This is not actually true. Facebook sells advertising in the main, it is the over targeting of that which is the problem. They have just copied from google in a bit more not bothering to protect the user. The actual selling of user data is for advertising or targeting ads as core business. When it comes to politically targeted ads it is the same thing.
What are they doing wrong? It is not that the core business is broken it is that they have let the cat out of the bag and there is lots of "customers" expecting a lot of disclosure about users to help target the advertising. It may seem wrong but this is not just facebook it is a combination of them and others and particularly the advertisers. I have run ads on facebook and youtube and the main advantage was not demographics but geography for me as you are able to target a particular zone. Such as around your school, saying there is a fair on. In your street saying come get a coffee. These are great and part of the game. Perhaps FB should offer a paid version that is ad free and all your data is locked but simply letting people choose everything that is disclosed would help a lot.
The problem with leaving FB is people are grandstanding in saying it but FB does offer some great stuff and is a useful tool.
I actually developed one of these myself. You just attach a small strap to the child's wrist and the other end to a post and set the length a little short of the distance to the pool.
My one is better of course as the child cannot fall into the pool and no batteries required.
Bubbles do have a very sharp upside. I may be of course that the upside is pretty much done. There is nothing like hindsight to say oh that was where the bubble collapsed. Of course it looks like a bit of a pop when 60% down from the peak.
When Warren Buffett gets into crypto currency then that will be news.
despite the reputation there are a few politicians that I would trust to be totally honest. I suspect that being honest is not a republican or democrat specific thing but the only politicians that I trust my self are republican (possibly because I am republican.) However most of those are leaving it seems. The most honest (that does not mean he is always right or I agree with him just that he is honest) that I know of is Trey Gowdy and the reason he is leaving, basically because he feels ineffectual due to such corrupt partisanship.
There are many (on both sides) that I know are dishonest and we don't actually need to test them, it is already proven many times over. I know there is plenty of times when they leak illegally. Also many times they lie for their political reasons. However in the end it says something that when there is a honest politician in there he gets driven out by the corruption and futility of it (there is more than one honest politician and not all are giving up.)
Depends on the outcome you are aiming for. If you are aiming for zero accidents then the number of accidents is what you need to know. That is how much you missed the goal by.
I think the whole point is that not everything gets more expensive but somethings get cheaper.
So for example if online games need low latencey then they can pay for it. How about some low latency ports?
For streaming movies they can pay for being bulk users.
For general browsing it is cheaper because more funds are collected from other methods.
Also potentially the gaming performance actually gets better so you are getting something for your extra payment, which is priority
I seem to remember that a German company patented a system for identifying VOIP packets and delaying them to screw up VOIP services and protect traditional voice lines (POTS I would guess) so now they can use their patented system in the US. This kind of invention is to my way of thinking more like an anti invention, sort of like antimatter vs matter. No doubt there will be a thousand more like it for every thing that anyone can think of that goes across the internet.
you don't need to just consider climate change there is a very real benefit to lowering air pollution.,
Of course the whole thing here is the EPA does not actually have the legal authority to create laws so much of what Obama did was pissing in the wind and ends up overturned in court.
Google does not care about climate change but they set themselves a goal as a marketing effort. to be 100% clean energy. (remember there is a dirty side to clean energy which is the making and disposing of the PV panels etc. but it is not a zero environmental impact equation.) They obviously found that it was too expensive and so they just fudged the numbers and ran the marketing machine, which is what this is. When they buy the clean energy that they do not consumer what do they do with it? the answer of course is sell it (possibly at a loss) but it is a bit of a game as if you buy clean energy has that had an economic or environmental impact? The whole thing is just a game as if you buy carbon credits you are just playing a bad game to put money in the pockets of criminals and conmen . This already happened with cheap carbon credits produced by Russia just by lying.
WWII bombing cities was a German tactic to bring fear to the British. The British were bombing factories etc then they went all out for revenge of bombing cities. It was not that they did not know how to target military installations but they decided not to.
Putting trust in the government is obviously flawed as we have historically seen that Governments even democratically elected governments can turn into crazy authoritarian socialist extremes trying to control everything especially all the people. I think I saw it in a movie a number of times too.
The government you have now is not the same as what you will have in the future, so get your guns, your cash and get ready!
You are correct but perhaps if there is going to be a legal change it should address the level of ability to understand a document v's the benifits received via that document.
Simple example. Windows EULA cost of product v's contract complexity and length. If they said that basically anything under $10000 per year or one time needs to be less than 3 pages and not requiring a lawyer to understand. This may be a useful law. Anything under $100 should be 1 page and straight forward language.
The problem is not giving consent it is the burying of that detail and who wants to read a 27 page document in legalese to use itunes. (I think it is actually 56 pages.)
Perhaps even a standard document and standard terms which can be included or not.
Such as Data collection Class 1 through 5.
So that instead of having to read the document you can simply have a pre-existing understanding of many of the things you are agreeing to.
I am guessing just knowing he enjoys this and is good at it may help him find an actual job where he gets paid for doing something he enjoys. But I would have called it a hobby that could turn into a career rather than work.
Being smart or having a high IQ, does not stop you from being lazy. There is more to hiring than IQ. Actually even having coding ability does not mean that you won't spend 3 days investigating stuff that is a waste of time. Even laziness can be a coding virtue as it may mean that you less often reinvent the wheel or try to do it the correct way from the ground up due to the fact that the current solution that is working is flawed and has 12 patches on it already to make it work.
Achieving what is needed at the time even allowing for technical debt etc can be the most valuable thing. Some people simply cannot leave it and say oh I started from a clean slate because.... (when you are the manager you can feel your hopes of getting this shifted quickly out the door sinking with each word)
Would doing so not be anti evolution? Surely those who believe evolution is more than just a theory would be happy to see the new species evolve and reviving old species can only interfere with this. Taking up space and resources after they have already been cast off by evolution.
I think I understood fairly clearly.
So employee can say I quit because I don't like the boss, but boss cannot say your fired because I don't like employee.
Try being the employer and owning the business and have someone you hate but still have to employ, and you may see it as kind of unfair.
Also your suggestion that the boss may get some one faster and better to replace you is real but I think most employers what to keep those who are proven over a long time than some new guy who seems good but has no sort of long term record. I cannot see that employee protections are useful to an economy or even an employee most of the time. Ideally if the employee is good they can get another job if the are not good then getting fired is feedback that they need to change. Of course when you have been living with employee protections all your life you may see it as correct and the right thing but abuse aside it is not as good in my opinion.
In the US it is two way. In most countries it is one way (the employee) this makes employees lazy.
In Europe (I don't know if this is totally accurate)
The Employer wants to get rid of the employee for any reason, they cannot unless the reason is approved by the state or whoever does the approving. If they get it wrong then sued and end up paying huge payouts.
The employee wants to leave for any reason they do, no laws or lawsuit besides breach of contract.
Any you think your way is better? The whole thing needs to be balanced evenly or even a little in favor of the one who is paying. Being fired for any reason is just the same as employees leaving for any reason.
When it is the other way you don't have your best people in the best jobs just the people who got there first, they can never be fired. It helps to move the talent through and gives motivation to say producing.
A lot of tech jobs are working on products that are going to be released and delays mean product is not released on time.
There is a kind of an urgency and excitement and if you stop when the clock stops you are basically a Wally type (See Dilbert.)
Try doing that when working for Steve Jobs at apple, you will be fired. So it depends on your Boss.
I have had the boss ask me at about 6pm at night, can you be on the flight tomorrow leaving at 8:20am to China. My answer was yes, went to china for a week to do a tiny job there but it was urgent. However when he called at 6pm I was at my desk working still.
Not all jobs are like this but when you have that job you need to perform. And the pay in that job was about 30% better than previous (9 to 5 job) and it was about 100% more intense. I quit due to too much politics there but it was a fun challenge for a while and took my career up a step. (My pay never went down after I left and got a 9-5 job again.)
Good point. It would if this guy (girl?) cannot remember which gets prosecuted then it might help any other drivers in a similar position to wake up also and think I better actually pay attention instead of reading my FB feed.
I think when you find a bug like this, you need to halt testing fix the issue (or attempt a fix) before resuming testing.
It is not the states job to put their citizens at risk to benefit a technology company and it's shareholders, in fact they may be liable for a civil suit (if they are not already) if someone was injured or died. As of course Uber now is, I imagine the family of the person who died is getting condolence calls from lawyers who are trying to make them feel better by taking Uber to the cleaners.
It might be valuable to put some sort of basic license test for self driving cars before they take to the road. Things like detecting and avoiding pedestrians could be a helpful start. I am sure the military prefer to test weapons before they kill the wrong people in a conflict, testing does not start with putting the weapon into the heat of battle.
Would that be like buying a car from a factory that uses robots? or do you have a hand made Aston Martin?
They do use robots (machines) to do things like bake the buns and make the paddies etc. Just because they have a person on the till does not give any indication of how much automation goes into making the burger or food.
The technology of robots and AI are going to create benefits, imagine the price of your dinner was cut in half. Cars where they use huge number of robots has come way down in real terms. That does not mean it is all benefit but it seems like it is hard to technology back and I am sure most don't want to. If I think of the changes in the last 25 years since I started working it is huge but not all at once and we adapt.
The world is not so interdependent. Countries can become wealthy by utilising what they have got and then getting technology to help solve the issues they have got. AI is not like a box in the center of the US that can be only used by the US, it is in products etc which we sell. Example country wants roads and has lithium, they mine the stuff sell it and then can buy or pay people to make roads.
You know they can buy most anything they want, just not everything they want. AI is not going to suddenly change that. AI is great and maybe a game changer but it does not change the way economics work.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not actually true. Facebook sells advertising in the main, it is the over targeting of that which is the problem. They have just copied from google in a bit more not bothering to protect the user. The actual selling of user data is for advertising or targeting ads as core business. When it comes to politically targeted ads it is the same thing.
What are they doing wrong? It is not that the core business is broken it is that they have let the cat out of the bag and there is lots of "customers" expecting a lot of disclosure about users to help target the advertising. It may seem wrong but this is not just facebook it is a combination of them and others and particularly the advertisers. I have run ads on facebook and youtube and the main advantage was not demographics but geography for me as you are able to target a particular zone. Such as around your school, saying there is a fair on. In your street saying come get a coffee. These are great and part of the game. Perhaps FB should offer a paid version that is ad free and all your data is locked but simply letting people choose everything that is disclosed would help a lot.
The problem with leaving FB is people are grandstanding in saying it but FB does offer some great stuff and is a useful tool.
I actually developed one of these myself. You just attach a small strap to the child's wrist and the other end to a post and set the length a little short of the distance to the pool.
My one is better of course as the child cannot fall into the pool and no batteries required.
Bubbles do have a very sharp upside. I may be of course that the upside is pretty much done. There is nothing like hindsight to say oh that was where the bubble collapsed. Of course it looks like a bit of a pop when 60% down from the peak.
When Warren Buffett gets into crypto currency then that will be news.
despite the reputation there are a few politicians that I would trust to be totally honest. I suspect that being honest is not a republican or democrat specific thing but the only politicians that I trust my self are republican (possibly because I am republican.) However most of those are leaving it seems. The most honest (that does not mean he is always right or I agree with him just that he is honest) that I know of is Trey Gowdy and the reason he is leaving, basically because he feels ineffectual due to such corrupt partisanship.
There are many (on both sides) that I know are dishonest and we don't actually need to test them, it is already proven many times over. I know there is plenty of times when they leak illegally. Also many times they lie for their political reasons. However in the end it says something that when there is a honest politician in there he gets driven out by the corruption and futility of it (there is more than one honest politician and not all are giving up.)
Depends on the outcome you are aiming for. If you are aiming for zero accidents then the number of accidents is what you need to know. That is how much you missed the goal by.
I think the whole point is that not everything gets more expensive but somethings get cheaper.
So for example if online games need low latencey then they can pay for it. How about some low latency ports?
For streaming movies they can pay for being bulk users.
For general browsing it is cheaper because more funds are collected from other methods.
Also potentially the gaming performance actually gets better so you are getting something for your extra payment, which is priority
I seem to remember that a German company patented a system for identifying VOIP packets and delaying them to screw up VOIP services and protect traditional voice lines (POTS I would guess) so now they can use their patented system in the US. This kind of invention is to my way of thinking more like an anti invention, sort of like antimatter vs matter. No doubt there will be a thousand more like it for every thing that anyone can think of that goes across the internet.
you don't need to just consider climate change there is a very real benefit to lowering air pollution. ,
Of course the whole thing here is the EPA does not actually have the legal authority to create laws so much of what Obama did was pissing in the wind and ends up overturned in court.
Google does not care about climate change but they set themselves a goal as a marketing effort. to be 100% clean energy. (remember there is a dirty side to clean energy which is the making and disposing of the PV panels etc. but it is not a zero environmental impact equation.) They obviously found that it was too expensive and so they just fudged the numbers and ran the marketing machine, which is what this is. When they buy the clean energy that they do not consumer what do they do with it? the answer of course is sell it (possibly at a loss) but it is a bit of a game as if you buy clean energy has that had an economic or environmental impact? The whole thing is just a game as if you buy carbon credits you are just playing a bad game to put money in the pockets of criminals and conmen . This already happened with cheap carbon credits produced by Russia just by lying.
War is sometimes the lesser of two evils.
WWII bombing cities was a German tactic to bring fear to the British. The British were bombing factories etc then they went all out for revenge of bombing cities. It was not that they did not know how to target military installations but they decided not to.
Putting trust in the government is obviously flawed as we have historically seen that Governments even democratically elected governments can turn into crazy authoritarian socialist extremes trying to control everything especially all the people. I think I saw it in a movie a number of times too.
The government you have now is not the same as what you will have in the future, so get your guns, your cash and get ready!
You are correct but perhaps if there is going to be a legal change it should address the level of ability to understand a document v's the benifits received via that document. Simple example. Windows EULA cost of product v's contract complexity and length. If they said that basically anything under $10000 per year or one time needs to be less than 3 pages and not requiring a lawyer to understand. This may be a useful law. Anything under $100 should be 1 page and straight forward language.
.
The problem is not giving consent it is the burying of that detail and who wants to read a 27 page document in legalese to use itunes. (I think it is actually 56 pages.)
Perhaps even a standard document and standard terms which can be included or not.
Such as Data collection Class 1 through 5
So that instead of having to read the document you can simply have a pre-existing understanding of many of the things you are agreeing to.
Curare and a blow gun. You are dead before you can scream. Light weight, lethal and silent.
I am guessing just knowing he enjoys this and is good at it may help him find an actual job where he gets paid for doing something he enjoys. But I would have called it a hobby that could turn into a career rather than work.
Being smart or having a high IQ, does not stop you from being lazy. There is more to hiring than IQ. Actually even having coding ability does not mean that you won't spend 3 days investigating stuff that is a waste of time. Even laziness can be a coding virtue as it may mean that you less often reinvent the wheel or try to do it the correct way from the ground up due to the fact that the current solution that is working is flawed and has 12 patches on it already to make it work.
.... (when you are the manager you can feel your hopes of getting this shifted quickly out the door sinking with each word)
Achieving what is needed at the time even allowing for technical debt etc can be the most valuable thing. Some people simply cannot leave it and say oh I started from a clean slate because
Would doing so not be anti evolution? Surely those who believe evolution is more than just a theory would be happy to see the new species evolve and reviving old species can only interfere with this. Taking up space and resources after they have already been cast off by evolution.
I think I understood fairly clearly.
So employee can say I quit because I don't like the boss, but boss cannot say your fired because I don't like employee.
Try being the employer and owning the business and have someone you hate but still have to employ, and you may see it as kind of unfair.
Also your suggestion that the boss may get some one faster and better to replace you is real but I think most employers what to keep those who are proven over a long time than some new guy who seems good but has no sort of long term record. I cannot see that employee protections are useful to an economy or even an employee most of the time. Ideally if the employee is good they can get another job if the are not good then getting fired is feedback that they need to change. Of course when you have been living with employee protections all your life you may see it as correct and the right thing but abuse aside it is not as good in my opinion.
In the US it is two way. In most countries it is one way (the employee) this makes employees lazy.
In Europe (I don't know if this is totally accurate)
The Employer wants to get rid of the employee for any reason, they cannot unless the reason is approved by the state or whoever does the approving. If they get it wrong then sued and end up paying huge payouts.
The employee wants to leave for any reason they do, no laws or lawsuit besides breach of contract.
Any you think your way is better? The whole thing needs to be balanced evenly or even a little in favor of the one who is paying. Being fired for any reason is just the same as employees leaving for any reason. When it is the other way you don't have your best people in the best jobs just the people who got there first, they can never be fired. It helps to move the talent through and gives motivation to say producing.
What is that the right to take other peoples money for being lazy. Is this also called stealing in your country?
In some countries you actually get paid to achieve, I guess there are reasons why the US has the worlds largest GDP.
So you are saying that after planning phase everything goes smooth and no need to push at all, just relax and it will flow out on time.
Funny how in my experience it takes some damm hard work to keep up with fairly conservative planning.
A lot of tech jobs are working on products that are going to be released and delays mean product is not released on time.
There is a kind of an urgency and excitement and if you stop when the clock stops you are basically a Wally type (See Dilbert.)
Try doing that when working for Steve Jobs at apple, you will be fired. So it depends on your Boss.
I have had the boss ask me at about 6pm at night, can you be on the flight tomorrow leaving at 8:20am to China. My answer was yes, went to china for a week to do a tiny job there but it was urgent. However when he called at 6pm I was at my desk working still.
Not all jobs are like this but when you have that job you need to perform. And the pay in that job was about 30% better than previous (9 to 5 job) and it was about 100% more intense. I quit due to too much politics there but it was a fun challenge for a while and took my career up a step. (My pay never went down after I left and got a 9-5 job again.)
Send in Swat teams!
Good point. It would if this guy (girl?) cannot remember which gets prosecuted then it might help any other drivers in a similar position to wake up also and think I better actually pay attention instead of reading my FB feed.
I think when you find a bug like this, you need to halt testing fix the issue (or attempt a fix) before resuming testing.
It is not the states job to put their citizens at risk to benefit a technology company and it's shareholders, in fact they may be liable for a civil suit (if they are not already) if someone was injured or died. As of course Uber now is, I imagine the family of the person who died is getting condolence calls from lawyers who are trying to make them feel better by taking Uber to the cleaners.
It might be valuable to put some sort of basic license test for self driving cars before they take to the road. Things like detecting and avoiding pedestrians could be a helpful start. I am sure the military prefer to test weapons before they kill the wrong people in a conflict, testing does not start with putting the weapon into the heat of battle.
Would that be like buying a car from a factory that uses robots? or do you have a hand made Aston Martin?
They do use robots (machines) to do things like bake the buns and make the paddies etc. Just because they have a person on the till does not give any indication of how much automation goes into making the burger or food.
The technology of robots and AI are going to create benefits, imagine the price of your dinner was cut in half. Cars where they use huge number of robots has come way down in real terms. That does not mean it is all benefit but it seems like it is hard to technology back and I am sure most don't want to. If I think of the changes in the last 25 years since I started working it is huge but not all at once and we adapt.
The world is not so interdependent. Countries can become wealthy by utilising what they have got and then getting technology to help solve the issues they have got. AI is not like a box in the center of the US that can be only used by the US, it is in products etc which we sell. Example country wants roads and has lithium, they mine the stuff sell it and then can buy or pay people to make roads.
You know they can buy most anything they want, just not everything they want. AI is not going to suddenly change that. AI is great and maybe a game changer but it does not change the way economics work.