My opinion (probably an unpopular one) is that tracking for advertising is merely the excuse to justify widespread surveillance. I don't think all the advertising revenue that is purported to be in play stacks up. I personally do not think advertising directs my purchasing. I don't think it directs others either.
I get that this is Google's business, but perhaps a large amount of their 'business' is actually from the government system (directly or indirectly) - they merely have to pretend to be running an advertising business.
I'm saying that the whole point of advertising was surveillance from the beginning.
The difference is the intention. A corporation maybe tracking. The same data, once given to the governance surveillance teams, is then used to surveil. Same info and mechanisms.
But you could pour water at the fire from across the room!
Lower gravity is giving the defender an advantage over the elements... at least until it gets low enough for things to start floating, when this flips around. In microgravity, water turns into floating blobs, but fire turns into actual floating fireballs.
Water blobs vs. fireballs. Pretty sure there's a nice videogame idea hiding in there somewhere.
It’s not like those scientific definitions are particularly consistent or stable, though. In a large part it’s still a matter of convention when it comes to non human species as well
Science, or you, can make up whatever definitions they wish. The question is not if a definition is "true", but what it's useful for.
Sure, you - or scientific authorities, whoever they might be - can declare that there are multiple modern human species. The question is, what are you intending to use that definition for?
That applies to other branches of the tree of life, too. There's not some objective genetic distance measure which says what's a species and what is not. It can vary widely on different parts of the tree. But it's driven by pragmatism - sensible biologists will not waste time arguing whether some mushrooms should be one species or two, if they otherwise agree on the facts.
If you can't say plainly and clearly what the purpose of your delineation is, and it's in your own part of the tree, of course people are going to have their suspicions.
I would assume that they don't care about the unmasking, because the whole thing is a just a misleading show, intended to misdirect you from the reality. I don't know the reality, but perhaps if the USG was behind the creation of BTC, that would explain it.
Always with the increasing government control. Heaven forbid people go online without training wheels. We need safety nets everywhere - a grazed knee means the state failed.
I get that this is Google's business, but perhaps a large amount of their 'business' is actually from the government system (directly or indirectly) - they merely have to pretend to be running an advertising business.
I'm saying that the whole point of advertising was surveillance from the beginning.
reply