounter Bro Culture, whatever the fuck that is... SJWs and lazy tech journalists need a new meme.

If they embed HTML into the receipt email they could get info on you just because you viewed the receipt even from a burner email, at least for normal people that aren't privacy wonks with custom settings. Turn off WiFi on your phone, pay in cash, don't let the cameras see your face clearly, get a paper receipt, or forgo the receipt. It will remain a challenge to avoid the corporate pimps treating us as data whores.

I'm tired of these stupid scooters littering the sidewalk. I see no reason why these companies should be allowed to leave their scooters on public property. I don't get to just store my stuff on the sidewalk anywhere I please. Please help destroy, or dispose of as many scooters as possible. The only way to stop them is to make them a financial loser for the companies who offer them. Bonus points if you destroy them in a way that brings negative media attention to the scooter vendors. I suggest a legal option, but legislators are not going to end them, so the more anarchist methods are reasonable in this case.

This sort of behavior from device makers is just abhorrent. Is there any decent camera setup that can allow only the user to access features? I mean I want to be able to check the video from my phone, but I want to use a firewall in front of any device so that it can't talk outbound to ANYTHING else including the vendor's networks. My phone isn't likely to have a consistent IP address and I don't know if any company offers security camera's that don't depend on any vendor interaction for the features to work. We have got to push the IoT industry to have LAN side only access and user only interaction, where no trust is given to the device vendor and there is little or no opportunity for remote exploit, but we need to have decent ways to interact securely when we want to interact with IoT devices remotely. Maybe allow LAN and VPN allowed, but no public internet in or out?