This isn’t what E2E means for communication software. E2E means only the participants have the keys. Signal is a good example of this, the message is encrypted from the sender to the receiver and Signal themselves cannot decrypt it.
Separately, most Zoom meetings are not E2EE. That’s why features like live transcription work.
Only the participants do have the keys. You, the other people on the meeting, the company running Zoom, at least one government. It's still usefully encrypted to stop (at least some) other companies/countries benefiting from the information.
I think zoom probably have a defence against the fraud accusation that no reasonable person would believe end to end encrypted meant zoom doesn't have the data as that's the whole point of the service existing.
Zoom has not committed any fraud. They clearly state that by default their meetings are encrypted, but not end to end encrypted. And that you can turn on end to end encryption, but that it causes a bunch of features to be disabled. I think this is a great balance between being able to add features that are impossible with E2EE, but allowing privacy concious users to choose if they need stronger encryption.
A key property of a Vickrey auction is that it is incentive compatible, i.e. that it isn't possible to achieve a better expected outcome by bidding something other than your true valuation.
Your example relies on the telecom company (or any secondary buyer) not bidding in the auction or bidding only $4. A strictly dominant strategy for the telecom company would be to bid $100k in the auction, winning it for $60k (the second-highest price).
Oops, cut off the quote too early, it was in response to "Is it possible that someone at your university was tricked?"
The list is real and it is part of a LEED standard. Technically it's compiled by ACEEE and just referenced by USGBC, but it's a real thing and not trickery.
> I haven't seen a single one of these and with the Chinese market as large as it is I'm sure that they could stay away from other markets for a long time without exporting their BEVs to countries where they will have to face competition from established Western brands.
Sure, but they aren’t. These Chinese EV manufacturers are coming for the world market.
Volvo is now owned by a Chinese company, Geely, and they’re manufacturing EVs in China based on a Geely platform for global export[0]. Polestar, also owned by Geely, is a Western market EV brand exported from China[1]. BYD is already planning to build factories and sell cars in Europe[2].
Just because a Chinese company owns the brand? Because the company still operates mostly independently in Sweden, design is still in-house coming from Sweden...
> It's somewhat surprising to hear that requests would be rejected if the user agent doesn't match a set of hard coded IP addresses.
It’s fairly common for DDoS/scraping prevention, Googlebot (and most other crawlers) publish their IP ranges for that reason[0][1][2]. I don’t work at Cloudflare though, so no insider knowledge of what you folks are doing.
I needed to scroll to the section manually since my browser doesn't support it as shown clearly in the caniuse link I shared. It doesn't work for me and I provided general evidence, so how is it accessible on any browser?
> Still, if it means Google is investing in Matrix, that's a good thing. I always worry at some point it will be killed.
This isn't Google investing in Matrix, this is a group of people who work at Google using their spare time to rewrite the product so it doesn't get taken offline.
If anything, the lack of a dedicated team or resources is a strong indicator that Matrix will be on the chopping block at some point in the future.
There isn't a dedicated team because it's not a business product, but internally it's considered very important because it essentially allows power users to beta test our backend. For that reason alone it will be kept around and supported indefinitely.
The original article is talking about traffic from Twitter to publisher sites, not traffic from Google to Twitter. Twitter never used AMP for pages on their own site.
In this case Twitter is the platform, not the publisher, and would absolutely have been able to not use the Google cache.
> Now, when using one of Twitter's mobile clients, users will be sent to the amphtml URL in their browser, instead of the link that was shared in the Tweet. Users will load this link directly, not via a page cache. [0]
Google then went on a PR offensive accusing Meta of fragmenting the VR/AR ecosystem.
Meta is including this in the announcement to head off criticism by Google aimed at creating pressure on Meta to consolidate on AndroidXR.
https://www.roadtovr.com/meta-google-android-xr-quest-reject...