dgoldstein0

Why should we doubt it's an auto ban?

To be clear I totally think we should demand better off their automated systems. Just because they made a robot do things and the robot did it wrong doesn't absolve them of any responsibility. They just are too cheap to pay enough actual people to be in the loop of automated decisions or quickly reviewing them.

Not targeted by Meta at least. I've heard plenty of stories of people getting banned due to other users flagging - and that's definitely an abusable vector.

My bet is that some sort of auto ban logic kicked in, maybe due to abuse of reporting features. It'd if course be worse if a human moderator took it down or affirmed such a decision but not impossible.

Meta and other big tech usually over-relies on automated enforcement because it's easier on their wallets than hiring enough moderators to keep up in near-real time. And it's hella easy for a group of motivated people to coordinate flagging of content, which the automation often takes at face value.

Clearly having public spaces in private hands like this is tricky, as if we try to require better moderation that ends up to expensive, private interests will probably find a way to just kick anything controversial / political off their platforms.

I realized it was satire but I thought the bedazzling was going to actually cover the camera lens until their picture of it

Eh bank notes have watermarks just to make them harder to forge. They also have serial numbers, but as almost no businesses pay attention to them they aren't really used to track transactions. The provenance of a particular bank note isn't that interesting beyond knowing whether it's a forgery.

The problem with these spymarks is that they can be used to include data that's completely invisible to users - even potentially to sophisticated users and the programs that consume the marked files. So while I can make an informed decision whether to share a picture, I may not be informed about any spymarks. Vs a normal watermark that aren't designed to be invisible.

Re smart speakers / Google Assistant etc I think there have even been some lawsuits about inadvertent recording. I think they get it right most of the time, so my impression has been the lawsuits are about the mistakes.

That all said, as a technologist in the past I could say "of course they aren't recording you and data mining your conversations" because that's obviously an expensive and complicated proposition when much cheaper forms of data mining exist. But with AI advancements I think that calculus could change - the systems that could do this are already being built for other reasons; the main reason to not do it is cost but that's being eroded.

Buses are also more massive so more likely to cause serious injury in an accident. They can't stop as fast as a car/bike /etc. But that's also why they seem to move more slowly, takes them longer to accelerate, which one would think might give others an advantage to avoiding them.

Mmm accordion buses definitely sound like extra danger

I'll give you that buses tend to be more predictable - they run fixed routes, you can guess where the stops are - but my biggest problem is whether they can see me or not. They are large so if they don't see me and start moving while I'm trying to pass it could end badly. Usually I try to only pass if they just stopped and I clearly have plenty of room and time.

Cars tend to scare me more as there are way too many impatient drivers who are all to happy to speed around me without much clearance and then cut me off. And they could easily misinterpret me weaving a little to avoid a bump as me scooting over it pulling over for them or starting a turn. And don't get me started on how many cars have tried to right turn on red arrows across bike lanes which have a green signal.

Other bicyclists and pedestrians often suck too, but worst case if I run into them is pain, not death.

Totally agree that a DNS based replacement to the suffix list would make sense. Especially with more secure forms of DNS like DoH or Dnssec.

That said I don't know about making cookies shareable across TLDs. That seems like allowing more privacy nightmares; at least today if you want to share you need complicated redirect dances that make you question if the user perf hit is worth it. I think there was some proposal for a mechanism for allowing non partitioned 3rd party cookies which seemed more sane to me, forget what the details were and if it ever made it beyond just a proposal.

There are use cases for cookies to affect multiple domains, like shared logins. Keep in mind multiple domains let's you run completely independent servers for different parts of your web presence but that doesn't mean that you want them to act independently.

That said the dumbest thing with cookies is not sending their attributes in the cookie header which makes it impossible to distinguish expected cookies from tampered cookies set by insecure subdomains. __Host prefix is basically a workaround for this but took more than a decade to get into browsers. Samesite similarly was bolted on after the fact.

Cookies aren't the only web security feature that follow sites instead of origins but they are the only one that was clearly designed without thinking through the consequences.

This isn't so bad as .com.mx and .mx should be on the public suffix list then.

But letting arbitrary customers take arbitrary 3 level domains, and others take 2 level domains, seems like a mistake as it's not very reasonable for every 3LD customer to put the 2LD on the public suffix list, but mixing 3LD and 2LD registrations means you can't public suffix *.name.

Seems the whole idea of having both was always misguided.

Rent control won't really solve the problem as it can only help people who already live in the city but makes rents even higher for new residents - there have been studies that essentially find that rent control essentially just transfers money from newer residents to ones who have lived here a long time. And worse, it a removes incentives for improving existing buildings and for current tenants to move, thereby reducing liquidity in the market - eg if you would like to upsize or downsize for whatever reason, being locked into a good rent controlled price is a strong disincentive.

The better solution is definitely "build an incredible amount of homes" though $1200 probably is not be obtainable even at extreme ends of possibility. We also should consider it a region wide problem and not just an SF problem - the whole bay area needs to build more, as rents in Oakland, Daly City, San Mateo, etc are related to SF prices as well. If the region is going to add jobs we better add housing at the same rate, and we've massively failed at that.

But anyway if the market actually starts functioning as new supply appears any tent decrease would incrementally attract some new tenants from elsewhere. Rents only shoot back up if the supply increase isn't sustained addition, or we somehow artificially lower rents for a short period. In a functioning market we should find an equilibrium price and when demand spikes faster than units can be built, be development would spring up that in a few years would push prices back towards normal (as jobs / the economy clearly moves faster than new housing can be constructed). But even in the booms when construction should be seeing the influx of people with high salaries and trying to develop new housing to keep up... Well, the volume of new housing just didn't keep up.

Or more likely companies and people will just comply. It might give a little more fuel to open source from people who are ardently pro privacy that balk at an age signal bring implemented, but I don't think that's such a huge segment of users.

It sounds like since Android is a commercial repackaging of Linux it's in scope and Google gets to figure it out.