I grew up reading NYTimes on the weekend with my parents. I held them in extreme high regard when it came to their news and journalistic integrity. Over the years, I've shifted to think of them as another data point. For the industries that I'm most familiar with (Tech, Finance, and Pharma), I find their reporting often shallow, lacking in nuance, or intentional/unintentional misreporting. And I often wonder if their reporting of other areas is similarly lacking.

Now, they are just another data point, which is sad.

Why does Apple always get a free pass?

This feels like a really niche use case for SSH. Exposing this more broadly could lead to set-it-and-forget-it scenarios and ultimately make someone less secure.

> In one screenshot shared by the agency, a person identified as an Argentine national said Kirk “devoted his entire life spreading racist, xenophobic, misogynistic rhetoric.”

You’re creating an absurd standard “repeatedly return large expensive items” but even every day things are way easier in the US.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44261544

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I have long suspected that the sequencing data isn't valuable except to law enforcement.

If it were as easy to link sequencing to diseases, we would have seen a rapid advances in our ability to address those diseases. The genetic data alone isn't enough of a predictor.

This feels like a pretty non-partisan issue.

I wonder if the strategy behind the CHIPS act is to have enough “backup” capacity in the US that it isn’t completely vulnerable.

Is the argument that governments don't have a good reason to mandate record collection?

Why can't I ask my government to keep me safe from terrorists but also expect that companies will not just be careless with the data they collect as part of that?

We wouldn’t be involved / concerned with NATO unless we valued democracy and freedom for our partners, no?

If the FTC considered this material information, they should have asked to review it back then. If they requested it but Meta didn’t provide it, then it is an issue.

However, if the FTC didn’t consider it important at the time of the merger, it can’t go back and argue that something is valuable because the acquisitions turned out to be more valuable.

For example, if India and Brazil decide that WhatsApp needs to be able to see messages and break e2e, WA instantly becomes less valuable.

Or Snapchat could have eaten IG’s lunch.

Would FTC still have made the same argument?