It doesn't need to be in the ToS. In the US your information has no legal protection, with a handful of exceptions like medical information. You should assume any information you give to any company is being shared, sold, and utilized to the fullest extent to monetize you.
Something many do not consider especially in today's era of social media and AI capable of scraping any tidbit of information you reveal about yourself. As an example, this [1] is an extremely primitive tool that generates a profile of Reddit users based on nothing but what they've publicly submitted. The profiles the companies people 'trust' with their information today are going to be orders of magnitude more detailed, and accurate.
What does the phrase "blood sport" mean here?
Giving up literal blood sports seems so obvious as to not be worth mentioning, but metaphorical ones so vague that there's probably a better way to phrase it.
> Remember that your life belongs to others as well. Don’t risk it frivolously.
I have a rule that mixes the blood sport and the one I quoted above. There are a class of sports/hobbies that, as you progress and improve, you find yourself in more objectively dangerous situations in order to continue to progress.
Some sports are obvious, like boxing and skydiving. But even seemingly innocent activities have this property, like long-boarding and mountain biking. Pretty much anything that goes down hills :(
I'll pick those up hobbies again after this phase of life when rule 12 dominates.
Here is an example. I dated a guy, divorced two daughters 4 & 6 and he wanted to get a motorcycle. As if anything could be comparably important to family or children for that matter because it can't, he was the CEO and founder of a tech startups (so to this point in the companies development, from my limited perspective though he shared a great deal with me about the business, we not one in which there would be a stable replacement for him and thus the company and 400 people's and their families that relied on this company for jobs) I was only dating him for four months but I told him he was being genuinely selfish for entertaining the idea of buying a motorcycle and his ego was getting the way of his priorities.
I never tried to control him or any part of his life, but I made it clear that I would not date him if he got a Ducati with two young daughters and I deemed it a selfish life decision. Needless to say, this ego bled into other areas of his life and our relationship that made it intolerable to date him.
I would imagine that this tenant relies somewhat on being in a place of responsibility where you have made it so that others people's well being relies on you somehow, and your lack of existence/leadership/consequences of your bad decisions affect other people than just yourself.
Make it easy on yourself and don't overthink it - simply refrain from (as found on the internets):
- Badger-baiting
- Bear Baiting
- Bull Fighting
- Cock Fighting
- Cock Throwing - a rooster is tied to a post and people took turns throwing sticks at it until the rooster died.
- Dog Fighting
- Goose Pulling - a goose was hung by its legs while a man on a horseback would attempt to grab it by the neck to try and pull its head off
- Bear Baiting was another cruel blood sport
- Fox Tossing - with a person on each end of a sling tossed the fox upwards, the team with the highest throw would win.
- Rat-baiting
- Venatio - played out in Roman amphitheaters involving the hunting and killing of wild animals.
It's worth pointing out that trusted execution for individual queries does not, in general, rule out the attacks discussed in this paper. If the database collects (for example) frequency information about queries, inference attacks can still be used to recover plaintext.
EDIT: The fundamental problem is that trusted hardware doesn't hide the access pattern by itself. Trusted hardware can be used to hide some kinds of access patterns, but it's highly nontrivial and has only been demonstrated in some limited settings. For example, there was a paper at NSDI this year called "Opaque" which showed how to use SGX to hide access patterns for some kinds of Spark queries.
I should really read that paper, since I'm sort of confused by the threat model. Arbitrary queries seem like they would defeat the point. So I'm assuming this "using a secure, authenticated channel to communicate out, while still being monitored by the OS" model. That's a high bar for software not designed for SGX.
I presume it's relying on the paging behavior of SGX? (Either page faults or dirty bits).
One of the big selling points of x86 is backwards compatibility. If you have some OS from 1990 you can still run it (without emulation or virtualization, so long as it doesn't depend on clock speed), which is pretty crazy.
Slight aside, there are a lot of reasons that Itanium failed, but certainly one of them was lack of backwards compatibility.
Itanium was extraordinarily backwards incompatible. There's an enormous gulf between "runs software from the 80s" (which is something the PC platform only pretends to do anyway, because peripherals now are incompatible) and "can't run Windows at all". Breaking v8086 mode wouldn't prevent modern Windows from working (which is in fact why this bug wasn't noticed). You can't even enter it from long mode to begin with!
actually my windows 10 installation didn't used uefi. (I had a really old machine). Basically I upgrade/upgraded to ryzen. I don't think it will be easy to migrate to UEFI straight.
> Slight aside, there are a lot of reasons that Itanium failed, but certainly one of them was lack of backwards compatibility.
Itanium did not aim at the x86 market. The x86 translation layer was retrospectively seen as a mistake as well, because it wasn't relevant, but required transistors that limited the design's performance overall, which was relevant.
Probably because the perceived skill difference between this and many other modern jobs is small. I can imagine people being incredulous that this is skill rather than something less deserved (luck/situation/...).
The skill difference between your average SWE (or even average college basketball player) and an NBA player is pretty massive (and quite visible). I'd imagine it's much harder to find an someone that says 'yeah that's easy I could do that' about an NBA career...
A timely warning to the US, too - as more and more Senate votes are being decided by 50% majority rather than their traditional 2/3 (EDIT: sorry, 3/5). That both parties indulge in it should be worrying to everyone.
It was 3/5, not 2/3, to break a filibuster, and the use of filibusters had been getting to unprecedented levels. The argument above was that constitutional change should be hard I.e. require a supermajority. The Senate rules as followed recently have been requiring a supermajority for ANY change. That is unhealthy.
With Senate, the simple 50% majority is by design. That's consistent with most other bicameral parliaments out there, which also vote on a simple majority basis. Since the issues they can vote on are restricted by the Constitution, it's not really a big deal. The big deal is amending the Constitution itself, which is extremely difficult (if anything, probably more difficult than it should be).
Additionally, the Senate gives minority population states a vastly outsized vote. North Dakota and California get equal say. 50 Senators do not come close to representing 50% of the US population.
> Since the issues they can vote on are restricted by the Constitution, it's not really a big deal.
I don't agree. The U.S. Senate is very powerful; those restrictions aren't very broad.
> the simple 50% majority is by design
It depends what you mean. The filibuster, which requires 60% majority, has been part of the Senate since around the 1840s; clearly many generations of Senators thought it was important and intended that it continue.
The filibuster was always removable by a simple majority, though, so it was a self-applied restriction, not an external one. Which limited its efficiency greatly - anyone relying on filibuster knew that if they pushed too hard, it would go away.
The US should worry more about the electoral college finally breaking down and allowing the minority to control the presidency. Should worry more about gerrymandering too.
It's not that 'having' willpower is bad, it's that the concept is misleading. Pretty much any story where someone changes themselves (or tries to) can be coerced into an anecdote about willpower.
The point here is that the thing which decides whether or not someone succeeds at changing themselves is not the having/not having of willpower, it's everything else. And willpower as a concept is just one more distraction.
