hanse00
I think there's a whole sub-conversation to be had about how work is perceived in different cultures. It seems to me like Americans are much to focused on what you're describing, which is that work has to be pleasurable. In my eastern European family, there was never any doubt: Work is about making sure you have food on the table, and a roof over your head.
That's not to say I'd take any job, if I was morally opposed to the work (See: Working at F̶a̶c̶e̶b̶o̶o̶k̶ Meta) I'd go elsewhere. But not being in love with my work is fine. I don't hate it, I'm just indifferent to it, and it funds my actual life outside of work.
As for not wanting to off myself? I think that comes back to that cultural aspect. I could never imagine wanting to end my life just because my job isn't amazing, because I never had a preconception that it could be. I don't feel like I'm "missing" anything by not loving my job, because I love my life.
This only works out if all non-DC bitcoin related power usage (At home mining), is higher than all non-Bitcoin related DC power usage. Are there really that many people mining at home vs. in some sort of DC?
Busy? Absolutely.
That’s not how people work.
I used to work in Techstop, I wonder how crazy of a time that team is having right now. But I wouldn’t call them an obstacle.
For one, my home is in one physical place. A bad actor needs to at least get to me, to... you know, get to me. With my data, if it's open to be seen, it's open to people in China, Russia, and on the moon as well. It's not limited to my government.
Second: When the police are given a warrant to my house, I can be there, and I can observe that only actual police officers are entering my home. Data doesn't have any kind of global logging and auditing system like that. Any particular system may or may not log or audit access, but it's not a sure thing. Once it's accessible, once again, I have no way of knowing who actually accessed it.
Third: As WiseWeasel mentioned, I would argue that in the modern world, having access to my data isn't like having access to my home. It's like having access to my mind. My phone knows everything: My intimate conversations with my wife, where I go shopping, what I buy, what my political opinions are, every single photo I've taken in the last 10 years (Which in large part means: Knowing every single place I've been in the last 10 years), my financial transactions, and much more.
If the cops cannot get a search warrant to forcibly read my mind, I don't think it's reasonable they should be able to see my data either.
Fourth: It encroaches on the privacy of others. Generally speaking a warrant for my stuff, is because I am suspected of things. My neighbor isn't also searched because they happen to be near me. But plenty of the data in my life (Especially in the context of conversations) isn't just my data, it's the data of my conversation partner too. Who is now having their data investigated, without knowing it at all (And depending on where they are from, do the local cops in my own even have jurisdiction over the data of my friend in Europe?).
I could go on, but I think I've made my point: Data is not "a thing", it's an entirely different plane of existence. And we need lawmakers that understand that, and are ready to tackle the real challenges that it undoubtedly is, to write reasonable legislature about data.
What we currently have, is a bunch of people trying to fit this new square data peg, into their existing round hole legislature.
Making effective encryption that lets law makers access our data, isn't just "hard" in the traditional sense. I'm willing to bet it's impossible (At least with the kinds of technologies we'll have in my life time).
Yes the cops can get a warrant for our doors, why not our computers? Because cryptography isn't an efing wooden door. They are not the same. Get it.
It's not like all of silicone valley hates lawmakers (Although many do), it's that they're asking for unicorns and pixie dust.
And I agree that I've never known any individual Googler to be evil, or intend to be evil (Although I've seen questionable decision making at times).
But whilst no one Googler is evil, the larger body that is "Google" has turned slightly further towards evil (In my personal definition of the word evil).
It's still nowhere near what I would consider true evil, I would probably go back to Google one day if the opportunity presents itself. But I would argue the Google I see today is less "good" than the Google I saw 5 years ago.
People who are introverts at heart can learn to become just as good managers as those who aren't. It may come less naturally, I couldn't say, but it's definitely possible.
At least at the operational level. I'm sure Sundar has had much contact with them. But regular Googlers certainly have not.
I envy David Robson at the BBC, for whom it is apparently effortless to take time away. Because it certainly isn't without effort for me to not accidentally find myself back at my desk, late in the evening, working on just one more thing.
Only after applying for other jobs, have I realized that essentially none of my skills are transferrable to the majority of businesses out there.
If being able to run a Linux VM is what it takes for others to do the same, great.