Would be hard in my apartment building - there's only street parking, and I live on the 4th floor!
How does street-only parking for a multi-story apartment building work? I guess most residents don't have cars?
Easy, the residents all park on the street.
Only if the building is very short, apartments are very large, or most residents don't have cars. There's just not enough space on the street to provide parking for high-density housing of people with cars.
So every day I go out and pick up a rock and each day l double the size of the one I get, the first day 1 lb, the second day 2 lb, the third day 4 lb, and so on. By day nine I have to lift 256 lb, not happening. The same with producing electric cars, the parts supply line can not be ramped up that quickly.
We're not talking about days, but about years. And even if Tesla falls behind the exponential growth curve a bit, over the course of a few years, you're talking about a significant minority of the market.
's not a new state between life and death; it's a new state between death and decomposition.
Even if it can actually be returned life? What if your brain could be restarted but you were left only partially intact, with significant deficits... as is the case for many stroke victims. We consider them to be alive, and to be the "original person" in most senses.
So... if you're very recently brain dead some of cells may still work but enough of them are gone that the connections between them - where your memories are stored - have degraded and are also gone.
Have they really? Do axons and dendrites break down that quickly? I suspect that the structural elements actually stay intact for some time, until other processes (drying out, decay, etc.) start to disrupt them. I'm only guessing here, I have no actual knowledge. Do you? If so, could you elaborate on what breaks down and how?
Why wasn't it clear? Here's an article by Carnegie Mellon in 2014 providing a condensed summary of Facebook's terms and conditions in the time period we're talking about
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we didn't know what Facebook was doing. The author of the post I replied to claimed that it wasn't clear back then whether the privacy risks Facebook chose to court were going to be unacceptable or not. My point is that I think it was always clear to lots of other people that the business model of collecting user data and outright selling it was going to provoke a backlash.
A chinese friend recently complained to me that while life in china has gotten good, and wages not that far from what he was making when he was working in spain, so has the rent, cost of living etc and now manufacturers are picking up and moving to factories in India, the Philipines and Africa.
Yep, this is how the world is lifted by global trade. Production moves to the place where labor is cheapest, meaning where living standards are the lowest. As incomes and living standards are lifted by this new (to the area) industry, other low-cost regions begin to get more attractive and some of the production starts to move there. The areas the production moves from are harmed by this to some degree, but the harm to them is far less than the benefit to those who are lifted up, because the game is not zero-sum. The losers tend at worst to stagnate, while the winners see massive increases in their wealth, and the overall global GDP just goes up and up.
Globalization has minor, localized downsides, but enormous, humanity-wide upsides. It's a very good thing, on balance.
Also, trading partners tend not to go to war with one another, so there's that benefit as well.
But really, what business is Facebook in? Is it some sort of secret?
It's perfectly possible to exploit user data for targeted advertising without selling / giving / leaking / whatever the data to anyone. That's Google's business model.
"Zuckerberg was unfazed by the potential privacy risks associated with Facebook's data-sharing arrangements."
Hindsight is always 20/20, but when you're looking forward it can be difficult to determine where things go. This is his opinion prior to many of the recent Facebook scandals; he was wrong, but at that point in time it was anyone's guess what would happen.
Was it really anyone's guess? I think it was always pretty clear that selling user data collected without making it clear to users that it would be sold to whoever was willing to pay, was dirty at the very least.
At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries. Its not fair for manning to insist you see him as female. He has no right to tell you not believe your own eyes or otherwise demand you acquiesce to any specific perception of him.
You've tried very hard to sound reasonable, but you should go beyond merely sounding reasonable and actually be reasonable: Call them whatever they want to be called and be done with it. You don't have to agree with their claimed gender perceptions, but why do you even care? Call them what they want to be called, and expect them to reciprocate by calling you what you want to be called.
I will grant that I have a hard time with people who consider themselves non-binary and therefore want to be called by the "they/their" pronouns. Not because I actually care, but because using plural pronouns in singular sentences leads to odd grammatical constructions that require significant effort on my part. But "she/hers" requires no more effort on my part than "he/his", so why in the world would I make a fuss about it?
Meh. That was clearly a simple mistake. They added the mic because they intended to use it later, then failed to include it in the spec sheet.
You sound sure of that. Any reason why?
Knowledge of the people and culture.
Maybe you could show me another example of this same sort of thing happening.
I have another example to share why it is that I think this way. Maybe their activity doesn't alarm you, and that's fine.
I don't see any connection between these cases. One is the presence of a piece of hardware intended for future use, but not actually used, and accidentally omitted from the spec sheet. The other is the decision by one engineer to store more data than was necessary. Both are attributable to human error, but they're entirely different in nature and context. The mic in Nest Protect was part of the product roadmap. The Wifi packet capture was not (other than SSID).
FWIW, I think the court was wrong in that Wifi capture case. If data is broadcasted in cleartext, anyone who wants to record it is within their rights to do so, and any attempt to legally restrict such recording is foolish and goes against centuries of jurisprudence based on the reasonable expectation of privacy (I say you have none if you're broadcasting data). It provides a false sense of security, which is bad for real security. I also think the Google engineer was wrong to collect any data beyond the SSID, and I'm quite certain that wouldn't have happened if the privacy review processes in place in Google now had been applied back then, but that's separate from the legal issue of whether recording cleartext RF signals constitutes wiretapping or other invasion of privacy.
Many libertarians are strong environmentalists and believe the principle of non-aggression applies to spewing out unwanted particulates, sound or light (all forms of pollution) is a form of aggression and therefore prohibited
But most aren't. Try mentioning externalities in a Libertarian forum and you'll usually suffer derision and ridicule.
Cite? This isn't my experience, at all. In my experience, libertarians are quite cognizant of externalities. They may disagree with the use of government to internalize them, but tend to look for alternative mechanisms, not ignore or deride the concept.
You are wrong. Have a look into the literature. The 40h/work peak efficiency per worker is for _manual_ work.
Manual rote work or manual dangerous work? As I recall, the reason early studies suggested more than 40 hours was too much was not because productivity fell off but because accidents got too high.
On what do you base this claim? According to the last notes I've seen, most of them have overstayed their work visas, and thus I'd hate to classify them as "criminals". But they certainly could be classified as "illegal".
You're talking about a different population. The ones Trump is threatening to distribute to sanctuary cities aren't the visa overstays -- we don't really know where they are; they're distributed throughout the country and generally hiding from ICE -- the ones he's threatening to distribute are the tens of thousands in border control custody because they presented themselves at the border and asked for asylum, and they're being held while their cases are evaluated. The problem is that we've seen a recent uptick in such cases, and there's a huge backlog, so the government is trying to figure out what to do.
Trump would like to just deny all of the asylum requests, but to do that would be to violate federal law and since he's president, not king, he can't just do that. Another option would be to do what previous presidents did and just release them to live in the US as best they can (legally) until their hearings. There is some problem with them not showing up to their hearings (~20% IIRC), but more than that the idea of letting them in like that pisses Trump off, so he won't do that. Another option is to build the necessary facilities to hold them all, and that's what the administration is currently trying to do, but that approach is breaking down under the load.
So, I'm actually a conservative-leaning libertarian who nearly always votes Republican. Trump, however, is a liberal turned populist xenophobe, not a conservative.
Some but not all, Google for sure this is indeed true of.
It's actually not. I work for Google and I'll tell you that "We should avoid collecting that" is a common phrase in design reviews. I don't know how much I can share about the relevant privacy directives or processes, so I won't go into the rationale behind that statement, but it's common and basically always agreed to instantly. Usually with "Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that we'd collect any of that."
As an example, I'm working on Android infrastructure for storing identity documents like driver's licenses and passports. A central requirement for the design is to ensure that no Google app has any access to the stored data (except possibly in encrypted form for backups... and Google must not have access to the decryption key). This stated requirement raises no eyebrows and generates no disagreement. If anything, people view it as so obvious as to not need stating.
Its real customers, the advertisers know exactly what they're getting
Advertisers know what they're getting in the sense that they bid for clicks from users who have searched for a particular word or are looking at content related to a particular topic, so they know what they'll pay for clicks, and they know how successful they are at converting those clicks to sales (from their own statistics), but that's about all they know. They don't get any information about users, at least from Google (and I assume the same is true of Facebook).
but the people having their data sucked up aren't always told what's happening and are often quite horrified when they find out what companies like Google, Facebook, etc. have collected about them.
Are they horrified when they find out what companies have collected about them, or are they horrified by what other people speculate the companies might have collected about them? In my experience, when people see what's on myactivity.google.com, for example, they're pretty underwhelmed. Note that I'm not claiming the information showed there is complete -- for one thing, if Google has information that is probably about you because it came from your IP, for example, it can't show you that because that data might not be about you and showing it to you might violate the privacy of whoever it's really about.
Ya, the article is dumb and is assuming unionization is related to socialism.
Agreed. Unionization is orthogonal to both libertarianism and socialism. In socialism, unionization is unnecessary because the workers are also the owners. In libertarianism, people are perfectly free to unionize -- the only constraint is that libertarian ideology would not allow forcing people to join the union. Libertarians generally prefer individual negotiation, but if there's value in collective bargaining libertarians are not ideologically constrained from using it.
FWIW, my opinion is that engineers at the big tech companies would be foolish to unionize. Collective bargaining tends to create rigid rules that work well for contexts in which all of the workers are replaceable cogs. The existing situation is working better for them. Us, I should say, since I work for Google (though not in Silicon Valley).
Actually, I'd say that Google employees, at least, are already engaging in an informal sort of collective bargaining through the various protests against company actions that a large percentage find unacceptable. Perhaps it might make sense to formalize that. I don't think there's a real need to engage in bargaining over compensation, benefits or work hours, since all of those are quite good, and I think collective bargaining on those things would also result in rigid rules that would destroy the positive parts of the company culture.
Slashdot Mirror
Would be hard in my apartment building - there's only street parking, and I live on the 4th floor!
How does street-only parking for a multi-story apartment building work? I guess most residents don't have cars?
Easy, the residents all park on the street.
Only if the building is very short, apartments are very large, or most residents don't have cars. There's just not enough space on the street to provide parking for high-density housing of people with cars.
So every day I go out and pick up a rock and each day l double the size of the one I get, the first day 1 lb, the second day 2 lb, the third day 4 lb, and so on. By day nine I have to lift 256 lb, not happening. The same with producing electric cars, the parts supply line can not be ramped up that quickly.
We're not talking about days, but about years. And even if Tesla falls behind the exponential growth curve a bit, over the course of a few years, you're talking about a significant minority of the market.
's not a new state between life and death; it's a new state between death and decomposition.
Even if it can actually be returned life? What if your brain could be restarted but you were left only partially intact, with significant deficits... as is the case for many stroke victims. We consider them to be alive, and to be the "original person" in most senses.
So... if you're very recently brain dead some of cells may still work but enough of them are gone that the connections between them - where your memories are stored - have degraded and are also gone.
Have they really? Do axons and dendrites break down that quickly? I suspect that the structural elements actually stay intact for some time, until other processes (drying out, decay, etc.) start to disrupt them. I'm only guessing here, I have no actual knowledge. Do you? If so, could you elaborate on what breaks down and how?
Why wasn't it clear? Here's an article by Carnegie Mellon in 2014 providing a condensed summary of Facebook's terms and conditions in the time period we're talking about
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we didn't know what Facebook was doing. The author of the post I replied to claimed that it wasn't clear back then whether the privacy risks Facebook chose to court were going to be unacceptable or not. My point is that I think it was always clear to lots of other people that the business model of collecting user data and outright selling it was going to provoke a backlash.
A chinese friend recently complained to me that while life in china has gotten good, and wages not that far from what he was making when he was working in spain, so has the rent, cost of living etc and now manufacturers are picking up and moving to factories in India, the Philipines and Africa.
Yep, this is how the world is lifted by global trade. Production moves to the place where labor is cheapest, meaning where living standards are the lowest. As incomes and living standards are lifted by this new (to the area) industry, other low-cost regions begin to get more attractive and some of the production starts to move there. The areas the production moves from are harmed by this to some degree, but the harm to them is far less than the benefit to those who are lifted up, because the game is not zero-sum. The losers tend at worst to stagnate, while the winners see massive increases in their wealth, and the overall global GDP just goes up and up.
Globalization has minor, localized downsides, but enormous, humanity-wide upsides. It's a very good thing, on balance.
Also, trading partners tend not to go to war with one another, so there's that benefit as well.
Two times jack shit is still jack shit.
This is true, if the doubling is one-time. If it continues year after year, however, exponential growth kicks in and numbers get big fast.
Would be hard in my apartment building - there's only street parking, and I live on the 4th floor!
How does street-only parking for a multi-story apartment building work? I guess most residents don't have cars?
EVERYONE KNOWS the gestapo has direct real time access to Big Brother Google's mass surveillance data.
Then everyone knows something that isn't true (even if you replace gestapo with US law enforcement / government).
But really, what business is Facebook in? Is it some sort of secret?
It's perfectly possible to exploit user data for targeted advertising without selling / giving / leaking / whatever the data to anyone. That's Google's business model.
"Zuckerberg was unfazed by the potential privacy risks associated with Facebook's data-sharing arrangements."
Hindsight is always 20/20, but when you're looking forward it can be difficult to determine where things go. This is his opinion prior to many of the recent Facebook scandals; he was wrong, but at that point in time it was anyone's guess what would happen.
Was it really anyone's guess? I think it was always pretty clear that selling user data collected without making it clear to users that it would be sold to whoever was willing to pay, was dirty at the very least.
At the end of the day though we should 'try' to be respectful of others and recognize the boundaries. Its not fair for manning to insist you see him as female. He has no right to tell you not believe your own eyes or otherwise demand you acquiesce to any specific perception of him.
You've tried very hard to sound reasonable, but you should go beyond merely sounding reasonable and actually be reasonable: Call them whatever they want to be called and be done with it. You don't have to agree with their claimed gender perceptions, but why do you even care? Call them what they want to be called, and expect them to reciprocate by calling you what you want to be called.
I will grant that I have a hard time with people who consider themselves non-binary and therefore want to be called by the "they/their" pronouns. Not because I actually care, but because using plural pronouns in singular sentences leads to odd grammatical constructions that require significant effort on my part. But "she/hers" requires no more effort on my part than "he/his", so why in the world would I make a fuss about it?
Meh. That was clearly a simple mistake. They added the mic because they intended to use it later, then failed to include it in the spec sheet.
You sound sure of that. Any reason why?
Knowledge of the people and culture.
Maybe you could show me another example of this same sort of thing happening.
I have another example to share why it is that I think this way. Maybe their activity doesn't alarm you, and that's fine.
I don't see any connection between these cases. One is the presence of a piece of hardware intended for future use, but not actually used, and accidentally omitted from the spec sheet. The other is the decision by one engineer to store more data than was necessary. Both are attributable to human error, but they're entirely different in nature and context. The mic in Nest Protect was part of the product roadmap. The Wifi packet capture was not (other than SSID).
FWIW, I think the court was wrong in that Wifi capture case. If data is broadcasted in cleartext, anyone who wants to record it is within their rights to do so, and any attempt to legally restrict such recording is foolish and goes against centuries of jurisprudence based on the reasonable expectation of privacy (I say you have none if you're broadcasting data). It provides a false sense of security, which is bad for real security. I also think the Google engineer was wrong to collect any data beyond the SSID, and I'm quite certain that wouldn't have happened if the privacy review processes in place in Google now had been applied back then, but that's separate from the legal issue of whether recording cleartext RF signals constitutes wiretapping or other invasion of privacy.
Relevance?
But most aren't. Try mentioning externalities in a Libertarian forum and you'll usually suffer derision and ridicule.
Cite? This isn't my experience, at all. In my experience, libertarians are quite cognizant of externalities. They may disagree with the use of government to internalize them, but tend to look for alternative mechanisms, not ignore or deride the concept.
And then again my Nokia 9800 is absolutely secure because nobody would want it but me. ;)
And there's no data on it that anyone would want?
You are wrong. Have a look into the literature. The 40h/work peak efficiency per worker is for _manual_ work.
Manual rote work or manual dangerous work? As I recall, the reason early studies suggested more than 40 hours was too much was not because productivity fell off but because accidents got too high.
I went to myactivity.google.com.
They wanted me to log in to see anything.
And what would you have them show you without logging in?
On what do you base this claim? According to the last notes I've seen, most of them have overstayed their work visas, and thus I'd hate to classify them as "criminals". But they certainly could be classified as "illegal".
You're talking about a different population. The ones Trump is threatening to distribute to sanctuary cities aren't the visa overstays -- we don't really know where they are; they're distributed throughout the country and generally hiding from ICE -- the ones he's threatening to distribute are the tens of thousands in border control custody because they presented themselves at the border and asked for asylum, and they're being held while their cases are evaluated. The problem is that we've seen a recent uptick in such cases, and there's a huge backlog, so the government is trying to figure out what to do.
Trump would like to just deny all of the asylum requests, but to do that would be to violate federal law and since he's president, not king, he can't just do that. Another option would be to do what previous presidents did and just release them to live in the US as best they can (legally) until their hearings. There is some problem with them not showing up to their hearings (~20% IIRC), but more than that the idea of letting them in like that pisses Trump off, so he won't do that. Another option is to build the necessary facilities to hold them all, and that's what the administration is currently trying to do, but that approach is breaking down under the load.
He, like most people on the left today,
So, I'm actually a conservative-leaning libertarian who nearly always votes Republican. Trump, however, is a liberal turned populist xenophobe, not a conservative.
Should be fine to dump them into LA then, amirite? https://twitter.com/cher/statu...
Better to distribute them across the country, rather than put them all in one city, but sure.
getting as much of your data as possible.
Some but not all, Google for sure this is indeed true of.
It's actually not. I work for Google and I'll tell you that "We should avoid collecting that" is a common phrase in design reviews. I don't know how much I can share about the relevant privacy directives or processes, so I won't go into the rationale behind that statement, but it's common and basically always agreed to instantly. Usually with "Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to imply that we'd collect any of that."
As an example, I'm working on Android infrastructure for storing identity documents like driver's licenses and passports. A central requirement for the design is to ensure that no Google app has any access to the stored data (except possibly in encrypted form for backups... and Google must not have access to the decryption key). This stated requirement raises no eyebrows and generates no disagreement. If anything, people view it as so obvious as to not need stating.
Its real customers, the advertisers know exactly what they're getting
Advertisers know what they're getting in the sense that they bid for clicks from users who have searched for a particular word or are looking at content related to a particular topic, so they know what they'll pay for clicks, and they know how successful they are at converting those clicks to sales (from their own statistics), but that's about all they know. They don't get any information about users, at least from Google (and I assume the same is true of Facebook).
but the people having their data sucked up aren't always told what's happening and are often quite horrified when they find out what companies like Google, Facebook, etc. have collected about them.
Are they horrified when they find out what companies have collected about them, or are they horrified by what other people speculate the companies might have collected about them? In my experience, when people see what's on myactivity.google.com, for example, they're pretty underwhelmed. Note that I'm not claiming the information showed there is complete -- for one thing, if Google has information that is probably about you because it came from your IP, for example, it can't show you that because that data might not be about you and showing it to you might violate the privacy of whoever it's really about.
Immigrants, yes. Now do illegal aliens.
Most of the people in question aren't illegals, regardless of what Trump calls them. They're following the legally-defined process for seeking asylum.
Ya, the article is dumb and is assuming unionization is related to socialism.
Agreed. Unionization is orthogonal to both libertarianism and socialism. In socialism, unionization is unnecessary because the workers are also the owners. In libertarianism, people are perfectly free to unionize -- the only constraint is that libertarian ideology would not allow forcing people to join the union. Libertarians generally prefer individual negotiation, but if there's value in collective bargaining libertarians are not ideologically constrained from using it.
FWIW, my opinion is that engineers at the big tech companies would be foolish to unionize. Collective bargaining tends to create rigid rules that work well for contexts in which all of the workers are replaceable cogs. The existing situation is working better for them. Us, I should say, since I work for Google (though not in Silicon Valley).
Actually, I'd say that Google employees, at least, are already engaging in an informal sort of collective bargaining through the various protests against company actions that a large percentage find unacceptable. Perhaps it might make sense to formalize that. I don't think there's a real need to engage in bargaining over compensation, benefits or work hours, since all of those are quite good, and I think collective bargaining on those things would also result in rigid rules that would destroy the positive parts of the company culture.