As someone who builds websites for money, I couldn't agree more. I rarely get to bill for making incremental changes, I get to bill for implementing features. Spending money to implement and log a properly restrictive Content-Security-Policy doesn't seem like wise use of my clients limited budget.
It may be a wise use if a security break-in would be a problem for your client.
I am a big fan of restrictive CSP, but it's often hard to get there from an existing site. It's often better to do it in stages, e.g., when you work on page Q, you make that page have a restrictive CSP. Later, when you work on page R, that can grow one (or at least have fewer CSP issues). If having someone break into your site would be a serious problem, then you should speed up what it takes to get there.
No offense but this is exactly the attitude that inhibits progress and led the auto industry to languish in mediocrity for years. If you wait until the technology would prevent all accidents, you'd be waiting forever.
Your attitude is inhibiting progress. Everybody knows the technology is not ready and everyone is fine with it and willing to face the consequences of refining it. Everyone except Tesla that is, which insists their self-driving tech is so advanced they even call it autopilot encouraging people to treat it as such and refuse to admit any fault in this mess.
> Everybody knows the technology is not ready
And by what standards are you gauging its not ready? My point was if you wait until it becomes "safe enough", you'll be waiting forever because Tesla would be forever at the mercy of whose rules govern what "safe" means. Roads are hazardous places and unfortunately accidents are going to happen.
What I do know is that the Autopilot system will never be distracted, will never fall asleep, will never drive intoxicated or recklessly, will never disobey traffic laws like humans do. Tesla also has a financial incentive to improve their technology to prevent this from happening. Unlike humans who, for the most part, have far less incentive to drive more carefully.
I think you're setting up a dichotomy here that doesn't exist. It's not a choice between waiting forever or disregarding safety. Look at how Waymo is approaching the problem, for example.
As good as a human at what? It's 100% better at not falling asleep behind the wheel or driving while under the influence which statistically are the most common cause of traffic accidents.
We don't yet have evidence that Tesla's using Autopilot are any less safe than human drivers. We do have plenty of examples of traditional auto makers negligently ignoring safety regulations, manufacturing faulty vehicles and also causing fatalities. But somehow we don't hear the same pleas for sympathy for those souls.
We don't yet have any evidence that Teslas using Autopilot are any safer than human drivers. We do have plenty of evidence suggesting that humans are unable to pay proper attention when asked to do tasks like driving a level 3 automation of cars. There is plenty of reason to believe that this going to cause an increase in accidents, particularly of the fatal variety (say, running over a pedestrian at lethal speed).
The NHTSA found a 40% crash rate reduction from Tesla's autopilot. So how about you tell all the people who lives have been saved that you wish they hadn't been because you're an emotional reactionary
I believe many people have found issues with the data used and how they were prevented. Also it's worth comparing the common case of accidents - bumper to bumper, etc on a freeway which I'd except all self driving systems to instantly reduce the rate of just by increasing the distance to the next car - to the number of serious crashes - e.g. driving into parked vehicles, concrete pillars - those have entirely different failure modes.
That said, the reality is that the types of self driving systems currently deployed - Tesla or whomever - are all fundamentally flawed because they do two things:
* Require attention from the human driver at all times
* Cause driver inattention
The first is fairly clear, literally every one of these products is prefaced with "the driver is still in control of the vehicle and must remain attentive", and the latter is clearly demonstrated because of all of the different mechanisms that the manufacturers are deploying to try and deal with the fact that if you tell a human to pay attention to a specific task, but they aren't doing that specific task, they will not pay attention. Every system tried just increases the time required for a human driver to adapt to unconsciously managing the various "pay attention" alarms.
The solution is fully self driving cars. We don't have that yet. I fully expect them to be safer once we get there.
I don't disagree that levels 2/3 are a danger zone in self-driving technology, but I feel the need to point out that there are plenty of people who are disabled or suffer chronic injuries resulting from being rear-ended. Stop and go traffic can be plenty dangerous as well.
What's so righteous about the status quo that makes skeptics feel so compelled to defend it so vehemently by degrading Bitcoin?
But it seems we should be far beyond Denial and Anger stage and well into Bargaining and Guilt at this point. Don't worry, he'll join the chorus of "blockchain is good, Bitcoin is bad" rhetoric soon enough.
What's so righteous about the status quo? I'll put it to you as succinctly as possible:
I can hold money in a checking account and have the same amount of money next week, or next month
Inflation is largely predictable, and pretty much non-existant compared to crypto volatility
Fraud, phishing, and hacking will not cause me to lose my life savings. My mother is not technologically savvy at all. I would be terrified to let her keep any significant portion of her savings in a system where a hash with a typo will cost you you everything.
For as much as cryptocurrency supporters will harp about the evils of Wall Street; the explicit scams, pump and dumps, and market manipulation by 0.001% of crypto holders make Goldman Sachs look like a company of boy scouts. 2008 Financial recession? Ha, wait until you see what happens when Chinese mining pools decide it's time to weed out the small fish (ie, every other month or so). Sure, lecture me all you want about how the Federal Reserve is evil - but at least they don't prey on investors with explicit pump and dumps, useless ICOs, or that shit circus Tether.
Although there are certainly smart people working in the blockchain space - most cryptocurrency/blockchain supporters are needlessly confrontational, smug, have a limited understanding of economics or financial engineering, and use ad hominems when they're confronted by arguments they can't debate against.
From an economics and engineering perspective, there are a lot of holes in blockchain and crypto as a technology. This is reflected in the fact that there are currently no useful innovations built on blockchain, other than money laundering, and cryptocurrency (which has no inherent value itself).
I find nothing righteous about a system designed for a select few to profit from maintaining the illusion our money is safe and secure in a vault somewhere. That illusion has already cost people their life savings without any attacks or user error required. But the difference is they are deemed "too big to fail", so when they screw up, they get bailed out while everyone else loses it all.
More egregious is economists insistence that the continuous debasement of our currency combined with skyrocketing consumer debt and stagnant wages due to automation will not end badly. These are the same economists that couldn't possibly predict what would happen when bankers and creditors were allowed to produce billions in worthless financial derivatives and sell them as triple-A investments.
Funnily enough, when people realised they could copy code and sell them off as triple-A investments that is exactly what they did. (OK, not triple A, but the scam of money from nothing is happening again and again.) At least with Bitcoin there is an end.
If you buy Bitcoin, you still have that much Bitcoin at the end of the week. I think you are referring to exchange rates. Your money is still subject to exchange rate variation on a daily basis.
"Although there are certainly smart people working in the blockchain space - most cryptocurrency/blockchain supporters are needlessly confrontational, smug, have a limited understanding of economics or financial engineering, and use ad hominems when they're confronted by arguments they can't debate against."
How is this not an ad hominem on its own? Easily the most hipocritical one I have seen in years too.
Isn't Bitcoin the most unequal distribution of wealth we know about? Every analysis I've seen says that Bitcoin makes Russia look downright egalitarian.
Initially I think due to disruption to banking and government monopolies. Outrageous fees, pitiful interest rates, and financial services only accessible Monday through Friday 9-5 and sometimes on Saturday seem pretty archaic today. People who never had access to a bank can send money to anyone peer-to-peer like cash. Millenials largely prefer to invest their money into cryptocurrencies over traditional assets, which I believe has largely been monopolized by a firmly established few.
Outrageous fees: are you sure we're talking about BitCoin, here?
Financial services M-F 9-5: while you generally need to go into a bank to set up an account, that's not always the case. Afterwards, most banking can be via direct deposit, mobile cameras for check deposits, ATMs, and web services.
People who don't have access to banks -- Kenya appears to have solved this without blockchains.
"Millenials largely prefer to invest their money into cryptocurrencies over traditional assets" -- do you have statistics on this?
I'd personally much rather pay higher fees when there is a high network volume than constantly paying fees for the privilege of using an ATM, or servicing my online account, or processing a wire transfer, or reissuing me a debit card or checkbook, etc. For merchants, fees are outrageous indefinitely.
Here are a few recent articles on millenial interest in crypto [1] [2].
Your personal preferences don't enter into it. The fact of the matter is that bitcoin transaction fees will always be high.
The first of your references is from a cryptocoin hype site, and the second one says that "12%" of millenials would put a substantial amount of a windfall into crypto, which strikes me as not being "largely prefer".
In my opinion, distributed ledgers and mutable blockchains based around trusted actors are business as usual and frankly not very interesting. Bitcoin could actually make everyone's life a little better. Isn't that what technology was meant to be?
Your perception of technology changes as you age. Anything new in your teens and 20s is hailed as a innovation sure to change the world in profound new ways. In your 30s-40s, weird and burdensome, no better than the traditional ways of doing things. Past that point, you'll view everything as borderline destructive and proof of society's decline.
“Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
If you're going to be worried about everything that has a small chance of failing and injuring you, I'm sorry to say you're currently living in a minefield. But statistically you'd be more likely to break your toe on the coffee table than your laptop exploding and burning down your house.
Depending on where you live, house destroying disasters like earthquakes, floods, and storms have similarly fatal consequences but are statistically more likely to occur. My point is make reasonable preparations and insure any valuable belongings, but thinking about it too much doesn't make it any less likely its going to happen to you.
It seems like America doesn't have an appetite for long term, sensible policies. We pass common sense legislation, fail to ever adjust them based on how they work in practice or when new information comes to light. Then as public outcry reaches its peak, a politician will come along to scrap the entire thing in favor of starting anew or propose some poorly conceived, overly broad solution to the problem.
America is great at throwing tons of cash, our vast technical and industrial infrastructure, or military might at the problem. Not so much at utilizing the scientific method to determine a sensible course of action as other nations do.
The easiest example I see is the long list of policies which were assessed via some known value like inflation, but never pegged to it. As a result, they're grounds for new fights every couple of years when it comes time to re-assess them. I'm not even thinking about minimum wage here (which still sees fights over its existence) but inside-baseball funding for various executive branch positions and agencies. Similarly, the alarming number of laws with hard cutoffs (on salary, or employee count, or whatever) that create weird anti-growth, anti-work incentives.
I think it was in a recent discussion of cost explosion (e.g. in healthcare or infrastructure) that someone pointed out that the US isn't over- or under-regulated compared to similar nations; it's just worse regulated. A disturbing amount could be gained by going through the Federal Code and just fixing the bits that every expert agrees are stupid.
Most can get on board with recognizing the difference between someone who just recently came illegally who might have a criminal record versus someone who is law abiding, has been here for many years, and potentially who has legal family members here. The worry here is the current administration's policy does not distinguish between these two and the goal isn't so much about safety, but is to report high numbers of deportations at all cost.
