If you've got porn on a domain, it doesn't matter if you show ads on porn or not, it doesn't matter if you require age verification, nothing you do will likely matter.
What if there was a way to "ban" something by changing it's domain? What if there were two web apps with a linked backend? Let's say:
tumblargh.com
tumblarghR.com
When something is "banned" from tumblargh.com, it remains on tumblarghR.com, which is otherwise a mirror of tumblargh.com.
>Whether it's seen next to porn should be irrelevant.
It does not work that way. If some average person sees some brand advertised on WSJ and FT, and another competing brand on PornHub he will attach more 'premium' value to a first brand, and will pay more for owning product from this brand. It's only normal and a part of human nature.
People enjoy content from PornHub, but they want to be associated with something advertised on WSJ/FT/NYT/etc. People want to signal status, not just own a good stuff.
>It does not work that way. If some average person sees some brand advertised on WSJ and FT, and another competing brand on PornHub he will attach more 'premium' value to a first brand, and will pay more for owning product from this brand.
That doesn't explain the connection of "porn" with "less than premium". You call it "normal and part of human nature" but looks like totally cultural.
Historical prudery, and a past that associated looking at adult content with "low status", lesser citizens (and not what the "proper people do", does explain it.
(While we of course know that people of all statuses and walks of life look at porn, from the industrialist, to the bank executive, to the judge).
>People enjoy content from PornHub, but they want to be associated with something advertised on WSJ/FT/NYT/etc.
I'd understand it if we were talking about high status ads, yaugt ads, hi-fi ads, expensive clothes ads, and so on. But most people don't read or care for WSJ/FT/NYT -- that's a small minority. Most people read magazines just as popular/mass market as People, Reader's Digest, CNN, FOX, USA Today and the like, and advertisers have no issue advertising at those.
They think it's immoral but they definitely still look at that content. For advertisers it's about brand perception and not appearing next to immoral content.
No, but they will gladly indulge in a bit of pitchfork-and-torchery when someone shares a screenshot on Facebook of a Proctor & Gamble ad for baby powder next to a young woman with pigtails and tube socks in the questionably named 'teen' category getting spit roasted.
People are biological animals first and humans at a distant second. It's short-sighted to so brazenly dismiss the long term effects of periodically associating a brand with the strong feelings that come with an orgasm.
>From my experience in dealing with very rich and very poor people of many different cultures, the only people who give a damn about status to that extent are the young and dumb
Sorry, you are mostly wrong here.
Let me present you with example of an ad targeted to 50+ very rich audience. This is an ad directed by Cohen brothers ("Big Lebowski", "No Country For Old Men", etc) advertising Mercedes AMG Roadster and shown during SuperBowl -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exxaJrtH2kg -- and pay attention to a punchline -- "still looking good". Pure signaling for an older folks.
This may sound illogical, but most people who buy "signaling" products (such as Mercedes AMG Roadster) are in +40 y.o. cohort. They got money to spend, unlike millenials who can only signal status while choosing craft beer on Friday evening.
Also, your guess about me living in my "pristine little bubble" was too personal, tbh, but I'm fine with that. No offense taken here.
> Let me present you with example of an ad targeted to 50+ very rich audience. This is an ad directed by Cohen brothers ("Big Lebowski", "No Country For Old Men", etc) advertising Mercedes AMG Roadster and shown during SuperBowl
These concepts are not mutually exclusive concepts:
- targeting a group of people that are 50+ years old
- for the people that actually buy the cars to be vain, young and dumb, and insecure.
> This may sound illogical, but most people who buy "signaling" products (such as Mercedes AMG Roadster) are in +40 y.o. cohort.
That's not illogical at all; that's mainly who I see in Porsche dealerships and nothing about that contradicts what I said. In that individual statement, I was merely commenting on the set of people who care about their things being associated with a porn advertisement, not the intersection of people who care about status to that extent and have money to signal their status.
> Also, your guess about me living in my "pristine little bubble" was too personal, tbh, but I'm fine with that. No offense taken here.
It was, I'm sorry about that and I've removed it; Frankly, I am frustrated and probably overly sensitive (to the point of false positives) to the trend I noticed in the Bay area where people who couldn't be bothered to leave their home/tech bubble and interact with people outside their comfort zone, remarking on how people the world over work. Their abstractions are incredibly wrong if you just go 50 miles outside the bay area.
Due to having family and their friends spread out over the world and due to having a remote job, I've seen and lived with people of diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds; the Bay rarely understands any of those people except those in their bubble and despite that, it's not uncommon for them to speak with authority on them; I find that audacity infuriating and is something I need to work on.
>That's not illogical at all, that's mainly who I see in Porsche dealerships and nothing about that contradicts what I said.
I don't know, I think signaling is OK, and I don't consider people why buy signaling products as "vain dumb and insecure". I just don't see that anything wrong with that. I mean, you made enough money to choose good, quality product, be that t-shirt, bike or even a car. Why not choose some premium brand with some signaling attached to that, instead of just buying generic nike t-shirt or toyota corolla car? If you like that Mercedes AMG Roadster because you think that it will make you more attractive to chicks (and btw it will, I guarantee) -- and you got money to spare, well, go for it! You made enough money to buy Porsche 911, why drive Honda Civic then?
I see people signaling with their choices wrt premium products, and I don't judge them at all.
>Frankly, I am frustrated with a common trend I noticed in the Bay area where people who couldn't be bothered to leave their home/tech bubble and interact with people outside their comfort zone
I've never visited USA in my life, and do not plan to, so your guess about me being SF resident living in SF bubble is wrong. :) I do work in ad-tech / advertising, though, so I learned something about how industry works. JIC, during my daily commute (I don't own a car and use public transit) I see more people who make $500/month than people who make $5000/month, so no bubble here. :)
I'm not saying signaling is wrong; I'm saying to the EXTENT that someone cares so much that they wouldn't buy it because there may be porn associated alongside it, is a symptom of being in the set of vain, insecure, and young and dumb people.
I own a Porsche, I couldn't care less who they are advertising to so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Moreover, I've learned with anything that attracts that much attention, it's not signaling any kind of attention you would want. I get really annoying attention, on a daily basis. If it wasn't for the tears of joy that I get from driving it down twisties, I would sell it in a heartbeat.
From my perspective as someone in the 1% of my age group and was apart of the set of young and dumb, vain and insecure people, signaling with expensive items is childishly overrated; it's far more fruitful to signal with kindness, compassion and intellect; any trust fund baby can afford a porsche and be as vapid as anyone else.
Well, I get that you want the world to function in a slightly different way, and you don't want people to associate advertised product to content around it; I'm fine with that. However, the world around us functions in a way where people subconsciously associate the product and content.
This is, in fact, a billion dollar opportunity -- ads on porn sites are so abundant and so cheap, first person who will help sell more premium product by advertising it on porn sites will become a billionaire. Not happened yet, and most porn sites advertise, well, other porn sites. There might be a reason for that (and it's not a hidden cabal of puritans who run marketing departments of well-known brands being haters of porn. trust me, those folks will sell their souls to the devil for 10% uptick in sales).
It's not that I want the world to function in that way, it's that sex is such a fundamental part of our biological nature that I believe it supersedes any human abstractions we place over our animal nature; to the extent where, the unworkable symbiosis you posited, of porn associated with the advertising of well known brands, is wanting the world to work in a different way than it actually does. More succinctly, just because advertisers haven't done it well, doesn't mean it can't be done.
In fact, as this generation of baby boomers dies off, I have a strong feeling porn will become far more normalized and have more prestigious non-porn brands associated with it, so long as more prestigious porn brands can rise up.
Would depend which way the pendulum ends up swinging afa "sex positivity" vs. puritanism in modern feminism, plus of course how mainstream porn develops. Looks to me like it's ending up equally or even more compartmentalized, just for very different reasons.
I mean current moves are more along the lines of dropping topless women from tabloids/Playboy ending nudity, Britain trying to age-limit porn, etc.
Also probably comes down to the basic technical difficulty of targeting ads on websites often browsed in private mode. Which will probably keep being the case for a lot of people, for practical reasons, regardless of how normalized porn might be.
A great deal of advertising revolves around "brand awareness". You may not be selling a particular product to the consumer, but keeping your brand in the mind of the consumer. Understandably so, not all advertisers want their brand associated with adult content.
Where an ad is seen can be just as (if not more) important to the advertiser as the ad itself. So, if your site serves up adult content -- you can guarantee that companies with large ad budgets won't be buying ad space.
>A great deal of advertising revolves around "brand awareness". You may not be selling a particular product to the consumer, but keeping your brand in the mind of the consumer. Understandably so, not all advertisers want their brand associated with adult content.
If all brands allowed their ads to appear next to adult content, then it wouldn't be any special association for any particular brand, just another outlet.
So I guess it has more to do with the historical prudery of some countries, when an ad appearing next to adult content would trigger angry letters to the editor, editorials, and so on from "concerned citizens".
That said, advertisers didn't seem to have much issue advertising all kinds of stuff on Playboy back in the day, or FHM and the like today...
> If all brands allowed their ads to appear next to adult content, then it wouldn't be any special association for any particular brand, just another outlet.
Well yeah. Brands aren't going to put in the effort to solve a thorny collective action problem just to open up a bit more ad space. They're trying to make money, not repair broken social norms.
Big brands (i.e. the only companies with budgets that matter) are violently opposed to being associated with anything that might degrade their brand. It isn’t surprising, and it has nothing to do with morals or prudishness.
They are equally put off by pirated content, for example.
Big brands with the big ad budgets tend to be run by or depend on sales to socially conservative people.
See this line from the FAQ on Automattic's ad service:
>> "The ads tend to be broad national campaigns, rather than targeted local or topical campaigns. We have found that the broad campaigns pay better. That said, visitors from countries outside the US and Europe will often see targeted local ads."
This does seem like a stupid simple solution. tumblr.com can continue being SFW, and then there'd be nsfwtumblr.com (or whatever) that contains "the good stuff". Retain account name uniqueness across both domains.
My very limited experience with tumblr (pre-rule change) is that it was essentially impossible to use without being frequently exposed to sexually explicit photographs. ... in contrast to reddit, which is full of outright porn but there I seldom see anything more risque than a bikini shot unless I navigate to a relevant subreddit.
Maybe the critical difference is that if your account would have anything remotely adult at all, including text, or would repost anything from account that was flagged adult then your account would need to be flagged adult. And as a result a lot of accounts were adult flagged and a lot of users felt they had to log in and enable view-adult in order to not get left out. And then even if you have no particular interest in browsing the explicit content on tumblr you can't have many contacts before you start getting occasional reposts of it.
Regardless, being able to have a site which users can fully engage with without a steady stream of surprise crotch shots that they aren't interested in seems like a pretty reasonable goal. Banning the content outright seems like a really blunt way to get there, but maybe that was less damaging to the monetization strategy than making a lot of images click to load?
I don't understand what is challening about pathfinding specifically. Are there just a huge number of vertices and edges so known algorithms don't perform well? How big are the grids? Is it making the path finding look a certain way to humans that's the hard part?
Consider the scenario of doing "select all; move over there past a bunch of obstacles and choke points" for 300 tanks.
if you're not playing a starcraft , you probably want them to trundle in the right direction and avoid ending up in a huge traffic jam.
if you are playing a starcraft , bad pathfinding is an opportunity for a skilled operator to worsen their RSI while lovingly micromanaging each tank's route
> Buyers from some third country will buy soybeans from the USA
This isn't happening. US farmers are not selling as many soy beans as they used to. The year over year soy bean export decline was in the billions of dollars.
Maybe with a separate cellular antenna the device could capture all of the wifi data, communicate it to a server with more processing power and possibly break it there and communicate it back to the device.
That’s actually what the device in the article does.
> The device, which cost about $100 to build, was equipped with a 3G-enabled modem, allowing it to be remote-controlled so long as it had cell service.
> The warship listens for a handshake — the process of authorizing a user to log onto the Wi-Fi network — then sends that scrambled data over the cellular network back to the attacker’s servers, which has far more processing power to crack the hash into a readable Wi-Fi password.
It’s not uncommon for red teams to do something similar: pull a bunch of ciphertext and hashes from the target network, ship them off to their GPU farm at the office, wait for results.
My daughter plays roblox and I've never seen anything like this when watching her play. I've tried to educate her about this kind of stuff because I know she'll be exposed to it eventually. I'd hope she come talk to me about it if she sees it.
> I'd hope she come talk to me about it if she sees it.
What should that conversation look like? If you've educated her already, wouldn't it be fine for her simply to dismiss it and move on when she encounters it?
Children don't process things the same way adults do, partially because just about everything they experience is new in a fundamental and total way that isn't true for adults. They can be prepared by adults for events but typically they'll still have questions and anxieties about them.
The chances are not close to zero, they are much higher. The trade war with China is one of the very few topics where many Democrats support the administration. If the US caves now China will have won an enormous victory and will be able to dictate any further terms of trade with the US, which is a really bad outcome. There is very little chance that the current administration will accept a loss here on a fight they started or that Trump cares about how much every day people will be hurt by the trade war.
In fact further US economic decline plays to his advantage because he can clearly blame China and blaming foreigners is something that works with his base.
US can barely put sanctions on Iran as of now and the rest of the world is hesitant to follow. It took ~8 years to get the sanctions on Iran to that point.
Even if US wanted to go nuclear and push for China being cut from SWIFT:
1. It will be suicide. Cutting China from SWIFT will have very very big impact in the US.
2. US corporations have too much interest to lose in here. No way corporate America allows that to happen.
3. The rest of the world is already pissed at US for pulling out from Iran deal. They are not following US regarding Iran. How do you propose they would follow US' lead to put such sanctions on China and suffocate themselves?
Again, the chances of China being cut from SWIFT are close to zero.
> US can barely put sanctions on Iran as of now and the rest of the world is hesitant to follow.
The US has crushed the Iranian economy. What are you talking about? Have you seen the collapse of their economy since the US left the nuclear deal and began pursuing sanctions? Have you seen the extreme inflation rate, the plunge in their currency, the plunge in their oil exports, and their increasingly wild behavior?
If entirely crushing their economy equates to barely, what would be a successful version of sanctioning Iran?
Apr 2019 "Iran inflation could reach 40 percent this year as economy shrinks further"
Apr 2019 "Trump's maximum pressure campaign hammers Iranian economy"
"The World Bank predicted in an April report that the Iranian economy would "contract sharply," and it expects GDP to shrink by 3.8% in 2019 on the back of U.S. sanctions."
"Iran's currency, the rial, lost more than 60% of its value compared to the U.S. dollar last year, and inflation surged fourfold to an estimated rate of more than 40% by the end of 2018. (In 2019, the Central Bank of Iran has stopped publishing inflation data, leading some analysts to believe that the rate has kept rising beyond 40%.)"
I am Iranian and I follow the news very very closely. I have family and friends in Iran.
You are right. The Iranian economy is crushed and basically the country is starving.
Here's what happened (oversimplified of course):
1. US has had sanctions on Iran for a long time (> 3 decades). No US entity can deal with Iran.
2. Obama extended these sanctions to the world: No entity form any country is allowed to work with Iran. If they do, they cannot work with the U.S.
3. Europe was happy with those sanctions and pushed for it.
4. JCPOA (Iran Deal) was signed.
5. Iran stopped nuclear activities.
6. US got out of the deal and push-forced everyone else out
7. The rest of the world, being powerless and bullied, bowed to it, but Europe, UK, China, Turkey and Japan have all been vocal in supporting Iran now. They even have exemptions from the sanctions to work with Iran.
8. Europe even has been working on a back-channel [0] (with no success though) to trade with Iran.
It is true that sanctions are crushing Iran but that's due to years of pressure that was already built-up during Obama era where the Europe and rest of the world did agree upon that.
US cannot cut China from world trade overnight without the support from rest of the world.
That is a great question. See the FAQ entry on the README[1] for my thoughts on that.
Q: Why not build this ontop of blockchain?
A: Blockchain could be used to create a similar guarantee. However, using the Certificate Transparency technology extends a number of advantages and was a pragmatic choice to get this project going: the industry momentum of certificate transparency log technology (1), leverage existing web technologies like DNS and TLS (2), and finally most practical applications that want to use blockchain with the web end up using a centralized gateway for speed and reliability (3)(4). Perhaps as the bridge between the web and blockchain matures it will become a more practical option.
If you have strict privacy features enabled in firefox they block recaptcha and force you to do hard puzzles. It really sucks, but I'm not disabling the privacy features.
If you're an employer in California and want to choose a provider that will not have to deal with this you might want to consider offering Kaiser to your employees. There's benefits and drawbacks, but one of the big benefits is that they're vertically integrated and the doctors, labs, pharmacies are all part of the same organization. I would think that would help avoid this specific type of situation.
The big drawback is that your employees would need to live near Kaiser facilities. In the Bay Area they are everywhere though and easy to get to. Making use of any doctor or service outside of the Kaiser network is probably not covered.
In that case the pharmacy might not be a problem but the doctors will delay the tests for cancer even for existing cancer patients allowing a relapse to grow unchecked for months to save Kaiser money. That's what happened to a friend of mine. So fucked regardless just to save some money.
That's good. If you had Kaiser, as I state above, the doctors won't send you for the test and the cancer will grow undetected. It doesn't matter if you insist they test you, they still won't. If you're lucky they won't delay long enough to kill you. But you will be worse not having gotten crucial treatment for months because the doctors are part of the racket. On the other hand, your family and friends can be happy that your suffering and death helped Kaiser get richer by saving money on critical tests.
I just haven't had that experience at all. I do use Kaiser. If anything my doctor is very aggressive about considering cancer and getting those screens, way more than I'm comfortable. My experience hasn't been the same as yours.
Tell that to my friend who had already been diagnosed with cancer, was in remission, and had his cancer return undetected for months because Kaiser wouldn't run the tests. He thinks it's ridiculous too.
Kaiser’s system works better than a lot of others, but for me having to drive 40 minutes for a prescription is outrageous when I have 20 other pharmacies in a 15 minute radius.
If the prescriptions are just for fairly routine drugs (diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc), I've found that most of them are cheaper paying the cash price at Walmart than the insured price at Kaiser, or paying the GoodRx price at Safeway.
What I do now is have my Kaiser doctor give me an old-fashioned written prescription on paper, take it to the Kaiser pharmacy that is in the same building as the doctor's office, and ask them what my out of pocket cost will be. While they are figuring that out, I look up my non-Kaiser options in the GoodRx app on my phone. When I get the cost from the Kaiser pharmacy, I can then decide where to actually have it filled.
It was similar before I had Kaiser. The Walmart cash price or the GoodRx price was often less than my copay with Premera or LifeWise if I used insurance.
True. And your employees will not have the choice to see a doctor outside of Kaiser's vertical integration. Even if necessary. Further, since they are all vertically integrated they will necessitate care that is in line with their system.
I've heard good and bad, mostly bad, from Kaiser. But it's hard to tell objectively given the current system and how people interact with it. Personally, I had a not so great experience.
Serving ads is hard when there's porn on the site.