"and I want to do it somewhere with a gym and pool"

Even if it's just as good, you lose all warranty protections. Also if a counterfeit safety product fails and injures someone, good luck.

Would that service be indemnifying the seller from fraud? Or is your assumption that the platform would just make the right call?

Probably it's because the platforms don't want to make services to root out fraud because then they become more responsible for owning it. Outside services can't break in because the platforms aren't going to put trust in them. Those services would have to own the cost of fraud.

If you're doing oblivion-dollars damage to someone, why shouldn't you be accountable. Otherwise you're just making society pay the cost.

Between 36% and 53% of small businesses get sued every year according to this article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/basharubin...

If suits only happened when businesses actually did something that truly did damage to society, then I'd agree. But reality is far from this.

Lawsuits are part of doing business, just like taxes and accounting.

The messages are private communications, would probably require a warrant.

It shouldn't be on the customer to investigate every company they deal with. The public will only know when it becomes so bad that these kind of news stories start coming out. If public opinion is that bad, it should be regulated. Or the drivers need to unionize. I think it's only a matter of time before the drivers join the teamsters.

Software is only one part. Do you trust your hardware, your people, your supply chain, your physical security. "Truly motivated" can mean extreme resources and willingness to cross all boundaries.

Are you secure if your admin's child is kidnapped and the ransom demand is for network access? Are you secure from the Secret Police wanting to hijack your service for their purposes?

Once you accept you CAN'T stop truly all attacks you can be comfortable with acceptable risk and work to mitigate realistic risks.

Yep - this is why you might try to limit pivoting based on an assumption that everything is compromised, you can require coordination from multiple geographies to unlock access to certain highly sensitive resources, you ensure that these protocols aren't published, and above all you follow the New York Times Test: don't type anything that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the NYT. This requires pride in security at all levels of your organization, and it's something that few organizations outside of the military get right.

It boils down to this: if you can access secured data, then someone following the same steps can also access it.

So unless you advocate for no secured data, you are vulnerable to a sufficiently sophisticated attack (I.e. hypnodrones hijack your mind)

I’ve bypassed the man trap for a DC by accident before so I guess I’m good? :)

Can’t remember how I did it but my former coworkers still tell stories about it. Lol.

There are a lot of events that make being vegan inconvenient. I value myself by going out and having a good time with friends. Sure I can tell my friends and family to fuck off, but that sounds miserable.

Just don’t eat at the event. I’m not vegan, but I do eat fairly healthy. When I’m traveling and can’t find something that fits healthy I just go without. If your friends continue to bring it up and give you a hard time then they are not your friends.

Well if they're REALLY your friends they shouldn't care to begin with. I'd say only 1-2% of interactions out of hundreds result in people saying anything. Not even that many people joke about it.

UBI is stuck in extremes.

Libertarians want to cancel social programs and replace with UBI so individuals determine how to spend their benefits. Socialists want to guarantee everyone a living wage but also want the safety nets.

Policy needs to be in middle. You need to enable people to self-manage. Must be ready to help them when there is a bad turn events. But you also need to have a humane way to deal with people that are incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness. The way to handle that is guardianship, not other government programs that can also be individually mismanaged. Guardianship will surely be more expensive then UBI but it is the humane thing to do.

> incapable of taking care of themselves, for example mental illness

On this point, I agree 100%, but UBI programs are not really focused on the mentally ill. As is, disability is a fraction of what we traditionally think of as welfare (and it's already neglected in our current society). Most welfare are food stamps, health services, etc, for people that would otherwise be perfectly capable on their own.

A UBI does not mean getting rid of programs for people that cannot actually help themselves like the severely disabled or foster children. It means not treating grown adults like children or wards of the state

If a person can't take care of themself then a social worker should be the safety net. Adult protective services should step in and emergency assistance could be granted. But people with patterns of mismanagement should have a guardianship assigned.

With guardianship that UBI could be directed to an organization to provide that budget management. They can issue a food stamp card, housing assistance, etc. That management could be a government agency or privatized. If privatized it would have to be regulated as a fidicuary.