Hey there! That's actually a good thing to know.
it's a long time we hear that: There is no cloud, it's just someone else's computer. That WAS true and it's actually talking about datacenters.
when you upload a file on a traditional cloud storage, you files are actually stored in the data centers of property of this cloud providers, or more often rented by them.
Cubbit on the other side doesn't own nor rent data centers. It count on a network of nodes around the globe.
this means:
- higher security: files are never stored on a third party place. The file is encrypted with a key that is generated on the client side, it travels encrypted to (data center in a traditional cloud) and is decrypted with a key generated on the client side by the recipient. The third parties that provide the service are not able to read the content of the file when it travels or when it is in rest. The cool thing about Cubbit is that in addition to this, the files travel via p2p, so they are never stored on a system owned by a third party but directly on the nodes of the system owned by the users.
- Greener: the usage of data center require an unbelievable amount of energy and is responsible for the emission of 110 million tons of CO2 every year. Cubbit don't use data center , but rely on the device plugged to be nodes. This does not require cool the system down saving a great amount of CO2 and energy.
- A datacenter need very high costs of building and mantainance. Cubbit doesn't use datacenter so it's ale to provide the service at a very effective cost
Thank you so much for sharing, this is a really insightful article!
By the way, a friend of mine is doing a Master's thesis in work psychology at the University of Turin on this subject.
I am a bit ignorant about this topic since I have a business background + work in tech-startups. But I am genuinely passionate about this kind of thing.
The gist of the thesis is that all these dynamic and interdependent aspects (e.g. lack of sleep, stress, social pressures, even for athletes before, after and during a race, even if we think about the influence on self-perception in relation to other people and related expectations on personal performance) can lead to somatization which can come in the form of concussion, but also to burnout or multiple injuries (as my friend is researching on the thesis) and as it happened to me too, in my life.
Practicing yoga or simply going for a walk daily, helped me a lot along that path... and helped many friends of mine as well. But some people can argue that it is the natural outcome of a "placebo effect".
All of these are very interesting talking points and the inherent dynamics behind vicious cycles (echoing @raghuveerdotnet's comment) is still not crystal clear and needs further research and experimentation.
> But some people can argue that it is the natural outcome of a "placebo effect".
What would a placebo effect even be when talking about lack of sleep, stress, etc.?
In medicine the size of the placebo effect seems to depend on the procedure. A placebo surgery is more effective than a placebo injection, which is more effective than a placebo pill. So if you want to test if an injection is better than a placebo you compare it to a placebo injection like saline water, something where there's no way it can have a medical effect beyond the psychological effect. But that would mean that to evaluate meditation you would have to compare it to some kind of fake meditation, maybe breathing exercises that have no viable way to be effective beyond the placebo effect. But we don't know nearly enough about neuroscience to come up with such a thing.
First of all, thanks for sharing because it's such an insightful paper!
Some thoughts/doubts on it:
1. It's unbelievable that in a world where we promote privacy and freedom of individuals such cross-country trackers exist. It seems more an Orwellian story rather than reality.
2. I'm a bit ignorant on this theme on a technical level (I have a business background, even if working at a tech startup focused on security). There is a growing concern globally over an increasing sensitisation over privacy and over the importance of security. Even Google has promised to remove third party cookies within 2 years, and there is going to be a migration from Whatsapp to Signal (even if Whatsapp clarified a bit on that). Do you think that such fresh tools like these "favicons" or simple tracking will remain long term?
It's really curious on how the web browser that guarantees the highest privacy are the ones associated with piracy and crimes (i.e. Tor).
At the same time the mainstream ones are the web browsers we shouldn't rely on at all!
The same it's happening nowadays with various kind of solutions like p2p, associated in the 00s with copyrighted mp3 downloads through eMule-project. Nowadays instead innovative realities in tech are leveraging on p2p to guarantee 100% privacy combined with zero knowledge encryption and end-to-end.
I think a huge work on sensitisation should me made in order to cross the chasm of sterotype. This was my thought, and thanks for sharing this!
Today, on my instagram, many posts on Brand Activism popped up. This theme is becoming a real trend, and we have currently reached the point where we consider ourselves as decisors rather than simple choosers. But is this real or a perception we crafted through enhanched post-modern world sensibilisation?
Apart from the italian article I liked to share with you (I hope you can go through thanks to google translate), a professor of mine, while I was a visiting student at Lund University wrote a very interesting and insightful article on this topic: http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/cont....
Here he analysed the example of IKEA: a brand ambassador of Swedish Values, women equality above all. They fell under huge and murky scandals, such as the one of airbrushed women in the Saudi Arabian catalogue, where the inner reality of Brand beliefs emerged.
At the same time popular brands are leveraging on this "façade" by means of a "bluffing" communication, cases to be considered are the one of Nike exploitation of children work and Adidas decentralised, low-pay workforce in Taiwan while promoting sustainability with limited edition sneakers. Here the situation tips over and the customer really feels to be the one that impacts the world with his own choice.
In these days something really huge just happened: Twitter and Facebook position on Trump behaviour. Something that is going beyond the simple "façade".
Now I'd like to know from you what's your opinion on that and if you know some virtuous, relevant example on this theme that you'd like to share.
Thank you for the sharing, it's a really nice article on how tech competitive landscape is evolving.
On this I have some thoughts, especially about two points: Regulation and Climate work.
In fact, even if there is an actual disruption on these two kind of themes: the first in terms of raising user awareness on privacy (especially when we talk about GDPR after all the leaks of data that happened in these years), the second in terms of what is currently happening nowadays in the world we live (from Greta Thunberg, to the arise of pandemic).
But there is a HUGE challenge out there: is this going to look like a facade still, so that there is a changing in communication to these trends or the firms, brands and all the big players that impact the world are going to commit themselves for real?
A professor of mine at Lund University wrote a nice paper on that, from the IKEA scandal of erasing women in Arab Countries to the monetisation of the "sustainability campaign" made by Adidas. It was a really "mind opening" one and I share with you if you think that can be relevant. http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/cont...
Even if I am moving my first steps into the industry (I'm a simple trainee at a Tech-StartUp and MSc student) I've already experienced many times the first point. I think trying to keep your feet (and mind) on the ground, even when you have a huge expertise is fundamental in communication, teamwork and goals' chasing.
For example a friend of mine, graduated in one of the top programs in europe at Rotterdham Business School, has a huge expertise in the R language, he is able to manage data promptly at work, efficiently delivering in 2 hours what his colleagues do on Excel in the whole day. However he has big problems in communication here in Italy, he is not able to understand what other people with different background/expertise are asking to him precisely and this is becoming a huge issue in terms of career development.
There was the same debate over Whatsapp vs Telegram clash.
The fact here is that network effects play a big role in these kind of business models.
Moreover think about the fact that whatsapp was one of the first entrants, and was bought by Mark Zuckerberg. Brand is another big player when we consider and analyse that competitive landscape...
Security is one of the most important factors nowadays, especially if we consider the data breaches number, that is increasing dramatically (600% since covid-19 outbreak). But are like p2p models, if there aren't many people to create traffic, it isn't worth it (for the moment at least). And in case of messaging apps these people must be your friends! (Word-of-mouth)
Do not misunderstand me, I am 100% for security and privacy, but here users are driven by other factors unfortunately.
The article says that the "majority of app were payment platforms".
I would interpret it with the quote of Trump: "by accessing personal electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, and computers, Chinese connected software applications can access and capture vast swaths of information from users, including sensitive personally identifiable information and private information."
I think with the idea of "camera scanning" they will require authorization and they will capture sensible informations of US citizens. I think that's the idea behind this kind of ban...
Wait - "Chinese software applications can access and capture vast swaths of information from users, including sensitive personally identifiable information and private information" Doing this is now a bad thing? I thought it was the fundamental idea behind the tech industry.
What are the advantages in doing so? I’m confused