R+dplyr and trifacta (GCP Dataprep)
Readit Newsmikecb commented on Ask HN: What tools do you use for data munging and merging? · Posted by u/hellectronic
I think soon or later we will need some kind of public institution that will do this sort of scans; all those unsecured IoT printers, vacuum cleaners, fridges, abandoned servers, Synology servers, etc. would become a real threat at some point and the costs of dealing with issues caused by them like identity theft, false accusations because on someone's server there is child porn uploaded by a cracker, bot nets will be more costly than having some institution running routine scans and sending warnings.
Japan is doing this: https://www.zdnet.com/article/japanese-government-plans-to-h...
In the US, DHS does this for the federal government, as well as some state and private organizations: https://www.us-cert.gov/resources/ncats
mikecb commented on U.S. Oil Production Is 23 Years Ahead of Schedule bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/petethomas
>More important is (a) taxing oil consumption to offset the negative environmental effects
And do what with the money raised with those taxes? I don't trust the people in charge to do what's needed to be done. The only positive thing from taxing oil consumption, would be to make it so expensive that people seek alternatives. When US gas prices were near $5/gallon, people sold their gas guzzlers and switched to fuel efficient choices. Once gas went back down, cars were sold off and guzzlers became the choice again. If Americans paid the similar prices to EU prices, things would be a lot different.
Usually, Pigouvian taxes like the one OP was proposing are calculated to cover the complete externalized costs of the item being taxed. So in this case, it would include the costs of adjusting to climate change. This would make alternatives relatively cheaper, as well as raising revenue to support research and construction of new energy infrastructure, as well as point addressing of specific projects identified to reduce the impacts of climate change. Of course, this is all if you believe that the current political climate (not only in the US, but in large middle income economies as well) can support such taxes. And then you have to decide what the tax should be! Ultimately, cap and trade turn out to be far easier.
Deleted Comment
Because it is a good overview of their intentions. Why is this a problem?
Because Congress' intentions are taken into account only after the actual text, and most of the time not at all (or they would have written their intentions clearly within the enforceable provisions.)
Deleted Comment
mikecb commented on SpaceX craft overshot Mars’ orbit and is headed to asteroid belt theverge.com/2018/2/6/169... · Posted by u/alex_young
None of which say anything about planetary contamination. GP is right that there is absolutely no laws enforcing “planetary protection” on commercial entities (thankfully).
Do they not?
UNOOSA, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. IX [1]:
"States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination..."
Note that State parties are responsible for the actions of their nationals later in the paragraph.
Is the above wrong? I admit to not being a space person.
Edit: [1] http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE11E.pdf
mikecb commented on SpaceX craft overshot Mars’ orbit and is headed to asteroid belt theverge.com/2018/2/6/169... · Posted by u/alex_young
Of course as a practical matter, NASA can deny the use of their facilities to whomever they choose.
If SpaceX had their own launch facility, etc., are there legal restraints from contaminating another planet (possibly purposefully)? And if there are such restraints, what is their legal justification?
Need an FAA license to launch, the US is signatory to various space treaties, etc.
Just gonna drive by mention https://landing.google.com/advancedprotection/, which is a physical-2fa-security-key-only version of gmail. To my knowledge it also disallows mail forwarding, and the account recovery procedure in the event of losing both second factors is intended to be a long process that involves proof of identity and multiple attempts to notify the account owner.
(I work on gmail, but I'm not intimately familiar with this option, other than knowing that it exists and is intended for high value targets like celebrities and politicians).
I know that GSuite would like to differentiate its enterprise products by features, but allowing basic/business plans to force U2F would be great. Since it's also available in GCP's Cloud Identity product (which is free), I hope this is coming down the road.
Deleted Comment