Starbucks takes aim at remote work, says some employees may need to relocate to headquarters
ravenaspiring @ ravenaspiring @sh.itjust.works Posts 1Comments 24Joined 3 mo. ago
ravenaspiring @ ravenaspiring @sh.itjust.works
Posts
1
Comments
24
Joined
3 mo. ago
If only it was this easy go find MH370. (And by easy I mean happening to look at apple maps sat images and find an anomaly.)
I think MH370 may be found some day, but our underwater autonomous drone game will have to move up a generation or two.
In an April sit-down, former transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg schooled Schulz and his co-hosts for believing in Trump’s promises.
I wanna see this.
For those on iPhone and at any risk, ICEBlock app is potentially better, as it maintains more privacy.
The reason they don't do android:
At ICEBlock, user privacy and security are paramount. Our application is designed to provide as much anonymity as possible without storing any user data or creating accounts. While we understand the desire for an Android version of ICEBlock, achieving this level of anonymity on Android is not feasible due to the inherent requirements of push notification services.
Some relevant quotes to summarize:
But the videos weren’t clear enough to identify the exact make or model of the dark four-door sedan. The detectives quickly obtained what are known as tower dump warrants, which required the major phone networks to provide the numbers of all cellular devices in the vicinity of 5312 Truckee during the arson. And they slung a series of so-called geofence warrants at Google, asking the company to identify all devices within a defined area just before the fire. (At the time, Google collected and retained location data if someone had an Android device or any Google applications on their cell phone.)
...
There were 1,471 devices registered to T-Mobile within a mile of the house when it ignited. Using software that visualizes how long it takes a signal to bounce from a cell tower to a phone and back again, Sonnendecker narrowed the list down to the 100 devices nearest to the house. One evening toward the end of August, detectives roamed the area around 5312 Truckee with a cell-phone-tower simulator that captured the IDs of all devices within range. That night, there were 723. Sonnendecker cross-referenced these with the 100 from earlier, eliminating the 67 that showed up on both lists and likely belonged to neighborhood residents who could be ruled out. That left 33 T-Mobile subscribers whose presence in Green Valley Ranch in the early hours of August 5 couldn’t easily be explained.
...
That’s when another detective wondered if the perpetrators had Googled the address before heading there. Perhaps Google had a record of that search?
... birth dates, and physical addresses for all users who’d searched variations of 5312 Truckee Street in the 15 days before the fire.
Google denied the request. According to court documents, the company uses a staged process when responding to reverse keyword warrants to protect user privacy: First, it provides an anonymized list of matching searches, and if law enforcement concludes that any of those results are relevant, Google will identify the users’ IP addresses if prompted by the warrant to do so. DPD’s warrant had gone too far in asking for protected user information right away, and it took another failed warrant 20 days later and two calls with Google’s outside legal counsel before the detectives came up with language the search giant would accept.
Finally, the day before Thanksgiving 2020, Sonnendecker received a list of 61 devices and associated IP addresses that had searched for the house in the weeks before the fire. Five of those IP addresses were in Colorado, and three of them had searched for the Truckee Street house multiple times, including for details of its interior. “It was like the heavens opened up,” says Baker.
In early December, DPD served another warrant to Google for those five users’ subscriber information, including their names and email addresses. One turned out to be a relative of the Diols; another belonged to a delivery service. But there was one surname they recognized—a name that also appeared on the list of 33 T-Mobile subscribers they’d identified earlier in the investigation as being in the vicinity of the fire. Bui.
...
Seymour’s defense argued that, in asking Google to comb through billions of users’ private search history, investigators had cast an unconstitutional “digital dragnet.” It was, they said, the equivalent of police ransacking every home in America. The Fourth Amendment required police to show probable cause for suspecting an individual before getting a warrant to search their information. In this case, police had no reason to suspect Seymour before seeing the warrant’s results. But the judge sided with law enforcement. He likened the search to looking for a needle in a haystack: “The fact that the haystack may be big, the fact that the haystack may have a lot of misinformation in it doesn’t mean that a targeted search in that haystack somehow implicates overbreadth,” he said
...
After a five-month wait that Sandoval remembers as “gut-wrenching,” the court finally ruled in October 2023. In a majority verdict, four judges decided the reverse keyword search warrant was legal—potentially opening the door to wider use in Colorado and beyond. The judges argued that the narrow search parameters and the performance of the search by a computer rather than a human minimized any invasion of privacy. But they also agreed the warrant lacked individualized probable cause—the police had no reason to suspect Seymour before they accessed his search history—rendering it “constitutionally defective.”
Because of the ruling’s ambiguity, some agencies remain leery. The ATF’s Denver office says it would only consider using a keyword warrant again if the search terms could be sufficiently narrowed, like in this case: to an address that few would have reason to search and a highly delimited time period. The crime would also have to be serious enough to justify the level of scrutiny that would follow, the ATF says.
...
Meanwhile, another case—in which a keyword-search warrant was used to identify a serial rapist—is now before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. If the warrant is upheld, as it was in Colorado, their use could accelerate nationwide. “Keyword warrants are dangerous tools tailor-made for political repression,” says Crocker. It’s easy to envision Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requesting a list of everyone who searched “immigration lawyer” in a given area, for instance.
Immediately following American air strikes, Iranian military officials jetted to Beijing to negotiate the purchase of J-10C fighter jets and AWACS from China.
Pakistan's air force is equipped with Chinese-built fighters and missiles, and in a recent air battle against Indian forces shot down several top-line Western-built fighter jets and drones.
Chinese defense firms build equipment that is comparable or superior in quality, at considerable cost savings head-to-head against gear from NATO countries or Russia.
What's more, other militaries are struggling to build weapons at all, given that supply chains for the most advanced munitions and systems run through China for rare earth metals, and the other BRICS countries for raw materials.
If China agrees to supply Iran, it will remake the military and diplomatic landscape of the Middle East, for decades to come
Interesting times... /s
Yes I do!
They are working towards requiring it for all travelers.
Why: Think of this as a trial working towards full automation. They aren't there yet and are not probably legally allowed to do so, but the idea is that you can be fully tracked like the British, Chinese, and other biometric adopted countries.
Prevention: Reliability and legality. As I mentioned I don't think they can force it in the US for travel yet as it's not legally allowed, nor is biometrics entirely reliable as is apparent when facial recognition fails.
You mean like his own National Security advisor leaked information on previous operations?
As Hanlon's razor goes:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Incompetence in the white house is easy to see.
This is the roll call of the motion to table the impeachment. It's listed by alphabetical last name, but you can find your reps in there.
While I sympathize, I also have read enough history and law to know that the executive branch has many option and powers to leverage to make this happen.
The SAC, aka the third option is a prime example.
Further the executive has the ability to deploy forces for 90 days, but still must notify the speaker of the house within 48 hours of deployment.
These are just two examples.
But if Trump can't even report within 48 hours, then they need to assert their power.
This android only.
From the article:
Meta managed to do this even when:
- You aren’t using the app (but have a session open in the background).
- You haven’t logged into your account in the browser.
- You’re browsing in incognito mode.
- You’re using a VPN.
- You delete cookies at the end of every session.
The captured data includes:
- Complete browsing history with specific URLs
- Products added to cart and purchases made
- Registrations on websites and completed forms
- Temporal behavioral patterns across websites and apps
- Direct linking to real identities on social networks
You’re not affected if (and only if)
- You access Facebook and Instagram via the web, without having the apps installed on your phone
- You browse on desktop computers or use iOS (iPhones)
- You always used the Brave browser or the DuckDuckGo search engine on mobile
I hate this sort of post, not for what it's saying but how it's saying it. This is one news organization writing a story about another news organization poll, and no links to the data are evident. Links to the original news story which aired via a YouTube link, but there's not even a transcript of it up as I check yet.
So, it's great that there a backlash, but without context of the data it's not worth citing.
This is the image:
This is the tweet: https://x.com/DeptofDefense/status/1933947548965781863
Listen to the first half of this podcast as Chenoweth explains what the cavets are to this rule. She describes it more of as a descriptive rule not prescriptive rule, and suggests many other circumstances going on in addition to achieving this rule. Further régimes have adapted to this rule since it was first discovered and she's still truing to see what that adaptation means.
You Are Not So Smart: 313 - The 3.5 Percent Rule - Erica Chenoweth
Episode webpage: https://youarenotsosmart.com/
She has become the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority in decisions that reach a liberal outcome, according to a new analysis of her record prepared for The New York Times. Her influence — measured by how often she is on the winning side — is rising. Along with the chief justice, a frequent voting partner, Justice Barrett could be one of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president.
Overall, her assumption of the seat once held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has moved the court’s outcomes dramatically to the right and locked in conservative victories on gun rights, affirmative action and the power of federal agencies. But in Trump-related disputes, she is the member of the supermajority who has sided with him the least.
So not what they wanted, but not RBG. Still to much authoritarianism for me from the SCOTUS.
Alternative link: https://archive.ph/UO9ND
Fascinating idea and I look forward to reading the book. As someone who has never seen protests be that effective as compared to other constituency pressure mechanisms, it's an interesting counter point.
The OP's article indicates 3.5% of the population, which for the US at the moment would be around 340 million. 3.5% would be 11.9 million people.
Rough guesses are that the protest saw about 4-6 million people out yesterday.
I'm particularly curious about the paper's coalition building concepts about tying immigration to other value such as worker rights, private sector interests such as agriculture, racial justice, etc.
Beyond this I wonder if the analysis from ten years ago takes into account the technological isolation, manipulation, and echo chambering of modern politics. I would venture to guess that the 3.5% might need to be higher in a population that doesn't listen to 'untrusted opinions'.
Hugging face is repository and Machine learning hub. https://huggingface.co/huggingface
I love this fact, and am curious where you learned it?
At Seattle or Toronto's price point, I think it's likely a staff reduction by other means... That is unless the employees ignore it. https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/new-data-shows-workers-are-mostly-ignoring-return-to-office-orders/91202144