I don't think it's more important to protect private profits than ensure people's right are respected when their data is being processed.

Moreover, I don't think the answers will be made public so what's the problem with being held accountable to a government authority? That's just normal in this case.

It's more than relevant to get to know a company business strategy when their business model is essentially based on user data.

Being held to government authority is indeed normal. Being held accountable to government micromanagement and/or spying is not. The normal way for government to handle this stuff would be to issue a law saying that it is forbidden to spy on citizens and if you do spy on citizens you go to jail. The government going over all paperwork of a company is such a strange activity.

And how do you research for the formulation of such a law? Not really trying to defend anyone here with not much info, just it seems that asking parties for information about how the soup is made so you know how to regulate the making is pretty common, no?

A law that assumes things that are not available is evidently wrong. A judge will soon tell you that.

The government authority is a human. That's why it's a problem. People aren't perfect and might speak about what they saw.

And no, it's not normal to be required to have a business plan, much less disclose it.

It is nonsensical to write the title as such, all tech startups (since we're talking about them, but not only) do politics. They just choose it to do it in different directions. Most often when someone says they don't want to involve themselves with politics they are alright with the status-quo, which is a political position in itself. Politics is not just about a vote at a presidential election, it's the how and why of everything you do and will do, be it in the tech startup or elsewhere.

99% of the time this just means: "If you are not doing something I want you to, I will call that inaction/indifference politics too so I can attack you and not being perceived as a radical"

But no, the guy who sells me nails (as long as he is complying with the basic regulatory framwework for his business) doesnt need to have a vocal opinion on Israel/Palestine, BLM or if the gender balance in Google is OK or not. I even prefer it that way.

Yes, I am not sure I want to discuss politics with anyone from a shop either, but the way that shop is managed is a political position. It doesnt need to be about voicing your opinion to your customers.

Also it is more relevant to tech startups because technology has that thing where it can greatly influence the world after it exists. There's more political decisions to make and positions to take when you do that.

> Yes, I am not sure I want to discuss politics with anyone from a shop either, but the way that shop is managed is a political position.

Or just it isnt, I have managed shops and I for sure was not thinking about Hayek or Marx, I paid my employees according to the law, paid my taxes and followed the rules. Not every action has to be a sociological treatise no matter what the enlightened crowd may think.

> Also it is more relevant to tech startups because technology has that thing where it can greatly influence the world after it exists. There's more political decisions to make and positions to take when you do that.

Nails have been more important for civilization than 99% of SV start-ups. You are giving your tribe too much credit. And I thought this pandemic taught us a lesson, it only goes to show how dumb I am.

> Not every action has to be a sociological treatise no matter what the enlightened crowd may think.

I didnt say that, you can take political positions unconsciously.

> Nails have been more important for civilization than 99% of SV start-ups. You are giving your tribe too much credit. And I thought this pandemic taught us a lesson, it only goes to show how dumb I am.

It's not about pretention or credit, I'm just being objective, tech has shaped the world in recent years, every so often a new technology causes us all to change our behaviors and ideas greatly whether we choose to welcome that technology or it just came to be and forced onto everyone.

> I didnt say that, you can take political positions unconsciously.

And yet, a more advanced being,enlightened if you want, will tell me what unconscious position I did take. Thanks god for those uber-menschen living among us mere mortals.

> Politics is not just about a vote at a presidential election, it's the how and why of everything you do and will do, be it in the tech startup or elsewhere.

That’s certainly not true, outside an extremely expansive definition of politics.

Sure, but J.P. Morgan being inherently political doesn't mean it's a net positive for them to start to take public stances on cultural issues, and it only serves to conceal their real political impact.

I think there's a strong argument to be made that –– even given your premise of all startups being inherently political –– we're better off for them focusing on their tangible contribution to the world and not obscuring it with politics-as-PR.

And if their "contribution" has a primarily negative impact, political or otherwise, it's arguably even worse to be a culture in which they can reach for cover under cultural politics unrelated to their bottom line.

> Most often when someone says they don't want to involve themselves with politics they are alright with the status-quo, which is a political position in itself.

Or they just do not want to get involved in a complex, messy, and and potentially expensive social conflict.

The quoted post is talking about the benefits of non action(are more than the implicit cost) where I think you are saying the costs of the action are more than the benefits.

These seem really similar. Did you mean to say the same thing?

I interpreted the comment I replied to as having two bins. Those who oppose and those who support.

My comment was intended to argue that there are three bins. Oppose, support, and those who don't want to fight either way.

Yes, but spun in such a way as to frame not interfering with the status quo as the middle position to opposing it and furthering it. (Just to be clear no deliberate response is neutral here)

Uh, is that not already possible with TLS? Design bloat?

> These signatures can be verified against an origin's certificate to establish that the exchange is authoritative for an origin even if it was transferred over a connection that isn't.

So not possible with TLS (unless you tunnel TLS inside TLS). I can't think of any killer use cases that would (IMO) justify the complexity, but Appendix A does list use cases.

AI is mostly designed as an aid to the human and not the reverse.

I agree, but in other industries, there are people that say that AI will be replacing humans in the near future. At least I think they mean when AI becomes smarter. Somehow, I'm not we'll see an AGI or ASI in our lifetime. One that is capable of "replacing" human labor completely.

We're technologically very far from that.