I don't know much him nor have I read that entire transcript, but one of the main jobs for a CEO is to set the direction and tone for a companies services. They can say/do whatever they want wrt free speech and their own messaging platform.
I think the expectations of e2ee have been greatly stretched in this case. e2ee means that the data is encrypted from device to device only and that's it, from one end to another end. If someone backs up their device in an unencrypted way then thats out of scope for WhatsApp - that's not what e2ee is about.
People that expected full at rest encryption (which is what a backup system would include) despite the app never being advertised that way would have always needed a large kick to realise that isn't the case. Encryption is complicated and you can't expect everybody to fully understand what e2ee/at rest/etc really means. This whole situation is a learning experience for everyone and I wouldn't blame WhatsApp for it either. They now know that advertising encryption needs a little more explanation.
I can't remember the source so take this as you will, but WhatsApp are appealing such a large fine because the privacy policy was in the middle of being updated during a transition. The policy was correct after the fact and ever since.
If I renegade on a contract with my bank because I was moving house I would still be sued into bankruptcy. Multibillion dollar companies have the onus to keep their legal documents (terms of service, privacy policy) up to date.
Jesus Christ what shitty and inaccurate things to say. But just for some background, he had many different doctors throughout his life including Dr. K. in both the public streams and private sessions. Friends included were helping and watching him. He was getting a lot of help from different circles but unfortunately was a very sick guy.
Blaming a single person for any suicidal persons death is such a shallow and ignorant take.
Just to add some context in this particular case, Byron had seen many different recommend and self sought doctors over his life. Dr. K. in both private paid sessions and the public interview styled on his Twitch channels. Unfortunately Byron was a very sick guy. Fortunately (?) with the majority being public over the years a lot of people had an insight to how mental issues can arise and hide which brought a lot more attention to it within the gaming community.
There has also been other streamers that have taken his public talks into a deeper private session or gone to see other doctors after realising that they have things to be talked about and resolved.
- It seems the debate is about 0.8°C temperature rise since 1880. The figure of 0.8°C in my opinion is not statistically significant for various reasons including thermometer inaccuracies, and normal variations of temperature. There seems to be a general agreement of increase in CO2. It appears that the most significant greenhouse ‘gas’ is water vapor, about 98%. I got these figures from a talk by a noble prize winner, who got around to checking the published figures.
- Statistics can be variously interpreted unless there is a huge significant differences. The 'significant' part is completely subjective.
- Media and govt need to keep the masses engaged on distractions with the news. If govt/people were truly serious about climate (or what ever is the correct terminology) change. They would be making radical changes not tiny changes. Example of a big change work places can be moved to places where people can walk to work. example of tiny feel good change that does nothing: separate recycle form other trash.
- Changing narrative from govt, in the 60s it was global cooling, which changed to global warming, and is now labeled as climate change. Notice that most people who take up these 'causes' are young. They have no any knowledge of what the narrative was in the 60s.
- In addition to manipulating numbers, all numbers can be cooked up with impunity, this is true for corporates, scientific establishments, govts. Barring exceptions there are enough incentives to lie, and generally disincentives if one were to tell the truth.
Note I'm not claiming that there is no climate change, there is not way for me or you to know that. I do know for a fact that the environment is indeed messed up big time. The smell/taste of air/food/water/products is telling. I don't think this is debatable. The environment should be first priority and perhaps the climate change will take of itself.
Please don't spread false info. Andrew has never had access to the Snoonet data or servers and there has never been any logging. Anonymous "sources" for IRC drama are usually anonymous for a reason, just as your new HN account is.
> [00:59:01] <prawnsalad> also re. user data, youre forgetting that all data under snoonet is ltm data. rdv had sold all of that way beforehand. neither i, or most of you had any say in that
Owning and actually having access to are two entirely different things. At no point has Andrew had access to, read or write, or log, in any way shape or form, any private Snoonet data. User data was specifically locked down to (if I remember off-hand) roughly 3 staff members who were all from the community staff. This has continued so far and has no plans for it to change.
I don't see a lot of difference between Andrew having his hands on the data and the fact that he could have had his hands on the data should he have thrown lawyers at you too, but I recognise the above log doesn't show he had access to the data and I've had a couple of snoonet staff say he didn't get access to the data even if services (and its database) was moved to LTMH-owned servers.
The log, however, does correctly present how LTMH treats the concept of user data (i.e. as an asset to be sold and owned) and I found that an extremely important view to give to freenode users who's data was about to change hands.
I also recognise you were not involved in the freenode hostile takeover and I'm actually fairly grateful you sought to make communication between Tom and Andrew
