Yes absolutely. Text casing is part of communication, by skipping it an author is saying: "I'm going to prioritise my preferences and making a statement above your understanding and clarity". The bigger the audience the more negative impact it has, and the more entitled the author appears.
Along the same lines though, txt spk to friends is a) far lower impact with the smaller audience, and b) communicates other factors such as what device you're on or how close you are to someone, so this is not me just hating on bad grammar.
Bad grammar is usually lack of care or education or knowledge.
100% lower case is 100% a choice.
Thanks jack dorsey, for letting us know you're that sort of person. At least he refers to himself that way too, although he should sign off with: jack off.
It conveys an informality and casualness inappropriate to situation of declaring that you are about to disrupt a few thousand people's life in a massive way. Even posting it to Twitter before everyone has been notified is... a choice.
Some people won't perceive that, but plenty will, and appropriately so.
I severely doubt if the hiring teams at this company would take someone seriously if their application was sent in in this style. I severely doubt that they communicate with their clients and investors this way.
This is a financial services company, it goes with the territory that they should project careful attention to detail.
Even if this was a company in a much less serious industry, this is just not the kind of announcement that a CEO should send out without fixing all the squigly lines that helpfully tell you when you are about to come across as uneducated or unserious.
ur right it dosnt matter. im gonna type all my communications at work like thisn wo. im sure noone will mind. my choice to completely disregard the rules fo english orthography doestn convey anything at all
A Verifiable Credential fundamentally doesn't solve the problem of "sharing", "smuggling". All it takes is one verified adult to "leak" their VC somewhere, and millions of underage people would be able to use it to "prove" they are over 18.
This would only work with something like MS TPM 2 / Apple Secure Enclave (device attestation), which is anti-freedom by design. I was curious if they found a way around that (maybe with time/rate limits, or some actual useful use of blockchain tech).
You could use an oblivious pairwise pseudonym, and then you do not require hardware attestation. But that does essentially limit one ID to one account per service.
Besides the privacy argument (the claim that the UID can't be used for tracking via derivation is shaky at best, and not much different than MS's EK), there is the freedom argument: as in, who owns the device - the user, or Apple?
If Apple can remotely lock the device that an user bought mistakenly (for example because some corporation somewhere fat-fingers some entries), that fundamentally means the user doesn't own the device they bought and paid for. Add on top DRM and all the other evil that comes along with attestation.
Plus, you can still disable TPM2 (if you don't want to run Windows on your machine), you can never disable Apple's implementation.
I'd like to add we are discussing communication over the internet. It is an open standard. I should be allowed to build my own pcb without a secure element and talk to anyone over http so long as I am abiding by the correct rfcs.
All of this is true and credit assignment is hard, but the brutal competition between Chinese firms, especially in manufacturing, differentiates them from and advances them over economies in the west. It makes investment hard as profits are competed away, which is blasphemy in Thiel's worldview, but is excellent for consumers both local and global.
Shot and immediately branded a violent terrorist by the highest levels of government.
It's a bit of a catch-22 that they keep shooting and lying about the people who are filming them shooting people to provide evidence that they lie about what happens.
I think the Tailwind case is more complicated than this, but yes - I think it's reasonable to want to contribute something to the common good but fear that the value will disproportionally go to AI companies and shareholders.
reply