I hate to pile one when there's already folks piling on with emotional responses, but...

To #2, It used to be closer to 80%, not 70%. And while it has been decreasing pretty sharply since the recession, some states are hit harder than others.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fccpr.wpcarey.asu.edu%2Fs...

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fazeconcenter.org%2Farizo...

To #1, I think you are correct. The US had it quite easy for a long time, and it was rarely a challenge to coast into a middle-class lifestyle. Now it often requires more work, an ability to adapt, and possibly relocation, but the opportunity is still out there.

As hard as it is to imagine, Signal is old enough that it started as encryption for SMS.

Combine that with the network effects (existing close contacts can discover you without effort) and natural anti-abuse characteristics[^1], and I can see why there'd be so much inertia.

Even in this release, phone numbers are still required and shared by default if already stored in the user's contacts.

[^1] Note: I'm not saying it's perfect, but certainly better than indiscriminate anonymous account creation.

Teacher: We've graded 78% of the test and so far you've gotten every question right!

gillbates: But that's only a C!

Is this where I make an assumption that the grandparent is a product of public (i.e., evil government) schooling?

The original comment was about taxes.

There is no doubt that housing in the large metro areas is significantly more expensive. It's also unrelated to the OP making a case against California taxes.

California has a progressive tax rate meaning that most people would pay less if they moved to California.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fopin...

Considering the higher median wages, you almost certainly come out further ahead moving to California.

Those that are wealthy will try to use their platform to "fix the glitch", though.

U.S. double-taxes income above $100,000

The link you provided clearly states this is not the case.

The U.S. imposes a tax floor. If you move to a country with very low taxes, then you'll have to pay the difference. If you move to a country with a high taxes, then you owe the U.S. nothing.

As the United States tends to have lower taxes than many countries you would go for work, most likely end up paying nothing (other than wasted time filing paperwork).

The rest of the world doesn't have S230, but we still have social media and user comments. Maybe the sky won't fall?

But they typically have their own laws. For example, the EU has the Electronic Commerce Directive (ECD). (I would also guess that Americans are far more likely to sue for speech they don't like than many parts of the world.)

The other posts here are correct: adding liability for user content will just re-fracture the Internet so that only the technical elite capable of self-hosting will have a voice. (Or, more likely, push the internet toward platforms run by non-US companies.)

If you think free speech has been a net harm, or are happy to run your own blog, then maybe this sounds appealing.

But I really like that I can search "2004 pontiac vibe oil change" on YouTube and easily find help.

Excellent observation. You essentially just described the ongoing issue with nearly all government programs where a huge portion of the budget is, essentially, just trying to avoid negative headlines.

But with NASA, the stakes are so much greater.

What a weirdly-phrased poll. Do I believe they have the right? It doesn't matter: the government has the ability to close a business.

If your business exists to facilitate assassinations, then the government is going to force you to shut down. Are you routinely breaking the law and scamming customers? Are you operating without a license? Are you causing widespread harm?

Businesses are special, but not that special. Is the next poll going to be "do you believe government has a right to detain people?"

Even if you read past the question itself and attempt to tie it current events, it's still, effectively, "do you think the government should try to minimize harm?" You may as well ask if I am favor of the United States having a military, as they are effectively operating under the same principles.

Matrix is only 6 years old so you definitely weren't using it when (the original) Google Chat launched. :-P

There are some compromises in the Matrix design, but I agree that it's a reasonable base for building a multi-decade communication product. I haven't seen it gaining momentum against really slick, proprietary solutions, but I'm always happier when I have the option to self host.

Every product dies. Not every product really lives. :-P

(RIP Wave and Reader)

It's often a valid complaint, but there is a replacement that integrates with the older platform here. If you include Google Talk and its transition, then you are already looking at over 15 years of support and its still going...

What other messaging service from 2005 are you still using? For some people, the answer is going to be IRC and XMPP which is a good argument for open protocols. But people prefer to let someone else run their infrastructure for them...

The proposal is something you have (your phone) combined with something you are (biometrics). It is not, as many people seem to think, "using your face as your password". Your face is the second factor.

Your biometrics don't leave the phone, they simply unlock the secure enclave containing your credentials. Further, you can't spoof the request: a fake login portal will get different proof-of-identity to the actual site.

The current standard is almost exclusively something you know, alone. And people share that everywhere. WebAuthn is a severe increase in security for almost everyone out there.

that isn't what the article you linked says. it says that Apple doesn't compete with Google in the market of licensable operating systems for third party smart phones

Maybe a winking face would have helped, but...

It is a little shocking. Imagine a world where practically every FPGA manufacturer required you to use proprietary synthesis software. If a company came along with an open-source solution and offered a significant discount on their optimizer if you bought hardware from the company, would the EU suddenly consider them a monopoly in the "documented-bitstream market"?

Or the obligatory car analogy. If Ford were successful at selling their designs to other companies, does Ford no longer compete with other car manufacturers?

(I understand the perspective that B2B is a distinct market from consumer, but it's clear in that section that the focus is on the end customer.)

Also, it's just weird that the EU would be against open-source software. I'm sure you can find complaints, but the specific wording of the fine suggests they were struggling to justify the monopoly accusation or thought it would weaken their claims to be more honest.

Claiming that Apple is not a Monopoly just because they also don't allow third parties to use their hardware or software is absurd.

Unless you are the EU in which case you claim Apple doesn't compete with Google in the mobile market because nobody else can use iOS (and also because Apple devices are too expensive for Android users). Those crazy Europeans. Slice a market fine enough and everything can be labeled a monopoly.