I bought a hammer 2 decades ago and it still works flawlessly without me performing any maintenance. One day, the idiots in software engineering will realize that this is how tools are supposed to behave.
Since MS bought it, aren't there two versions, a legacy one called "Java" and the newer one from MS, probably not in Java and with all the cool kids (multiplayer mode) on it?
> Trust is a key component of vaccine demand, yet there is a lack of consensus on how to define trust alongside a lack of actionable, contextually grounded measurement tools validated in low-income and middle-income countries.
How about you make it safe and effective. Psychological manipulations and games won't get you anywhere. Spend the R&D budget on the actual product.
Without wading into the debate over the content of the mantra-like-claim, "safe and effective", I hope we can all acknowledge how much we are marketed to in our everyday lives. There's also a distinct lack of trust in media, especially institutional, "legacy" media. From that point it shouldn't be difficult to empathize with the skeptics. The outcome is predetermined when sources you naturally distrust are intent on making you believe the "safe and effective" narrative, or any other narrative.
Think of how many times you've heard a sales or marketing term and thought, "If that were true, they wouldn't be so desperate to convince me". Marketing is the realm of private actors selling products. When the state is desperate to make you believe their truths, that is propaganda. Doubling down on try-hard marketing or state propaganda will likely backfire.
Even acknowledging the trust deficit is a difficult position. "Yes, the public distrusted us previously, but that was all a misunderstanding. This time is different. We're much more trustworthy now." It is a bit like going to a restaurant that proudly proclaims how they have remedied their rat and cockroach issues.
Except... vaccines are safe and effective. It is difficult to empathize with the skeptics in this case because they are objectively wrong.
If you hear the phrase "safe and effective" and assume by default that you're being lied to or that some kind of NLP is being practiced on you simply because the phrase is common, then you aren't practicing reasonable skepticism, you're just being a knee-jerk contrarian and paranoiac.
Obviously there are more critical arguments, but as I said at the top, this isn't the place for a reasonable discussion on that front. Even if it were, there's nothing novel to say. Anyone interested in going deep into the issue has had about 5 years to form their own opinions.
>>From that point it shouldn't be difficult to empathize with the skeptics.
Bitcoin's high volatility means that it's impossible to predict exactly how much value one Bitcoin will have tomorrow, next month, next year, or next decade. USD has comparatively low volatility. It's possible, but very unlikely, for USD to go to zero tomorrow, and while the uncertainty around exactly how likely USD is to collapse increases as you look further towards the future, most people would consider it less likely for USD to collapse than Bitcoin. Since markets are made up of "most people", most people are more willing to accept USD to exchange value than they are Bitcoin. Therefore, USD is a better store of value than Bitcoin
Prediction that has been right 100% of the time (so far): Bitcoin's value will be more in the future.
Now that stonk people are in to BTC and it's worth is much higher, it's volatility is far less. It's still a speculative asset and with plenty of risk, but it's definitely a store of value for at least some % of one's savings.
HN always cuts off these fluff words in the beginning, like "Why" and "How". Often, it completely butchers the title. I think it's a stupid policy, but here we are.
What a gross misrepresentation of RFK Jr.'s views. He thinks that people who are healthy, by means of nutrition, sports and absence of contact with environmental toxins, are much more resilient to germs and other health conditions. Which is obviously true. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Serious question: how is DoH supposed to help when the resolver itself is being asked to return bad results? DoH makes sense if something is MITM-ing your DNS requests, but it sounds in this case that Google is being asked to just straight-up return bad results?
You'd need a resolver that was provided by a foreign organization, preferably a non-profit, with no business interests in your country whatsoever, so that your government had nothing to threaten them with if they didn't comply with the order.
Such a resolver would also need to be the default shipped with at least one major browser, such that blocking it would essentially mean "turning off the internet" for some users.
Then the pressure would move to forcing browsers to use a different DNS resolver, and the game would continue.
DNSSEC is the actual solution, providing authenticity and integrity for DNS records. The DNS client can verify that the received DNS response is what the zone admin intended. Additional records (NSEC / NSEC3) are used to provide a proof of non-existence, preventing suppression from a mitm attacker. But if your government is mitming you, you don't want them to see you use DNSSEC. DoH is useful in that case, because a mitm sees only https traffic, which is less suspicious than DoT.
DNSSEC isn't going to prevent suppression, it just makes it detectable. Cloudflare is still going to send you a doctored record - which will fail verification. But that doesn't magically give you an undoctored record, unfortunately.
I think the actual reason this works is because if you use DoH, you are probably also setting your resolver to something other than the default, which might not be poising the records.
So the real answer to governments requiring dns resolvers to censor results is to ... not use those resolvers. which is actually relatively easy to do. But most internet users don't even know what a dns resolver is, much less how to configure their browser to use a public resolver that isn't big enough to attract the attention of your government.
Exactly. In a world of many resolvers, poisoning a few doesn’t matter. In all likelihood the folks consuming these streams aren’t using mainstream DNS anyway.
DNS is usually poisoned at the ISP level. ISPs provide DNS for the customers. DoH helps in two ways: You choose a different DNS resolver and it's over HTTPS so you don't have any goons meddling with it.
reply