I was trying to explain why civilian city leadership might not have good intuition for why the storage issue would be a problem for them.

How about Hamed, who might know a guy who knows a guy, who might jeopardise the goals of Murder Squad? How important is not murdering random people vs achieving mission objectives? What if Hamed is a prisoner and slowing Murder Squad down will jeopardise the mission?

It's eerily analogous to the AI alignment problem. It seems like not having hard core elite Murder Squads would be preferable to pretending we can ask people to do their job in a moral vacuum.

I don't pretend to be right on this, and I expect reasonable people to disagree, but if you set up the incentives to prioritise mission success over human life, you will obviously get mission success at the expense of human life and a culture that is proud to kill people to get the job done (thats what makes them different from infantry). "Isn't that what you asked for?"

Arguably "content creation" is core to every > middle class job now - you have to get people onboard to get things done. Personally I still think writing is more valuable but perhaps the knowledge creation and sharing (_inside_ companies) of tomorrow will be done by making and watching videos.

I very much do not want to be part of that future, but I recognise it a likely possibility.

Do you store things in the attic? plastic tubs? How about the basement? cardboard? Do you have wool, paintings, plastic toys, plastic anything, wooden anything? Look around you and the places you keep things. Oh my god curtains they are more or less just flame conduits.

Your couches, your clothes, everything around you is fuel for a massive fire. It can be a bit scary when you really evaluate it. I bet you have never thought seriously about the risk before.

Admittedly at a city level, 3 kilotons of ammonium nitrate in a strategic location should definitely have set off some real thinking but on a personal basis most people are surrounded by fuel and don't think about it at all.

I guess my point is that that human trust is so pervasive and fundamental that there are diminishing returns to eliminating it.

What will always remain in style I think is accountability. So trust, but have supply chain integrity such that you know who it is that you're trusting and who is responsible when things go wrong.

The "default" takeaway option could be the short-lasting paper cup.

For car, office or just comfort, you could have a squashy, silicone (stands high temp) outer that would usually only need to be cleaned if the inner cup fails.

A silicone shell with disposable inner would work well for me, at least. The shell would rarely need to be cleaned and can be easily pocketed.

Try posting a nipple or copyrighted track, for example.

If Facebook had come from a different place, all songs and body bits might be Ok but perhaps discussion of government would be banned. I can't tell if that would actually be a better facebook than the one we got.

In particular we need to convince governing bodies that action is in their direct and immediate economic interest, which again takes data.

The point is that the oceans are large, there are different concerns, and conditions vary across location and species.

If you want to answer a question like "how healthy are our oceans?" you need to first work out what that might mean, and then measure that systematically like the project I linked you to.

http://www.oceanhealthindex.org/news/Ocean_Isn't_Dying

They are too emotionally powerful and pull our collective focus away from the science.

It frames the problems we face as impossibly bad and tragic, which makes some people give up, while others want drastic experiments that can cause more harm than good.

One day WebAuthn might be usable for all the things. I want that to come soon but it is not here yet.

They produce IP (researching and producing very clear instructions for fixes) and manage supply chain (trusted replacement parts & tools, worth more vs aliexpress equivalents because they endorse them).

The things they make money off are largely substitutable. Their value add (well deserved IMHO) is trust.

The idea of using multicast in this way also ignores some of the actual good features of HLS, in particular the ability to adapt content to a specific user's device and Internet connection.

What seems to have broken down is trust.

In the many cases where you rightly point out the truth is discoverable, who do we trust to tell it to us?

It's a hard, long-term problem. If people have lost faith in priests, scientists, politicians and the media, where to go from there?

Any program to restore some ground truth to common discourse will have to operate by building (or rebuilding) broad societal trust in one or more public institutions. Ideally institutions which act in good faith and are in fact trustworthy.

It is very hard (in a democracy) to make true progress on societal issues without some way to achieve broad consensus that they are real.

Since there is so much history I often find it hard to see why things work the way they do, just by looking at how they work.

If one is ready to "cheat" on the question and look at a ready made answer this one is quite good: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/413204/how-does-uni...

I would summarise the reasons behind common UNIX shell implementation(s) of this as "directory names are not stable over the lifetime of a process" and "$PWD cannot be trusted".

The thing that needs to be protected is the pursuit of truth and I think this looks a lot like freedom of the press and freedom of civic speech.

It's not a vestigial impulse, it is perfectly rational.

But even though there are common scenarios, each computer can also be broken in a different way.

To make this make sense, I think you are assuming but without explicitly stating the use of signed cookies? EDIT: "if it validates", I guess so.

The other bit which is not clear to me is, what is the key in the database to identify ownership of user information?

You need a linking record which looks like hash(email) -> uid (or user record or whatever) which does not seem any better than what is proposed in TFA.

OTOH if no information is stored against the user's email / uid / username then you probably don't need login or auth.