From reading the article it seems like their co-operation has largely been snitching on their friends in the DDOS community and a crypto-currency analysis app.
The tool doesn't matter so much, if something is encrypted with, say, AES and a specific mode of operation with one tool, it can be decrypted with a separate tool given the same key and mode. Assuming the implementations of the encryption and decryption are done properly.
I've had panic attacks my entire life.Fortunately they're few and fair between these days and I can for the most part calm myself down when I feel one oncoming (they're almost always triggered by some event fortunately, very rarely just random ones).
I wouldn't wish them on anyone. That feeling of "I'm trapped, this is forever, I'm going to die, this is overwhelming, I need to escape" is genuinely the worst thing I've ever experienced. The brain misfiring the trigger that gets pulled when you're in a life or death situation is terrifying.
Fortunately recognizing that it's just a chemical response and I don't have an infinite supply of those chemicals and it will all be ok in a moment is one of the most calming thoughts and one that I always turn to when I'm panicking. Also remembering that I've felt amazing between panic attacks reminds me that soon I will feel that way again.
Just a few thoughts I turn to when I need to white knuckle that wave of panic that might be able to help someone else out.
The start of recovery for me was reading a book by Pema Chodron about not trying to get rid of the intense feelings and experiences like this. With enough experience and meditation and a practice called morning pages, I’ve learned to harness the extreme energies involved and make them a massive positive instead of something to be scared of, holding me back. It took a long time but fully worth the effort. :)
Morning pages has been an incredibly helpful tool for me to process the difficult emotional states associated with acute and chronic PTSD. I kind of do the slacker version by typing them out as opposed to writing freehand, but hey, it still works.
i too have found that they have become much less frequent as i get older. but even when they happened more commonly, just knowing what was happening helped me to cope. it was much scarier when i wasn't sure what was happening (was i going insane? having a heart attack?...). so im glad to see more awareness about it now, and hopefully people don't have to go through a long scary period like i did
Same experience. The first one's brutal. The uncertainty of what's happening and the fear forms a negative feedback loop, only making it worse. Am I having a heart attack? In my 20s?! But, ever after, I found them pretty easily defused with, "Ugh. This again. Yeah, yeah..."
The anxiety itself is still unpleasant, and sometimes it can take novel forms, symptomatically, which is cute (and a good way to jade you to legitimate medical issues). Fortunately, though, I've had nothing as intense as my first or second panic attacks to date.
I've had a similar experience. Now it only hits about once every two weeks typically, much better than what it used to be.
Honestly I don't mind it as much as I used to, and maybe that was due to the sheer frequency of it earlier in my life, but in a way it makes even the most mundane calm feeling truly special, and I like that, a lot.
Yeah autism occurs on a spectrum, from very low-functioning people who can barely verbalise or take care of themselves, to relatively high-functioning individuals who are capable of taking care of themselves, and given the right tools, even thrive.
I don't know if I'm on the spectrum or not but I empathize a lot with the experiences of autistic people, most stories I read could almost verbatim be applied to myself. Including this womans experience (minus the stripping, but finding a comfortable environment where all but the rules are stripped away).
This entailed years and years of awkward social experiences, and terrible self-loathing and embarrassing gaffs. The single biggest benefit I ever gained was learning that people actually have emotional basis to almost everything they say, as the author herself identifies in her post. For me I never had really any emotional content underneath my words unless I was being overwhelmed by emotion, and because of that I never saw that in other people.
Learning that people are emotional first and rational second has led me to rapid improvements in my social life, including developing a group of friends and even a romantic relationship. I stopped trying to mask myself and instead approached every interaction knowing that the other person was experiencing some emotional reaction to it, and just behaved as myself with that knowledge. I'm still off-beat and I still get called weird but I have friends and a romance and it all seems to be going well, people will adjust to who you are. People I've found normally seek a positive interaction, and acting friendly and seeking more details for what they've said, as well as talking about your own similar events or experiences is the way to pull that off.
I've found a good ratatat is to ask about something (normally people will lead off with some experience they've had or story they want to tell, but you can ask to kickstart it) inquire about a detail you would like them to elaborate and then chip in with your own similar experience or somehow pulling the focus off them and back onto yourself before the conversation inevitably bounces back and returns. Before long it's flowing naturally and biology sort of takes over and you're engaged in conversation. Too many questions or too much on yourself and it will all get uncomfortable or rude, so balance is key but if you keep bouncing around like this you will learn the balance for that individual and yourself. I still struggle with identifying what emotion people are trying to convey if it's not a simple and easily visible one like happiness, sadness or anger. But people I've found will normally pick up on the fact you've missed it and be more direct. It's very exhausting if you don't have a natural instinct for emotions, but it is rewarding because we are still emotional creatures.
This is the basis of conversation. Understanding this has also allowed me to attach emotion to my words and people are very receptive to this, and very importantly it has made me feel a lot better and manage stress. More importantly conversation has become much easier as time has gone on and I've begun learning the hints that forever eluded me because I was not interacting on the same foundational base as most other people.
There's more I've learnt about engaging with people than I can write here but they're subtle details that I learnt in the moment. I still over anaylze and I still struggle with my emotions and filtering information but I think I'm on a good path and I think that many neurodiverse people would benefit from similar realizations to what I have had.
That version is very, very old however and doesn't reflect current gameplay style or mechanics, however the stories still unfold pretty much the same way.
It's also a recent enough version, with gameplay similar to the latest ones, and I find the illustrations and writing style to make the whole thing very enjoyable. It might still get updated in the future, though the pace of updates has now slowed down considerably.
I'm not up on DF's internals, and basic Googling doesn't really clarify to an outsider - what's so big with the current update, and why would it make the next one a final release?
Thankfully the citizens of Hawaii have the state to protect them from all those overpriced rides they would otherwise not be forced to take in a free market. Now that they don't have the choice, I'm sure they will be better off.
A cap on surge pricing doesn't show economic illiteracy. It is a choice made by the people (represented by the government) to prefer longer waits over higher prices.
No, it's only removing option of quicker waits for higher prices, because you can have longer waits for lower prices as it is (just wait till price surge is over). So yes, that's economic illiteracy with strange motivation of "service men should be protected"
Those representatives can still make counterproductive and economically illiterate decisions even if they are representing "the people". There is nothing in that article that shows that these politicians understood all of the unintended consequences of their decisions. You and I may think of these consequences, but that doesn't mean bureaucrats do.
These decisions should be discussed based on the merits of the decisions themselves, not simply assuming that the politicians took everything into consideration and understood all of the consequences. There are many of "the people" who will wholeheartedly disagree with these price caps.
If two individuals agree to a price, what makes the politicians brilliant enough to tell them what the right price is.
Parent is pointing out that cab drivers have an interest in limiting alternatives to taking a cab. By doing so they earn a premium over the market price of the transportation they are providing.
Cab companies are locally based, therefore have more to lose from loss of business in any given market, and are more likely to have connections to local politicians. So parent is suggesting that cab companies may use their political influence to try to shape policy in their economic favor.
That's a good point. I do have the suspicion though that this is more emotion/outrage based legislation. I guess a nice person would give them the benefit of the doubt...
Feel free to present a coherent argument for how price controls improve economic outcomes. Some data would be nice too, given that the economic literature is replete with the counter.
... which is exactly the problem. The issue is the tactic, not the company employing it. It’s just this company has a serious habit of employing those tactics, hence the distrust.
I'd like anyone in any business contemplating an Embrace, Extinguish strategy to know that it ends in people not trusting your company and being unwilling to work with your services.
I would like to know how much it is costing Microsoft to fix that damaged reputation so that other executives will know if they do this it will end up costing at least X amount.
Hmm... I would think that it will cost Microsoft a rethinking of their business strategy.
If their 'Embrace' looks like 'Yes we are compatible with...' and their 'Extend' like 'If you use our layer you can also do...' then people stay sceptical.
Instead their 'Embrace' should be 'How can we help you with your open source product?' and their 'Extend': 'Here are patches that fixes problems, improves performance and implement community wanted features.'
It seems companies like this always try to hold the door to 'Extinguish' open.
I really don't think reputational damage in this case came from adopting an embrace-and-extend strategy as such, but rather the monopolistic position they were in combined with specific tactics they used.
>Its strikes me that these people don't know what capitalism is
In my experience Anarchists are some of the most well read community of political activists around. May I suggest that you don't know what capitalism is and should spend some time actually reading some theory? Or perhaps engage in conversation with some anarchists? I think you'd find their views and philosophy much deeper and valid than you've conceded in your post.
When you hold up small regions that survived for a short time (about 3 years), created nothing, then were defeated, I’m not sure you’re going to win against a system that created modern North America from nothing and has lasted over 200 years.
Anarchism is an abstract idea that has never worked, which is why all your examples are of anarchists that work with collectivist, squarely against their individualist ideals.
>What do you need to make a modern enterprise? You need tools and you need labor. Some people provide labor, and others provide the tools. Some people who can provide tools, don't necessarily want to provide labor. They are shareholders without being workers.
But the thing is, this only needs to exist this way in a capitalist society. In all your points, you seem to not grasp that the underlying economic system of an anarchist society would in no way resemble the current state of affairs.
In much the same way the economy under a feudalist society does not resemble a capitalist society, and yet fields were tilled and walls built without shareholders.
The fact is that if you abolish capital (by returning collective control over the means of production to the workers) there is no section of society, no "other that provides the tools". The people who provide the tools are other workers, working in other fields, and they supply the workers in the field which uses the tools with the tools. There is no unproductive segment of society such as there is today which lays claim to the wealth without doing any of the labour. This means that there cannot be the accumulation of wealth that we see today, as instead of being horded and spent on the whims of a few, it is immediately pumped back into society.
The state and capitalism are symbiotic. The state only exists to keep capitalist enterprise in check, that is why the state perform functions that we do not believe should be performed for profit (why so many countries have welfare systems, healthcare systems and militaries to maintain the states primacy).
Otherwise everything would be performed by private enterprise (i.e. your anarcho-capitalist ideal) which would very quickly lead to corporate feudalism and private armies.
There is no way for the state to not exist and capitalism to exist at the same time, and seeing as both structures are the root cause of many issues in society, the abolition of both is necessary through decentralization and worker led confederations of labor, rather than the current system of capitalist led governments and businesses.
The state exists in it's current form because we don't trust private enterprise to perform those functions, otherwise we would. So you're agreeing with me, although I could have phrased it better.
And we don't trust private enterprise for good reasons. They're known under many names - tragedy of commons, coordination problems, collective action problems. One possible solution for all those, towards which all societies in history gravitated so far, is the state.
You have such a simplistic understanding of economics for somebody who asks others to read and study.
Where do tools come from? Are they descending from heaven like magic? Tools are the product of someone’s labor. Why would mr A who built tool X give it to mr B for his enterprise unless he gets some return?
Or do you imagine a world in which there is no shortage of tools? In that case just imagine a world where there is no shortage of anything and we can dispense with human labor altogether.
Anarchism is very possible when robots do everything. But not short of that.
Also, you should study why the anarchists ultimately lost and were butchered by the communists after the tsar’s regime was toppled in Russia.
You already answered your own question as to why having this argument with an 'anarchist' is a waste of time. By redefining capitalism to be a specific case of oligarchic kleptocracy (the very non free market system of corporate welfare we currently have in america) they can always avoid the interesting points of the argument.
As an aside, as I read this, you are not advocating for anarcho-capitalism, just pointing out where this scenario ends, but I don't think the people arguing you below understand that.
The real winner is the person who understands both sides and can pick out which people aren't capable of having an intellectually honest conversation and avoiding them.
