Is the difference to Chinese and Saudi money floating in the valley that we expect violent repercussions for anyone that opposes some aspect of the financiers' wishes? Or is it just that Russia is the most outspoken big nation that takes a different stance on critical issues where, say, Saudi and DC are in agreement. And that this is a danger to post-WW2 US influence? Genuinely curious.
Back when Milner invested in Facebook I viewed it as potential money laundering and didn't think about it too much.
When Saudis, Chinese or Russian individuals invest, they do so openly. When Uber took Saudi state money, they knew why the Saudis were buying. I think this sort of state-backed investing is fine.
The issue here is companies didn't treat Milner et al as an extension of the Russian state. They treated them as private individuals who made money in Russia. The difference is night and day. The latter want to make money like other investors. The former may want things other than money. Transparency allows one to be wary about suspicious requests, requests which may not seem suspicious without context.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Speak to a lawyer before accepting, or making, investments.
Sure, but aren't we forgetting that Russia is like China in that over a certain size of business you are in no way able to operate unless you are in agreement or cozy (more business) with the Kremlin? This is in stark contrast to the US where it's no problem for a company to operate HQ in Oklahoma and loudly oppose the current DC government. I mean, if we assume Milner wasn't backed and planted by the Kremlin for a moment, then one could consider it impossible for Milner to be untied to Kremlin if based primarily in Moscow, no?
Tied to, and acting at the behest of, are night and day. One allows you to presume they're acting in their own financial interests, by and large, just like every other investor. The other merits caution.
Your larger point, that we should have been more cautious, stands. We should have figured this out. But dollars danced, and even the best of us started rationalizing [1].
True, and a fine line which is hard to judge from the seats we sit in. But I agree that a US company cannot be associated with the Kremlin or Beijing or Riad in 2017 without consequences. Maybe in 2023.
I just don't want to see a McCarthy witch hunt when a lot of the money floating in Wallstreet and the Valley is of dubious origin.
I would equally oppose taking money from one of the CIA VC firms, even that one where Dan Geer works. And I kinda have this idea that by now enough money is floating around valley from the money made in the valley that it should be possible to use that "pre-laundered" (if we may call it that) capital.
That said, I have no idea how a startup would vet the VC's capital backers, or what they should do when they find out some of it came from beijing, moscow, tel aviv, and you want to give it back to disassociate your startup.
> I would equally oppose taking money from one of the CIA VC firms, even that one where Dan Geer works.
Facebook's advisor on its $19B acquisition of Whatsapp was a "privately held boutique investment bank" called Allen & Company, which at the time was led (maybe it still is, it doesn't show up at all on his personal wiki page) by former CIA director George Tenet. Not 6-months had passed since this acquisition and Putin started talking in the media about how the Internet is controlled by the US 3-letter agencies. Shortly after that his cronies fully took control of VKontakte.
There are plenty of Western businessmen who have political agendas of their own - who do things for reasons besides money. Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, etc. They are incredibly open about their goals, and none of them are good for the rest of us.
Agreed. And I hope people who care about civil society are equally squeamish about Murdoch or Koch money.
(The Koch's are actually more complex than Murdoch. The latter is just a scumbag while the former have beliefs and values. Which probably makes them more worrying.)
Am I alone in finding it unsurprising but unfortunate that all those addons to the official go toolchain are created by everyone to paper over the limitations of the Google Go implementation (which naturally reflects Google's development process and needs more than anything)?
EDIT: E.g moving .git/ back and forth or adding extra vetting/linting tools instead of extending `go vet`.
The most painful parts of the Go ecosystem are directly tied to the fact that the Google is making Go for themselves first and foremost and the community is an afterthought.
True and the more surprising aspect is that to land a develop position at Google you need to be on top of all CS theory and fresh in memory, just to unlearn everything and use Go for unspectacular business/enterprise projects, unless you're on certain teams like V8 or DeepMind for example. I think Go is meant to replace Google's Java coders with Go coders and have a language that fits exactly into the mold of their coding guides and rules for their monorepo and all the business/enterprise code written by the hordes of the rest of their developers.
Google's also opensourced Abseil, their C++ standard library (not meant to completely replact STL, to be clear), which contains all kinds of classes which were copied into many existing Google C++ projects in some form or fashion and sometimes incompatibly (e.g. Google's StringPiece found in several projects).
Either way I applaud them for doing a lot to open source projects. It's not something we can take for granted.
I suspected this might get downvoted and wanted to make clear I'm not demeaning the 90% of Google developers, but I failed, so I deserved the downvote. Just to make it clear I'm aware of where my comment failed to express what I was trying to communicate. Will try to be less lazy next time. It's hard to explain the purpose Google built Go for without considering where it's not used, and I failed to write a good comment.
Author here. Sure, there a reflections of their vision in Go. However all these deficiencies are now merged with the vision of current stakeholders, aka community. Go has learned and changed a lot in the past years ( in a good way). Going forward everyone will benefit from it, including us.
Go is becoming the new Java from what I can tell so it's good to know enough to find your way around and patch a Go project if needed. Being the new Java, despite being less expressive, explains the uptake in the enterprise and startups.
If Java had good AOT and fast startup coupled with comparable initial GC heap sizes, it could have had a better chance at fighting off Go. Java will not go away and many teams that adopt Go also migrate to other languages at some point if their projects outgrow the capabilities of Go and the pain gets too strong.
I'm partial to GHC's language extension model over a cornucopia of Go pre- and post-processing tools like Java had (e.g. AspectJ and all the tools making use of annotations? or Go processors using comments). It will be easier to improve GHC's GC or complete OCaml's multicore branch than bring Go to the current century of proven programming language features. Go has found a niche as a replacement for C and Python in network programming, which is great. It just doesn't scale as well with project and team size. OCaml's multicore project also introduces algebraic effects (comprehensive alternative to monadic programming) to the mainstream, so I can't wait for OCaml multicore to land in mainline.
Java has had AOT support since version 1.0, available to anyone that understands the value of paying for our tools, just like in any other profession.
For those that rather get everything for free, OpenJDK has initial support of Linux x64, with other platforms being already available on OpenJDK 10 master.
Is there a succinct explanation as to what those four projects are and how they would be combined in the hypothetical implementation you mention?
The idea is to replace all of the JDK with a construction of those four, right? Would it still need a traditional JVM to execute the resulting toolchain or replace it fully?
Graal is a native-code compiler for Java, implemented in Java. It can be used as a JIT or an AOT compiler.
Truffle is a framework for implementing languages in Java, implemented in Java. Truffle can use Graal to automatically produce a JIT for languages implemented in it.
SubstrateVM is a JVM and AOT compiler using Graal, implemented in Java. With SubstrateVM you can take a Java program and produce a single, statically-linked executable with no dependency on the JVM.
Sulong is an interpreter for LLVM bitcode (so C, Fortran, Rust, etc programs) using Truffle, implemented in Java.
So together you can start to see how it's a system for 'one VM to rule them all' - all languages running with high performance in a single system.
It would be possible to write a Java bytecode interpreter, in Java, using Truffle, which would be JIT compiled using Graal, and to AOT compile that interpreter to a binary using SubstrateVM, which would give you a complete high-performance JVM implemented only in Java, yes.
Today enough of these components are available to produce a standalone high-performance Ruby or JavaScript VM, written entirely in Java, that has no dependency on the JVM.
I'm not a bag geek, but I know firsthand how hard it is to find the right bag, if you care about functionality more than form.
For instance, I still haven't found the right carry on backpack that's sturdy, doesn't cost $200+, allows me to take clothes for a couple days and a laptop. It's either too big, too expensive, too heavy, too fragile, take your pick. So I can understand how someone can become a bag geek if they have to travel professionally on their own (without assistants who carry your baggage). Bonus points if I can detach a small laptop bag to take with me in order not to leave it at the hotel with the rest of the bag. So far I've always had to carry around the backpack and leave clothes in the hotel room. Pack, arrive, unpack, carry laptop, repack, go home.
I don’t understand the objection to price if it fulfills all your other requirements. A quality bag will have a lifetime warranty. Have you looked at Go Ruck?
Past experience makes me wary to risk spending that much and be disappointed two trips later. Lifetime doesn't mean they give money back if unsatisfied, except one or two companies. Also, upping my budget didn't magically reveal viable options either. So I could have skipped the price tag mention and conclude that it's just hard to find the perfect bag.
I've seen the Go Ruck GR2 and it doesn't fit my requirements.
Thanks. Basically I want the sturdy laptop backpack you got from HP 10 years ago with a clever way to pack clothes and ideally waterproof bottom (rubber/plastic) so that I don't worry when having it sit on random floors at airports or train stations.
Having a subdivision of the main compartment bigger than 2 is also important. Laptop, papers, cloth, food maybe.
I'm in Germany and looking for a shop nearby where they have a diverse selection of bags to inspect. I'm kinda tired of ordering bags and having had to send them all back. Amazon is threatening a penalty for returning too often, so there's that :).
Didn't Google try to solve that with circles. I never used Facebook or any other "social network", so I'm probably unaware of some details, but I read about circles when Google+ came out and it sounded like a solution for exactly this problem.
>Instead of Facebook, participate in independent online communities around your interests (for example, forums).
Replacing your actual social network with anonymous internet strangers leaves you in a much worse position on the axes on which people usually criticize Facebook. Facebook may be a poor substitute for meatspace interaction with your actual community, but your connecting with your actual community is surely more important than connecting with internet strangers.
>Instead of chat apps that attempt to envelop everyone you've ever met into monolithic walled gardens, use SMS and email.
SMS is a spectacularly low-quality monolithic walled garden. Email is federated in theory but in practice is almost always Google. Both systems have the uniquely privacy-hostile property of being in cleartext by default and in the overwhelming majority of real-world usage.
I was an adult before most people were on the Internet. People don't need sites like Facebook to connect with their communities.
Strangers are only strangers until you start communicating with them. Most people I know these days were first met through the Internet.
I suspect that most people use webmail (HTTPS), and many people don't use Gmail. I can switch my number to another carrier and people can still reach me at the same number, so it isn't exactly a walled garden. I think it's a stretch to argue that Facebook is better than email from a privacy standpoint.
Sure, you can rent access from Twilio, in the same way that you can rent access from Facebook. It’s extremely unlikely that you could ever become a full participant in either network.
Okay, so there's a high barrier to entry. It's pretty hard to become an ISP too. That doesn't make either a walled garden.
It's not so much about whether I personally could federate with the network, as it is about whether some reasonably large number of other entities could. I don't have exact numbers, but it seems there are 1000+ phone providers worldwide.
It's ironic since there are more content creators now if we count all the users of the silos.
My theory is that it's all about convenience and network effects. So if a fully decentralized IPFS based/alike social network would come out with mobile apps and was marketed as the way to communicate, it could have success. The big fault such projects make is to stress the technical merits and forget to play the psych-advertising game.
I've seen non-technical people have the most number of messenger apps on their phones, and some even advocated the security of their favorite messenger.
Technical folks seem to be harder to persuade to join a messenger network to communicate with a new person in their life.
So I want to say once we will have a couple more high profile data breaches and centralized SPOF downtimes, people will care about security and availability, though history doesn't support they would.
Creating isn't just about "content". Posting vapid updates and linking to articles that other people wrote isn't really creating anything. For most people, posting on social media is consumption, not creation. The Internet is on its way to becoming TV 2.0.
There are at least two ways to perceive the world: as an "architect" or as a "consumer". The Internet/WWW should teach people how to be architects, but it's failing in many ways.
I think that not everyone can be a large-scale architect, but those numbers can be increased.
People can be taught to at least think like architects in order to make better choices in life and understand when and how they are being manipulated by malevolent architects.
Also, one doesn't need to build million-user products to architect small changes in local communities.
An analogy: not everyone can be a good philosopher, but they should at least read philosophical ideas and be aware of them as they make decisions in life. Collective intelligence/wisdom can increased, even if most individuals are not professional philosophers.
I know, but how come we have now people from AfD in parliament in Berlin who openly gave interviews and public talks where they proclaimed the state and existing system has to be rebooted/abolished completely? Have they walked the thin line right at the edge that it was barely legal?
Do you think Verfassungsschutz (state dpt enlisted to protect the Constitution, and basically a spy/police agency) decided it's better to let them in for now and continue spying on them? Past events with informants and NSU do not fill me with confidence that Verfassungsschutz is doing their declared job.
It's clear why people vote for them, since they play the FUD strategy well, but I'm confused there hasn't been a concerted effort to expose them and their agenda.
I'm not German but my understanding is that AfD has walked the line. NPD on the other hand didn't but the courts said they were too insignificant to be banned, which may have increased the legal hurdle in the future which might not be great. Here's a good analysis of it [1].
As I remember the main reason given for not being able to ban them was that too many of their important members were undercover agents from Verfassungsschutz so it wasn't clear where the prohibitable ideas came from.
This was the case during the first banning attempt in 2003. This was fixed during the second one but that was declined this year due to the NPD's relative irrelevancy.
One thing to keep in mind is that the AfD has considerably moved to the right since the 2013 election. While the "old" AfD under Bernd Lucke clearly stayed within constitutional boundaries, the rise of unconstitutional opinions within the party is a relatively new phenomenon.
And it's made thinly veiled racist agenda mass acceptable as seen in this year's CSU (and to some extent CDU) communications. I'm scared a little, to be honest, though I continue to trust the checks and balances of the system supported by the rational minds of the greater population.
tl;dr: good idea, but not applicable to many FOSS developers due to local laws.
Please keep in mind that the legal complexity of accepting donations prevents many of us from doing so. This is largely a result of local laws and how the IRS equivalent is set up. Take Germany for instance. The tax code in Germany discourages freelancing in favor of running a >10 person company or finding steady employment. The main reason is what taxes one pays for "real employees" and how that lands in the national support system accounts. This is a valid justification on the state's part, but a FOSS developer living in Germany who isn't already doing freelancing and has all the tax complexity and insecurity taken care of is hard pressed to start accepting random donations. The first problem you'll encounter is them declaring you a false freelancer if you have a "single customer receiving bills" or forcing you to deal with freelancing tax paperwork for accepting a couple hundred bucks a month.
Still it's a good idea and I'd suggest to take out the middleman for those micropayments. I don't understand what GitTip or Patreon add in value besides acting as the payment service. I mean, you won't be able to ask for money back, will you?
Hey, if I could accept donations without concern, I might buy hardware or expensive hosting services that would benefit the project, but most FOSS developers do it as a hobby paid out of their regular paycheck.
When I visited the R&D center of a German car manufacturer, we were checked at reception and needed special permission to carry the devices we had with us for the presentation we were there for. If the software lead (the host) hadn't cleared the way and taken responsibility, we would have needed to leave everything at reception like most visitors. We were only allowed to take in one laptop.
The surprise here is that the daughter was allowed to take her device into the development office. I suppose the father did the same as our host years ago by signing off and taking on liability for anything that might happen. In that sense, and I don't want to sound harsh, he unfortunately had a momentarily lapse of judgement and kinda failed his father and employee duties. Hard to balance them at the same time, but maybe certain Apple employees need to operate like, you know, Air Force R&D personnel. You go to work, but you never bring home or talk about work.
For that purpose I would think optional whitelisting would make more sense. Instead of spyware lists you subscribe to in uBlock Origin, you would subscribe to a vetted, whitelist of known to be generally acceptable Orchid content.
Others might want to have empty filter list to be a complete transit/peer.
Therefore I don't think there's much room for users who want to blacklist but are not rather looking for a whitelist.
The blacklist will grow and grow, while the whitelist size will be pretty stable.
That said, I haven't used it, so the implemented blacklist approach might already support the above cases and be sufficient.
FWIW, as the person who has been doing the initial implementation, I can tell you that we currently only have a whitelist. I can appreciate why the person who was editing the FAQ for the website put in the world "blacklist" as it makes the sentence flow really well, but I agree with you about the issues (and there are also problems doing the distributed hashtable search to find nodes that don't have some property rather than ones that do have some property). I will poke about this to see if I can get it changed ASAP!
I know what you mean, but for this to be more widely used than Tor there is a need for me to know that nodes I operate only process stuff that won't be identified by 3rd party to sue me into a jail or financial ruin.
When I say whitelist, I do assume prefixes in the DHT (or whatever design they're using) can be used, as otherwise the whitelist may also grow too big to be practical. If however it will gain the concept of domains or such (which is also kinda a prefix), a whitelist will also be more practical.
Tor exit nodes are not operated by many in various places where they would/could because of concerns of the exit node addresses being enough to legally ruin operators' lives, even though technically it's a pure transit. Nobody sues the county because someone committed vehicular manslaughter on their public road. But because laws are skewed against the Internet right now, all someone needs is an exit node IP to make you regret.
If, and there's little to analyze/go by right now public, nodes and everyone is totally oblivious to what packets are transmitted; and if also the packets stored on nodes' disks are encrypted/sealed, then one could assume a filterless system to be practical.
This is all speculation, based on the little info there is. I really hope the team has come up with better designs that obliviate the concerns surrounding Tor, and ideally also not suffer from Freenet like slowness.
EDIT: Of course, once you have a filter, you will need to deal with the responsibility like Youtube does. If you do not know what's on disk or passing through, which is the ideal technically, then it would be best for the Internet and free communication. So, I'm not sure if a filter is a good idea, if that means you get subpoena'd and held liable for enabling one too many whitelist subscriptions.
I may be wrong, but my impression is they have more than one target audience. They want to hit the whole public, but also smaller groups who are having problems like government internet censorship.
Back when Milner invested in Facebook I viewed it as potential money laundering and didn't think about it too much.