Lovely to see you have educated yourself with basic economics and some libertarian BS sprinkled over that. You might want to continue your education with some insights into “market failure” and “negative externalities”. Later you could go into differences between “regulation” and “centrally planned economy”.
You might want to read the friendly summary up to the very end. The researchers found that the discrimination is done by the algorithm itself. In previous stories about discriminatory advertisement it was implied that the advertisers probably put in some sort of “No Irish need apply” filter, the news here is that might not necessary be the case.
Which part of the good stuff in Youtube is not professional? When I look into my TY subscriptions, they are either traditional media putting videos on YT, trade professionals who increase their visibility by posting videos, people who have so many views, that they can monetize from TY ads, patreon or in-video ads.
If whatever amateur videos become good enough, they tend to become professional, because why not take money, if it;s there.
The latter example with cashier work shows that gamification is fine, so long as the game goals are reasonably achievable and in alignment with the goals of the employees. I assume most of us want to do a meaningful work, but often the work is globally meaningful, but on a day-to-day level it can seem pointless, because the result is far removed from the worker. For example, programmers hate writing docs and tests, because those things will be used in the future by some unknown people. Even if the programmer can intellectually understand the significance of docs and tests, there is no emotional reward in doing those things, therefore it feels just pointless. No amount of pay raise can increase the meaningfulness of the work, but it can improve tolerance of the meaninglessness.
I am pretty sure this comment section will have ample of examples on how gamification is used to exploit people, so yeah, there are risks.
In Latvia, we have a similar company called Mobilly, which is for paying for parking, paid roads (paid road, to be precise), transport tickets (which are often run by local municipalities). Yet, the company is private and rather liked. It has been around for quite a while, so I don't think that east-west split is to blame.
In any case, the point of the ruling is that Hungary is required to allow others to participate. They can require the system to be reasonably fast.
This ruling is in line of long standing EU practice. The agenda of free market is pretty much the point of EU. They are not opposed to regulations as long as companies are regulated equally, but what Hungary does is not regulation, but forced monopoly. Even just giving subsidies to a single private company could get Hungary in trouble.
There are cases where legally imposed monopolies are permitted, but the member states must show that competition would hurt consumers, like electrical grid. In theory Hungary could show that a single provided helps consumers, but I doubt they will succeed, since payment systems in EU already are distributed and rather cheap.
Could this be the EU's way of blocking the right to repair?
Unlikely. Title of the article is contradicted in summary, which states that the data cannot be under copyright at all, which means neither by the car owner nor car manufacturer.
The problem remains that independent repair shops still can't access the historical data, which gives authorised shops advantage. However, even if the car owner holds copyrights to the historical data, this is of no use, since it is held on servers that are not accessible to the car owner. For example, if I buy a book that is printed in 5 copies and the author loses the source manuscript, the author would still own copyrights, but I would not be obliged to give the author my book.
Bjarne Stroustrup was so in-touch with modern hardware and its L1 cache that he surprised you by teaching that doubly linked lists give shitty cache usage.
Terms of economics are not the only terms out there. If in the USA terrorist organization per year killed as much people as smoking, policy makers would not debate if they should tackle terrorism or smoking first.
Since Google made Android, the distinction between Linux and GNU/Linux has become rather obvious. Just name the thing appropriately. If you are talking about kernel, say Linux. If the subject matter is Ubuntu distribution, call it Ubuntu. If a game publisher says “Tomb rider now available on Linux”, they better have it on Android. This is why I like the approach that Steam takes, where tiles are available on Windows, Mac and SteamOS. It remove expectations that the game will work on my Linux From Scratch.
The only saving grace for calling everything “Linux” is Linux Standard Base, but I am not sure this is relevant today.
You said that you could grab by the buttons as well, just not by the input fields, which I have no idea what the hell that means
Fair enough. I made a screenshot of GNOME Web where the yellowish area indicate where the user can grab the window to move it. As you can see, the opening tabs does not reduce the area that the user can grab. At the time the screenshot was taken I was dragging the window and the mouse pointer is on the Close button.
Unfortunately I don't have a Mac, but from what I have seen in the screenshots, GNOME UI design does not encourage placing tabs in the title bar, which is exactly what Chrome does on my Linux machine, and I hate it.
The problem comes about when we take attributes that are true of, say, 70% of a race or gender, and assume they apply to all members of that race or gender.
Given that humans learn not just from experience, but also indirectly, stereotypes can hold even if they are 1% accurate. In my country there are hardly any Muslims, but people here have very strong beliefs about what they are like, even when they have never met one. What is even worse, such misconceptions can arise even with consumption of accurate reporting. If the only world news that are consumed are about terrorism and wars, that view will become very distorted.
Not sure what you mean with input focus. If you have a GNOME environment, try epiphany (GNOME Web) browser. To move the window, you can click-and-hold (grab) the free space on the title bar or grab the buttons. I like to maximize windows by double clicking, in which case I do need to be a bit more careful with where I put my cursor, but since GNOME shell allows maximizing by dragging to the top of the display, it's not much of an issue in my experience.
Either option is better than the way google chrome does it. With only few tabs open it's not a problem, but if the row is full, grabbing the thin line of the "title bar" is much harder than in Epiphany. YMMW
Not sure what you mean. That's the point of minimizing windows, so they would not be visible
Lack of tooltips?
What? Where? GNOME Web and Gedit has those.
**I AM NOT USING A FREAKING TABLET***
Indeed. As anyone who has tried to run GNOME on tablet can testify, GNOME devs really don't care about tablets.
But on topic, Firefox should really drop the title bars. I mean, what does it really do on GNOME desktop? It has "X" button (which should be moved to the bar where all the other buttons live), displays page title (which for me is not that informative once the page is opened) and can be used to drag window around (GNOME header bar allows that too, you can drag by holding buttons, see GNOME Web (epiphany) as an example. These features cost screen space and the way Chrome browser saves this space is not that efficient either.
Almost the entire landscape in every area has changed radically since the 1990's
Technological landscape? Yes, absolutely so. Taxation not so much. In legal front two things happened — software patents and rise of closed source model, in which MS and Apple thrived.
I don't think that regulation plays a large role, because IoT is having it's own Cambrian explosion and regulations don't seem to matter. Microsoft gained foothold because it gave cheap OS (and later cheap GUI) on cheap PCs. World now is littered with free operating systems and graphical shells. Reason why Apple and MS could grow so big and fast was because they where the only game in town. That world is gone, but not due to regulation, legal issues or taxation.
A large reason why much "innovation" happens in megacorps today is that there are so many regulatory/legal/financial/taxation barriers in place that a random guy in a garage stands almost no chance even with a radically innovative idea with large potential.
I don't think that regulatory, legal or taxation landscape has changed much. Financial barriers are indeed there, but that usually happens with market maturation. When a new market appears, any shitty overpriced product can thrive.
Ok, I get it, there are no reputable sources that can back up 2012 election meddling claims. I get it, that happens. Can you at least give a pointer to the sources you used to get yourself informed? Of course, if you work for FSB, this information is off confidential and you should not share it.
And here I was hoping for something more recent. For me 20 years ago doesn't quite qualify as current events. Besides, the copy-pasta text didn't illustrate use of propaganda, just campaign funding with corruption on top, the latter being name of the game in Russia.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok then, who should own the seas and the atmosphere?
Lovely to see you have educated yourself with basic economics and some libertarian BS sprinkled over that. You might want to continue your education with some insights into “market failure” and “negative externalities”. Later you could go into differences between “regulation” and “centrally planned economy”.
On one hand we have study in the Lancet, on the other we have:
I really doubt that high sodium is the biggest killer, for example.
I mean, both sides are equally valuable.
My previous answer was to the OP, misclicked.
You might want to read the friendly summary up to the very end. The researchers found that the discrimination is done by the algorithm itself. In previous stories about discriminatory advertisement it was implied that the advertisers probably put in some sort of “No Irish need apply” filter, the news here is that might not necessary be the case.
Certainly compared the professional media
Which part of the good stuff in Youtube is not professional? When I look into my TY subscriptions, they are either traditional media putting videos on YT, trade professionals who increase their visibility by posting videos, people who have so many views, that they can monetize from TY ads, patreon or in-video ads.
If whatever amateur videos become good enough, they tend to become professional, because why not take money, if it;s there.
The latter example with cashier work shows that gamification is fine, so long as the game goals are reasonably achievable and in alignment with the goals of the employees. I assume most of us want to do a meaningful work, but often the work is globally meaningful, but on a day-to-day level it can seem pointless, because the result is far removed from the worker. For example, programmers hate writing docs and tests, because those things will be used in the future by some unknown people. Even if the programmer can intellectually understand the significance of docs and tests, there is no emotional reward in doing those things, therefore it feels just pointless. No amount of pay raise can increase the meaningfulness of the work, but it can improve tolerance of the meaninglessness.
I am pretty sure this comment section will have ample of examples on how gamification is used to exploit people, so yeah, there are risks.
In Latvia, we have a similar company called Mobilly, which is for paying for parking, paid roads (paid road, to be precise), transport tickets (which are often run by local municipalities). Yet, the company is private and rather liked. It has been around for quite a while, so I don't think that east-west split is to blame.
In any case, the point of the ruling is that Hungary is required to allow others to participate. They can require the system to be reasonably fast.
They don't need to own it to oversee it. I don't think EU would mind regulations, as long as those regulations protect privacy etc.
This ruling is in line of long standing EU practice. The agenda of free market is pretty much the point of EU. They are not opposed to regulations as long as companies are regulated equally, but what Hungary does is not regulation, but forced monopoly. Even just giving subsidies to a single private company could get Hungary in trouble.
There are cases where legally imposed monopolies are permitted, but the member states must show that competition would hurt consumers, like electrical grid. In theory Hungary could show that a single provided helps consumers, but I doubt they will succeed, since payment systems in EU already are distributed and rather cheap.
Could this be the EU's way of blocking the right to repair?
Unlikely. Title of the article is contradicted in summary, which states that the data cannot be under copyright at all, which means neither by the car owner nor car manufacturer.
The problem remains that independent repair shops still can't access the historical data, which gives authorised shops advantage. However, even if the car owner holds copyrights to the historical data, this is of no use, since it is held on servers that are not accessible to the car owner. For example, if I buy a book that is printed in 5 copies and the author loses the source manuscript, the author would still own copyrights, but I would not be obliged to give the author my book.
Perhaps you would like to clarify, what conclusion does the TFS makes.
More like
I did not find the quote in the article. Source, please?
in terms of the economics
Terms of economics are not the only terms out there. If in the USA terrorist organization per year killed as much people as smoking, policy makers would not debate if they should tackle terrorism or smoking first.
Since Google made Android, the distinction between Linux and GNU/Linux has become rather obvious. Just name the thing appropriately. If you are talking about kernel, say Linux. If the subject matter is Ubuntu distribution, call it Ubuntu. If a game publisher says “Tomb rider now available on Linux”, they better have it on Android. This is why I like the approach that Steam takes, where tiles are available on Windows, Mac and SteamOS. It remove expectations that the game will work on my Linux From Scratch. The only saving grace for calling everything “Linux” is Linux Standard Base, but I am not sure this is relevant today.
You said that you could grab by the buttons as well, just not by the input fields, which I have no idea what the hell that means
Fair enough. I made a screenshot of GNOME Web where the yellowish area indicate where the user can grab the window to move it. As you can see, the opening tabs does not reduce the area that the user can grab. At the time the screenshot was taken I was dragging the window and the mouse pointer is on the Close button.
Unfortunately I don't have a Mac, but from what I have seen in the screenshots, GNOME UI design does not encourage placing tabs in the title bar, which is exactly what Chrome does on my Linux machine, and I hate it.
The problem comes about when we take attributes that are true of, say, 70% of a race or gender, and assume they apply to all members of that race or gender.
Given that humans learn not just from experience, but also indirectly, stereotypes can hold even if they are 1% accurate. In my country there are hardly any Muslims, but people here have very strong beliefs about what they are like, even when they have never met one. What is even worse, such misconceptions can arise even with consumption of accurate reporting. If the only world news that are consumed are about terrorism and wars, that view will become very distorted.
Not sure what you mean with input focus. If you have a GNOME environment, try epiphany (GNOME Web) browser. To move the window, you can click-and-hold (grab) the free space on the title bar or grab the buttons. I like to maximize windows by double clicking, in which case I do need to be a bit more careful with where I put my cursor, but since GNOME shell allows maximizing by dragging to the top of the display, it's not much of an issue in my experience.
Either option is better than the way google chrome does it. With only few tabs open it's not a problem, but if the row is full, grabbing the thin line of the "title bar" is much harder than in Epiphany. YMMW
You can grab by the buttons as well, just not the input fields.
Some clarifications
Trying to force everything to run full-screen?
That one never happened
Inability to see background/minimized windows?
Not sure what you mean. That's the point of minimizing windows, so they would not be visible
Lack of tooltips?
What? Where? GNOME Web and Gedit has those.
**I AM NOT USING A FREAKING TABLET***
Indeed. As anyone who has tried to run GNOME on tablet can testify, GNOME devs really don't care about tablets.
But on topic, Firefox should really drop the title bars. I mean, what does it really do on GNOME desktop? It has "X" button (which should be moved to the bar where all the other buttons live), displays page title (which for me is not that informative once the page is opened) and can be used to drag window around (GNOME header bar allows that too, you can drag by holding buttons, see GNOME Web (epiphany) as an example. These features cost screen space and the way Chrome browser saves this space is not that efficient either.
Almost the entire landscape in every area has changed radically since the 1990's
Technological landscape? Yes, absolutely so. Taxation not so much. In legal front two things happened — software patents and rise of closed source model, in which MS and Apple thrived.
I don't think that regulation plays a large role, because IoT is having it's own Cambrian explosion and regulations don't seem to matter. Microsoft gained foothold because it gave cheap OS (and later cheap GUI) on cheap PCs. World now is littered with free operating systems and graphical shells. Reason why Apple and MS could grow so big and fast was because they where the only game in town. That world is gone, but not due to regulation, legal issues or taxation.
A large reason why much "innovation" happens in megacorps today is that there are so many regulatory/legal/financial/taxation barriers in place that a random guy in a garage stands almost no chance even with a radically innovative idea with large potential.
I don't think that regulatory, legal or taxation landscape has changed much. Financial barriers are indeed there, but that usually happens with market maturation. When a new market appears, any shitty overpriced product can thrive.
Ok, I get it, there are no reputable sources that can back up 2012 election meddling claims. I get it, that happens. Can you at least give a pointer to the sources you used to get yourself informed? Of course, if you work for FSB, this information is off confidential and you should not share it.
And here I was hoping for something more recent. For me 20 years ago doesn't quite qualify as current events. Besides, the copy-pasta text didn't illustrate use of propaganda, just campaign funding with corruption on top, the latter being name of the game in Russia.