todayiamme
Joined 16 years ago
Karma
3,701
Submissions
667
Member since
Jun 27
Recent submissions
Comment · 7 years ago
Hey do you have an email that I can reach you at?
Comment · 7 years ago
I'm a woman, and this raises another point. People get really, really weird about this. Especially if you try to talk about it.
Also, women aren't just a target demographic. We're 50.5% of the population. And that's kinda the point. This isn't just inside baseball --- it's literally half of all humanity!
Comment · 7 years ago
No, it can't. And you're missing the point of why we're doing this. Such kind of tracking is powerful not because it helps you keep track of what happened, but what could happen. There are patterns that humans can't easily discern that correlate with everything from ovarian cysts to endometriosis --- detecting the problem early on, gives people a better, longer life in the long run, and prevents potentially fatal complications in the case of pregnancy.
What you're saying is exactly like a logistics company saying - why should we enter our logs into this computer? What's the point? A pen and paper seem to work just fine... We all know how that story turned out. This story is playing out with women's lives instead of efficiency points/dollars in the global economy (though at some level it does map to do that as well), and real people are suffering as a result. They deserve better.
Comment · 7 years ago
This article reminds me of the time when I told someone from the tech/rationality community that I was working for a consumer health tech startup that was focused on women's fertility and menstrual health. I was helping to design the UX of the product that had to do with the actual tracking of their cycles and their health. My friend had a reaction that was quite typical of most people I talked to, but it's one that I've kept around as an example of what not to do;
is this, like, very, and truly, *the* best thing you can do with your time? like, back-of-the-envelope: what is the amount of money women spend on keeping track of their periods? like, the savy of them buys a $.5 notepad, and circles the dates?
Maybe, finally, seeing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow will get more people interested in these problems and talk to the women around them about it?
Comment · 8 years ago
It was on my iPhone though?
Comment · 8 years ago
Clicking on "Balance Sheet" on that archive.is link took me to (what seems to be) a malicious website. Can you please double check and take it down just in case?
Comment · 9 years ago
> As you say, all fixed without needing net neutrality.
They were enforcing their policy of net neutrality. After the courts struck these regulatory options down, the FCC adopted the Title II order to continue enforcing net neutrality.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-netneutrality/u...
Comment · 9 years ago
> I have never heard of anything like that happening in the US before 2015. Could you give me some examples of this happening?
Okay. Here's a quick timeline of related incidents where the ISP has modified someone's access to information - it includes an ISP blocking information about a labor strike against the company;
"""
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites. http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results. http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/05/phone-company-h...
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-sea...
- https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...
"""
I feel that these incidents establish a strong precedent and behavioral pattern that makes the expectation of a hands-off approach by ISPs irrational.
Comment · 9 years ago
> Wake up? Why invent scenarios that everybody knows would never happen? ISPs had 30 years until 2015 to do it, and we were fine. But now of course suddenly they all go crazy and start destroying their own business because they want $4.99 from you.
Some form of the scenarios I've outlined have indeed happened in the past. From folks trying to ban competitor's emails to attempts to block specific applications and traffic types at every level. Also if China can block VPNs then I'm sure Comcast can figure it out too;
Here's a quick timeline;
"""
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today. http://news.cnet.com/Telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-VoIP-call...
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-com...
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites. http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/08/04/TelusCensor/
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009. http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone...
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results. http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/04/05/phone-company-h...
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices. http://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challen...
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/update-paxfire-and-sea...
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing. http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/11/12/15/top-10-ways-car...
- https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-vio...
"""
These are just some of the abuses that the FCC has interfered with and circumvented in the past. I can't predict the future but I do believe that past behavior is indicative of future results.
Again, do you want to take the gamble that the honorable ISPs won't abuse their position of power to make everyone in the value chain pay out of their nose and threaten our industry's future growth?
I don't.
Comment · 9 years ago
That's a flawed argument as the level of abstraction matters. We can route around FB and Google. Direct message each other through Signal, Telegram, or just setup our own email servers. We can't do that if the ISP inspects our packets and refuses to send them no matter how we send them.
What are you going to do when Comcast decides that hey let's charge $50 more for VPNs and another $4.99 for messaging apps (pre-approved of course)? What will you do when Signal or Telegram aren't on that list due to "security" concerns? What will you do if an ISP decides that all encrypted traffic is bad and decides to create whitelisted exceptions?
Where will you go then?
Comment · 9 years ago
Here's a map of the major players carving up territory like cartels; https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet...
Notice how almost none of the service areas intersect? Internet competitiveness in the US is measured by census zones, and they know that. So they carve up territory block by block, allowing them to be engage in "competition" without competing. (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/isps-dont-want-t...)
And here's one of the many, many court cases and lobbying efforts they've engaged in to keep rivals from getting a toe hold in their territory; https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...
Comment · 9 years ago
> Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only restriction)
Cynically? Market segmentation. Segment the market into sub-communities along demographic lines as well as producers and consumers. Figure out how to charge both small businesses trying to start a shopify store and the consumers who're likely to visit them.
> How will ISPs decide what websites I can not visit? Will they have a whitelist/blacklist?
If they don't have to treat all traffic passing through their lines equally, then they can choose to downgrade traffic from say Google unless El Goog pays up the fee. And, probably, ask you to pay up too.
> Will there be ISPs that offer packages that we have now? (I.E bandwidth only restriction)
To quote myself;
What makes you think they won't take full advantage of the power that you've given them? Once you give them that power, do you think they won't use it to make more and more? To squeeze every last dime from your pockets?
That's what they've done in the past. They've carved up territory like drug gangs to maximise profit. (Look at the maps - notice how they don't overlap? https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/04/01/16998/us-internet... ). At the same time, they've often colluded to pass legislation that locks out competitors (https://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8530403/chattanooga-comcas...). And they've gotten so good at it that even the almighty El Goog couldn't break into their territory - I mean, market.
What makes you think that these rent seekers won't extract their pound of flesh and then some from you and your customers?
After all, past behavior is indeed predictive of future results.
> I've seen good arguments both for and against net neutrality and I really don't know which would be better.
When all else fails, go with enlightened self interest. Do you really want to pay some "ISP-fee" in the future to start your startup? Do you think consumers will be able to find your company or bother to do so if they have to pay $5 extra for the privilege of seeing your website?
It's in everyone's enlightened self interest over here to oppose this, because in the long run it will kill the consumer internet as we know it.
Comment · 9 years ago
Have I made the claim that it increases the frequency of occurrence? I feel that link is a red herring and obfuscates reality. What I, and all of the papers above, have been referring to is the frequency of intensity of storms. NOT the frequency of storms.
Other than the graphs I've already pasted, the phenomena shows up over and over again in the power dissipation index;
http://images.nature.com/m685/nature-assets/ngeo/journal/v3/...
Here's yet another paper on the topic and its graphs;
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/365/18...
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1860/2695
> Of course, you don't have listen to me or the weather people who repeatedly say that storms have not increased in frequency or intensity (beyond their normal cycles) [0].
First of all, the graph you linked to only mentions the frequency of occurrence. It does not include intensity. Second, I trust well sourced papers featuring replicable research by scientists published in notable peer-reviewed journals over random people on Twitter.
Comment · 9 years ago
I don't understand the point you're making. Also to be clear, your statement;
> Harvey was the first cat3+ hurricane to hit the US in 12 years.
is patently false, because in that time period we've had (and I'm including 2005);
Katrina Cat. 5 (2005)
Rita (2005)
Wilma (2005)
Ike Cat. 4 (2008)
Sandy Cat. 3 at peak (2012)
I didn't bother to correct you earlier, because Cat. 3+ hurricanes hitting the US are more or less a very narrow set of data points. When you view the system globally and at sea, start counting the total number of hurricanes, and add up the data, then the trend becomes quite clear.
I feel that such cherry picking doesn't befit our discussion. Because we can argue passionately over this and one of us might convince someone else that we're right, but at the end of the day - either way - nature can't be fooled. Nature can't be lobbied against. Nature doesn't care about PR firms. Nature can't be reasoned against. Nor can the law of thermodynamics.
We have put a large amount of energy into the global system. We can now argue with the laws of man whether this is reasonable or not, but we can't argue against the laws of thermodynamics.
The data is clear. There's something going on and the mean frequency of intensity has increased. And we have a relatively solid understanding of why this has happened - which can be wrong, but the balance of probabilities right now is that our theory is correct. You can call BS all you want, but that doesn't change the science. That doesn't change the facts at hand.
There is no one alive who is Youer than You."
-Dr. Seuss