it's a shame the trend (toward larger and larger cars) is so at odds with the environment. cars are already such a large and inefficient solution for what theyre used for 99.99% of the time, why keep making it worse?

But in cases where you must (cost/practicality limitations, dealing with liquids, etc), this is done by passing through a thin film of material that has a small cross section of interaction with the particles, typically "low Z" (low atomic number) elements like Beryllium (its rigidity makes withstanding 1 atm pressure difference easy), or simple hydrocarbon plastics like polyethylene/polypropylene.

But this depends on what particles you're talking about.

What is relevant is whether or not they could, how easy it would be to do so, how damaging it could be, and what protections we would have once they have done so. This is the threat presented by internet monopolies and their fetish for violating our privacy.

Also consider that no company has managed to stay on top indefinitely. Once their growth slows, and they become desperate to appease shareholders, what won't they do to make that happen?

Long after fads have changed, supposed benevolent coding wunderkinds have moved on, the troves of data will still be there, ripe for the MBA's, the lawyers, the mitt romney's, god knows who, to leverage.

The argument "they've been nice about it so far, so why shouldn't we keep doing it?" is a fucking joke.

name an instance of google removing a google drive file for bandwidth cost.

Honestly there's pretty much nothing being said in this interview. People don't get along sometimes.

not sure if that was intentional..