This is accurate. More often than not, trying to do something good for others will end up making you feel like an idiot. For the person on the receiving end, you are a jackpot. Instead of being shown gratitude, you're likely to be exploited.
But then again, would it really be a genuine gesture on the giver's end if they were to filter based on the receiver's character or whether they will be grateful for it?
The positivity from you is likely to be absorbed by the negativity, never to be seen again, instead of snowballing into a boulder of positivity as you'd hoped. I feel the only answer is to be an endless source of positivity. In that case you're not worried whether the drops of positivity from you end up somewhere they're appreciated or not. The negativity sponges might suck you dry, so it's not for everyone. For most of us the answer might be to constrain our positivity outlets into safer, more controllable spaces (volunteering for an organization, etc.) where it is less likely that we might feel anything negative for our efforts.
Kindness can and should come with boundaries. No one is entitled to your time or energy. Choosing to spend that energy on another person, without thought of reward, is a form of kindness.
We can and probably should be polite to people by default. That is a way of showing kindness. If the other person decides to be a blackhole, leave them. If they are harming someone, you are free to (and probably should) warn other people.
Kindness does not require you let people take advantage of you.
> This is accurate. More often than not, trying to do something good for others will end up making you feel like an idiot. For the person on the receiving end, you are a jackpot. Instead of being shown gratitude, you're likely to be exploited.
Helping others doesn’t mean you have to set yourself up to be a sucker. Which you kinda point out when you about volunteering. But IMHO in any space our own judgement is still required and essential.
I highly doubt this blocking by Apple will have much of an impact on Facebook's tracking ability. For one, any time you use the internet via mobile data, Facebook (or any other site) will get your phone number, name and other personal data via your ISP. There have been several threads on HN regarding this in the past.
When you're not, your IP address along with data via fingerprinting techniques would be more than enough to uniquely identify you.
This is only likely to make it slightly harder to track the small fraction of users already taking strong measures to prevent being tracked.
If it has FB screaming this loudly, I'm guessing it is having much more impact at FB than you are giving it credit. If it meant nothing to FB, then they'd just look at the changes from Apple, and shrug it off. No public outcry necessary. This is not what FB is doing.
The US gov puts massive pressure on Apple and Google to insert backdoors into their phones even though third parties have forever been able to crack them. It's all about cost.
The first party tracking enablement was given to Facebook for free since the beginning. Now it's being taken back. Now they need to pay ISPs and invest more strongly in fingerprinting efforts.
I'm all for the move - it is a step in the right direction. But in isolation, it doesn't change much for end users - they are still being tracked at a similar level. Facebook is trying to spin it as an end to personalized ads as a whole, which it definitely isn't.
Let’s assume that it wouldn’t impact Facebook’s tracking ability. If so, there’s nothing to worry for Facebook. It’s surprising that Facebook is engaging in a PR war with Apple for something that doesn’t impact their core business.
You could say it is cutting off the most accurate and cost efficient method for Facebook to track iOS users. A dozen other tracking methods still exist but they might be slightly worse in terms of cost/accuracy. Definitely something to cry about.
> This is only likely to make it slightly harder to track the small fraction of users already taking strong measures to prevent being tracked.
This statement isn't correct. That small fraction of the user would've already turned off IDFA tracking. With this move Apple is merely prompting the user before turning the tracking on. I'd say FB is worried about the larger fraction of the users who aren't privacy conscious.
Theoretically you can. You just need 6 different email addresses and add them to your onedrive account. You won't be able to use it as a single 6TB volume though.
Corona Daily 271: Pfizer Vaccine – Celebrate with Caution
In an earlier chapter on the vaccine race, I wrote: God forbid Pfizer wins the race. God answered my fears. Yesterday, Pfizer announced with aplomb a 90% effective vaccine. Editors changed headlines, stock markets vaulted, people made new Christmas plans, respectable newspapers foresaw the end of the pandemic.
The Pfizer vaccine needs to be stored at -80 C (-112 F) all the time. The ultracold logistics rule out most of Asia and Africa. In the best case, it is accessible to 2.5 billion people in 25 countries, mainly North America and Europe.
Dr Fauci called the results extraordinary, at the same time admitting he hadn’t seen the data yet. May the vaccine truly have extraordinary success, and spell the end of the pandemic.
*
When such joyous news is announced, it is in bad taste to criticize or express concerns. The critic will be termed a spoilsport, a pessimist, a conspiracy theorist, or antivaxx activist. I am none of these. I am, however, puzzled by the way Pfizer has gone about the process. I would like to voice these concerns so as to tone down the hype, if it is hype.
As I wrote earlier, in the trials, the company must reach pre-agreed numbers of Covid-19 cases, in the vaccine and the placebo groups. Since the beginning, Pfizer has been aggressively demanding more interim points, and fewer cases. Their minimum point for seeking authorization was 32. (32 patients among 30000 participants). Anybody who has studied statistics would know the number doesn’t look significant. In fact, scientists not working for Pfizer raised this concern. This was summer time, and the curve was going down. The Pfizer scientists were worried about the time it may take to reach a higher figure. But they amended protocol to look at the data at 62 cases. Not only the numbers, Pfizer’s plan allowed the mildest cases to be counted.
Most other trials including Johnson & Johnson and Oxford, even the Chinese vaccine trial currently, were paused because of adverse events. This is when a participant develops a condition that may have been caused by the vaccine. The trial remains paused until the condition is investigated. Pfizer enlarged its sample size to 44,000 but didn’t face a single adverse event, which must be attributed to its luck.
On 26 October, Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO said they didn’t have 32 covid cases yet. The interim data, when available, is reviewed by an independent board. Pfizer was once again lucky, the cases surged dramatically. On Sunday, 8 November, the independent board came, reviewed the data of 94 cases, and let the company management know the conclusion without sharing data.
*
The trial is not over. It will be over once Pfizer reaches 164 cases. The right thing was to wait till the end of the trials, and then publish the data in a medical journal for peers to review. Once it is peer-reviewed, the results can be published worldwide. Instead of that, Pfizer opted to release unpublished, unreviewed half-baked data as news.
Not only that, the news was released consciously early on Monday morning before the US stock markets open. Stock markets are like dogs who will drool and jump at the sight of a dummy bone. When the markets opened, Pfizer shares leaped by 15%, its partner BioNTech’s by 24%, and the major indexes reached new records. Such outright corruption was glossed over in the euphoria of the 90% effective vaccine.
FDA now has stricter standards after botching hydroxychloroquine and plasma episodes. Scott Gottlieb, the previous FDA commissioner, is now on Pfizer’s board. That may help in the approval process.
*
Though times are exceptional, and any vaccine may be better than no vaccine, knowledge of Pfizer’s maneuvers dilutes the joy of their 90% effective news.
Ravi
> I wonder if anyone will even notice though as it would require putting energy into criticizing anything other than the election
Not really; they seem to have gone out of their way to be election-relevant:
> The first analysis was to occur after 32 volunteers — both those who received the vaccine and those on placebo — had contracted Covid-19. If fewer than six volunteers in the group who received the vaccine had developed Covid-19, the companies would make an announcement that the vaccine appeared to be effective. The study would continue until at least 164 cases of Covid-19 — individuals with at least one symptom and a positive test result — had been reported.
> In their announcement of the results, Pfizer and BioNTech revealed a surprise. The companies said they had decided not to conduct the 32-case analysis “after a discussion with the FDA.” Instead, they planned to conduct the analysis after 62 cases. But by the time the plan had been formalized, there had been 94 cases of Covid-19 in the study.
> Gruber said that Pfizer and BioNTech had decided in late October that they wanted to drop the 32-case interim analysis. At that time, the companies decided to stop having their lab confirm cases of Covid-19 in the study, instead leaving samples in storage. The FDA was aware of this decision. Discussions between the agency and the companies concluded, and testing began this past Wednesday.
So they had a plan in place to release interim results as soon as 32 cases were detected, but then in late October they decided they wanted to alter the plan. And just to make sure the original plan couldn't happen no matter what, they also stopped their ongoing testing, choosing to resume it on November 4th, when they learned they had dramatically exceeded their revised goals.
"Up to 2.5 billion people will not have to compete with those who actually depend on a vaccine that can be easily transported because the infrastructure in North America and Europe allows a continuous ultracold chain as it is required by the Pfizer vaccine."
From what I understand it wasn't just this. WhatsApp's initial implementation of UPI was that of a walled garden. Payments could be sent/received between WhatsApp users but you couldn't send/receive payments to/from another UPI app user. They did this by hiding the UPI ID from the user. Along with WhatsApp's mass user base, this would have resulted in fragmenting the ecosystem.
I have enrolled in the beta program for WhatsApp via Google Play so I had the payment option In the new implementation since a very long time (can see a payment from July 2018). In their new implementation they have exposed the UPI ID so compatibility with other UPI apps is ensured. For transactions with other WhatsApp users you need not bother with UPI ID. This dual approach is the same as that of Google Pay.
If a planet is advanced enough to build a moon-sized Death Star, I think they'd have a better life going nomad and using it as a mobile home. Its habitable volume might be greater than all the planet's surface.
The article assumes you will not be paying the import duty charged in India i.e. you're bringing an open box/you own the iPhone you bring from Dubai. If you were to start a business bringing in phones in bulk you would have to pay the import duty after transportation and logistics cost which would leave a negligible margin for you. It can only be viable if you choose not to pay the import duty in which case it's smuggling (if you're bringing in with intention to sell).
Because there's a difference between consuming something willingly and a shady corporation conspiring with the system to get unsuspecting people hooked onto their drug of choice for personal benefit?
Not if it's legal for the addict (because mental health issue not criminal), but a crime for the pusher/distributor (because you're taking advantage of those w/ addiction tendencies).
Is there? Everything you see on the store shelves is there because some corporation manipulated the store to put it there, and because that corporation expects to personally benefit from lots of people buying it.
