Their vehicle in the Secret Crate (seriously, a VC loot box?) is a distraction. These days you can’t pitch yourself as just another company working on self driving technology, not without actually having something to contribute to the field. So: lacking an actual product or even a decent elevator pitch about actual technological advances, you add some fluff, you create a “vision” and get people exited about that, offer a few VCs a sneak peek and then use their names to drum up some FOMO with the rest. The founder of the company used to be in marketing and sales. He knows how to sell this.
Meanwhile, many banks here are dropping actual 2FA based on the chips in our bank cards, and replacing it with security codes sent by SMS. Great idea. What really surprises me in this story is that T-mobile sent a warning to their customers instead of changing their procedures, and no longer perform sim swaps for any Tom Dick & Harry identifying themselves with a (semi public) SS number.
1) You can't. In case of tax issues, they will probably just fine you. And jail you. And kill your dog. I have no idea how they intend to enforce this in other cases. A judge might be able to use some forensic evidence: if a file has been recently changed or a phone recently used, then it is not unreasonable to assume that the suspect still knows the password. Not 100% but enough to press the matter with a fine or short jail time.
2) They still need a warrant, so in order to do this they need to tack on terrorism or kiddie porn to the case. It might happen in a few exceptional cases, but a judge would look closely at this. Saying: "Oh, we also think there might be some questionable porn on this machine" isn't sufficient... Even so I am against allowing this at all, mostly because it is extremely likely that the police will simply press for the law to be extended, that they need this access in order to do their jobs. And the current government will be all too happy to grant them that power.
Tax issues are not handled by the regular police, but by the dreaded FIOD ("fraud squad") who handle fiscal stuff, fraud, and cases related to copyright. Sometimes the police attempt to attach fiscal fraud to cases, like when they found a garbage bag with half a million euros in a guy's apartment and got the FIOD involved. The judge corrected them on that however, as they had zero evidence that the money was related to the case (the guy had an unlikely but not wholly impossible story to account for the money)
Weird. If the constitution doesn't "count" in the lower courts, shouldn't there be ordinary laws to reflect what the constitution says on things like self-incrimination? That's certainly the case here. In fact our constitution has no standing in court, and while the senate is supposed to check if newly proposed laws do not run afoul of the constitution before approving them, their decision cannot be challenged for being unconstitutional in any court either (although this is going to be changed slightly). For that reason, many of the principles in the constitution are subsequently set forth in ordinary laws as well, so that a judge may apply them.
What if the cops find a safe in your house that they cannot open without destroying the contents. Could you be compelled to open it, or be held in contempt for failure to do so (in the USA)?
Here in the Netherlands, IIRC one cannot be compelled to assist in opening a locked safe except in cases where the search warrant is for a matter regarding taxes (Internal Revenue has wide ranging powers here). However there are proposals to change the law to the effect that a suspect must assist in opening locked safes, unlocking locked phones, or decrypting files, in special cases like terrorism or (of course) child pornography. IIRC the UK already has similar laws. Even though civil rights groups have pointed out that access to encrypted files has proven to be instrumental in cracking a case or securing a conviction in a tiny portion of all such cases. I.E. Not worth violating people's rights for.
Most of what we call "sexually inappropriate behaviour" today has been socially inappropriate for ages. What has changed is that much of the behaviour we used to classify as a faux pas (or even just flirting) is now a capital crime, apparently. It's good that we no longer tolerate grossly inappropriate sexual behaviour, but we seem to have lost all nuance when it comes to milder transgressions, with the danger of trivializing all of it. In the old days, if you read "x% of female students have been sexually assaulted while at college", that was cause for concern. These days you're left to wonder if this includes cases where someone glanced at a woman in the elevator (hint: it does).
I prefer filler words such as "like" as well as the occasional "erm" from people who actually think about what they have to say, over people who talk and talk and talk with practiced ease but without actually saying anything. Too many interviews are just lips making noise with years of media training behind it, and an interviewer unable to break through that barrier. That's why these interviews with Musk are unusual and refreshing: he actually has something to say, speaks his mind, and isn't as prone to evade questions.
That's fair enough. But where do you draw the line? Does being in the Trump administration automatically mean you are intolerant? And is saying that you don't like using whatever words we're supposed to use for the gender neutral bathroom on the same level of intolerance as refusing service to gay couples? Is a white guy sporting a rasta haircut as bad as publicly making racist jokes? From the way some people positively tear the perpetrators of seemingly minor "transgressions" to pieces, you'd think it's all classed as the same thing.
I would rather rephrase that sentiment as: "society should not tolerate intolerance". And that goes both ways. Don't hesitate to speak up if something truly bad is being said or done. But if you start ostracizing whomever happens to run across the arbitrary line you've drawn instead of listening to their arguments, then there's never going to be a reconciliation. It's called polarisation and it's dangerous. And it's happening in a big way here in Europe now.
Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die, they do not get to make the decision whether your papers are to be shared with your heirs
It's not FB making that decision; it's the last will of the deceased. Whether or not FB can withhold access even if explicitly ordered to do so by the account owner depends on the law of the land, I expect these to vary even within the EC. Over here, I can give a document to my notary for safekeeping, with instructions to destroy it when I die. Perfectly legal. In this case, the notary (like FB) acts as a custodian of your data. Your landlord is not a custodian of your stuff, he isn't even allowed (in most countries) to enter the property without permission except in emergencies.
Maybe just add another privacy option or two: "Do you wish your legacy contact to have access to your private conversations / contact list / ability to post or send messages on your behalf? [yes/no]". I'm not 100% sure if this is in line with current privacy laws, but it will at least make it easier for the relatives to accept what they are or aren't getting from the account.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders was was hounded out of a restaurant because people didn't want her there.
That's still a pretty nasty attitude. As always: turn it around and see if it holds up: "[Gay couple / black person / transgender / muslim lady] got hounded out of a restaurant because people didn't want them there". Not so good, no?
If there is someone in a restaurant that you don't like, take a deep breath, suppress your penchant for political belligerence, and mind your own business. If she's ruining your dining experience, there's no need to ruin hers and everyone else's as well by making a scene.
Don't you know?! "The man" adds fluoride to the oxygen to make you a docile citizen. Better seal off all vents and gaps in your home. Hold your breath when going outside.
Maybe that's how they found out: the phone mentioned in TFA has an all-screen front, with the front facing camera sliding out of the top of the phone when needed. The thing popped up when people opened Telegram, for instance.
From that execs speech, I gather that his intended target market is just that: easily distracted people who watch cat videos on their cell phones. I don’t know how he thinks he’s going to compete in that market, but it won’t be with “the Wire”.
You missed the choice bit “Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising”. In other words: “I’ve seen how other companies pimp out their customers for data, and I want some of that action...”. Screw making an honest buck with subscriptions, that’s so 20th century.
Really interesting thread to read! However, allow me to disagree *slightly*. I dont believe the issue lies in the MMORPG genre itself (as your wording seemingly suggest). I believe the issue lies in the contraints of the Living Story's narrative design. When you want the outcome to be the same across the board for all players' experiences, then yes, by design you are extremely limited in how you can contruct the personality of the PC. But, if instead players were given the option to meaningfully express *their* character through branching dialogue options (which also aren't just on the checklist for an achievement that forces you through all dialogue options) then perhaps players would be more invested in the roleplaying aspect of that particular MMORPG. Nonetheless, I appreciate the insightful thread!
How is that a condescending response? This being Twitter, perhaps you'll have to read between the lines a bit to see what the guy is getting at; the thrust of that message is not "why don't you use some branching dialogue, you idiots". Deroir's response was well-meant. If it really was a simple or stupid remark, the best thing would be to ignore it or to set him straight, not to pour scorn on him. That most certainly was not the right way to nip it in the bud (unless you're Linus Torvalds)
Just curious: why should posting Nazi ideology on your private blog get you fired, if said posts have nothing to do with your employer and in no way reflect badly on that employer other than simply having you on their payroll? Are you seriously suggesting that people ought to get slapped with a "Berufsverbot" for ideological reasons?
In many sensible countries, publicly making sexist and inflammatory remarks that are related to your work and employment can be sufficient grounds for getting fired. Personally I think firing her just for this isn't warranted... but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a prior history of similar behaviour. Maybe she handled criticism or suggestions from her co-workers with the same grace and tact. From the interview on the Verge, it sure sounds as if she tends to take criticism as a personal attack.
I'm actually more interested in why Fries got fired after defending her on Twitter. As far as I can tell he was perfectly polite.
One might if they've any hope or faith that the degree of wealth somehow correlates with effort or ability or contribution to society. Admittedly naive but one can still hope.
Well, maybe you’re right. Maybe one should begrudge them their fortune if their actual contribution to society falls well short of what they have amassed. But I’m careful with that sentiment, because the follow up question is: what ought to be done to make it right? Taxing the rich is a popular notion but not with me, because 1) the actual rich have no problem moving their wealth out of harm’s way, and 2) it invariably ends in classifying regular middle class folk with a bit of savings as “rich”. Because that’s where the real money is to be had. The middle class are docile, without much influence, without many options to flee heavy taxation, and they come in great numbers.
Exactly. Who gives a rat's arse? I don't begrudge either person their fortune, but their net worth is not a matter of competition nor a measure of their worth as a person.
Slashdot Mirror
Their vehicle in the Secret Crate (seriously, a VC loot box?) is a distraction. These days you can’t pitch yourself as just another company working on self driving technology, not without actually having something to contribute to the field. So: lacking an actual product or even a decent elevator pitch about actual technological advances, you add some fluff, you create a “vision” and get people exited about that, offer a few VCs a sneak peek and then use their names to drum up some FOMO with the rest. The founder of the company used to be in marketing and sales. He knows how to sell this.
Meanwhile, many banks here are dropping actual 2FA based on the chips in our bank cards, and replacing it with security codes sent by SMS. Great idea. What really surprises me in this story is that T-mobile sent a warning to their customers instead of changing their procedures, and no longer perform sim swaps for any Tom Dick & Harry identifying themselves with a (semi public) SS number.
1) You can't. In case of tax issues, they will probably just fine you. And jail you. And kill your dog. I have no idea how they intend to enforce this in other cases. A judge might be able to use some forensic evidence: if a file has been recently changed or a phone recently used, then it is not unreasonable to assume that the suspect still knows the password. Not 100% but enough to press the matter with a fine or short jail time.
2) They still need a warrant, so in order to do this they need to tack on terrorism or kiddie porn to the case. It might happen in a few exceptional cases, but a judge would look closely at this. Saying: "Oh, we also think there might be some questionable porn on this machine" isn't sufficient... Even so I am against allowing this at all, mostly because it is extremely likely that the police will simply press for the law to be extended, that they need this access in order to do their jobs. And the current government will be all too happy to grant them that power.
Tax issues are not handled by the regular police, but by the dreaded FIOD ("fraud squad") who handle fiscal stuff, fraud, and cases related to copyright. Sometimes the police attempt to attach fiscal fraud to cases, like when they found a garbage bag with half a million euros in a guy's apartment and got the FIOD involved. The judge corrected them on that however, as they had zero evidence that the money was related to the case (the guy had an unlikely but not wholly impossible story to account for the money)
In that case, why were they even interested in his phones?
Weird. If the constitution doesn't "count" in the lower courts, shouldn't there be ordinary laws to reflect what the constitution says on things like self-incrimination? That's certainly the case here. In fact our constitution has no standing in court, and while the senate is supposed to check if newly proposed laws do not run afoul of the constitution before approving them, their decision cannot be challenged for being unconstitutional in any court either (although this is going to be changed slightly). For that reason, many of the principles in the constitution are subsequently set forth in ordinary laws as well, so that a judge may apply them.
What if the cops find a safe in your house that they cannot open without destroying the contents. Could you be compelled to open it, or be held in contempt for failure to do so (in the USA)?
Here in the Netherlands, IIRC one cannot be compelled to assist in opening a locked safe except in cases where the search warrant is for a matter regarding taxes (Internal Revenue has wide ranging powers here). However there are proposals to change the law to the effect that a suspect must assist in opening locked safes, unlocking locked phones, or decrypting files, in special cases like terrorism or (of course) child pornography. IIRC the UK already has similar laws. Even though civil rights groups have pointed out that access to encrypted files has proven to be instrumental in cracking a case or securing a conviction in a tiny portion of all such cases. I.E. Not worth violating people's rights for.
Most of what we call "sexually inappropriate behaviour" today has been socially inappropriate for ages. What has changed is that much of the behaviour we used to classify as a faux pas (or even just flirting) is now a capital crime, apparently. It's good that we no longer tolerate grossly inappropriate sexual behaviour, but we seem to have lost all nuance when it comes to milder transgressions, with the danger of trivializing all of it. In the old days, if you read "x% of female students have been sexually assaulted while at college", that was cause for concern. These days you're left to wonder if this includes cases where someone glanced at a woman in the elevator (hint: it does).
I prefer filler words such as "like" as well as the occasional "erm" from people who actually think about what they have to say, over people who talk and talk and talk with practiced ease but without actually saying anything. Too many interviews are just lips making noise with years of media training behind it, and an interviewer unable to break through that barrier. That's why these interviews with Musk are unusual and refreshing: he actually has something to say, speaks his mind, and isn't as prone to evade questions.
And wasn't Goldblum one of the most annoying characters ever in that movie?
That's fair enough. But where do you draw the line? Does being in the Trump administration automatically mean you are intolerant? And is saying that you don't like using whatever words we're supposed to use for the gender neutral bathroom on the same level of intolerance as refusing service to gay couples? Is a white guy sporting a rasta haircut as bad as publicly making racist jokes? From the way some people positively tear the perpetrators of seemingly minor "transgressions" to pieces, you'd think it's all classed as the same thing.
I would rather rephrase that sentiment as: "society should not tolerate intolerance". And that goes both ways. Don't hesitate to speak up if something truly bad is being said or done. But if you start ostracizing whomever happens to run across the arbitrary line you've drawn instead of listening to their arguments, then there's never going to be a reconciliation. It's called polarisation and it's dangerous. And it's happening in a big way here in Europe now.
Just because a landlord (in this case FaceBook) thinks your property should be private doesn't make it so after you die, they do not get to make the decision whether your papers are to be shared with your heirs
It's not FB making that decision; it's the last will of the deceased. Whether or not FB can withhold access even if explicitly ordered to do so by the account owner depends on the law of the land, I expect these to vary even within the EC. Over here, I can give a document to my notary for safekeeping, with instructions to destroy it when I die. Perfectly legal. In this case, the notary (like FB) acts as a custodian of your data. Your landlord is not a custodian of your stuff, he isn't even allowed (in most countries) to enter the property without permission except in emergencies.
Maybe just add another privacy option or two: "Do you wish your legacy contact to have access to your private conversations / contact list / ability to post or send messages on your behalf? [yes/no]". I'm not 100% sure if this is in line with current privacy laws, but it will at least make it easier for the relatives to accept what they are or aren't getting from the account.
No law, just decency
Sarah Huckabee Sanders was was hounded out of a restaurant because people didn't want her there.
That's still a pretty nasty attitude. As always: turn it around and see if it holds up: "[Gay couple / black person / transgender / muslim lady] got hounded out of a restaurant because people didn't want them there". Not so good, no?
If there is someone in a restaurant that you don't like, take a deep breath, suppress your penchant for political belligerence, and mind your own business. If she's ruining your dining experience, there's no need to ruin hers and everyone else's as well by making a scene.
-@, what the hell? May I suggest you pronounce that by trying to imitate the sound of an exited chicken.
Don't you know?! "The man" adds fluoride to the oxygen to make you a docile citizen. Better seal off all vents and gaps in your home. Hold your breath when going outside.
Maybe that's how they found out: the phone mentioned in TFA has an all-screen front, with the front facing camera sliding out of the top of the phone when needed. The thing popped up when people opened Telegram, for instance.
If you had mined BTC in 2010, today you would probably regret having sold them in 2013.
From that execs speech, I gather that his intended target market is just that: easily distracted people who watch cat videos on their cell phones. I don’t know how he thinks he’s going to compete in that market, but it won’t be with “the Wire”.
You missed the choice bit “Because you get more data and information about a customer that then allows you to do things like monetize through alternate models of advertising”. In other words: “I’ve seen how other companies pimp out their customers for data, and I want some of that action...”. Screw making an honest buck with subscriptions, that’s so 20th century.
Really interesting thread to read! However, allow me to disagree *slightly*. I dont believe the issue lies in the MMORPG genre itself (as your wording seemingly suggest). I believe the issue lies in the contraints of the Living Story's narrative design. When you want the outcome to be the same across the board for all players' experiences, then yes, by design you are extremely limited in how you can contruct the personality of the PC. But, if instead players were given the option to meaningfully express *their* character through branching dialogue options (which also aren't just on the checklist for an achievement that forces you through all dialogue options) then perhaps players would be more invested in the roleplaying aspect of that particular MMORPG. Nonetheless, I appreciate the insightful thread!
How is that a condescending response? This being Twitter, perhaps you'll have to read between the lines a bit to see what the guy is getting at; the thrust of that message is not "why don't you use some branching dialogue, you idiots". Deroir's response was well-meant. If it really was a simple or stupid remark, the best thing would be to ignore it or to set him straight, not to pour scorn on him. That most certainly was not the right way to nip it in the bud (unless you're Linus Torvalds)
Just curious: why should posting Nazi ideology on your private blog get you fired, if said posts have nothing to do with your employer and in no way reflect badly on that employer other than simply having you on their payroll? Are you seriously suggesting that people ought to get slapped with a "Berufsverbot" for ideological reasons?
In many sensible countries, publicly making sexist and inflammatory remarks that are related to your work and employment can be sufficient grounds for getting fired. Personally I think firing her just for this isn't warranted... but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a prior history of similar behaviour. Maybe she handled criticism or suggestions from her co-workers with the same grace and tact. From the interview on the Verge, it sure sounds as if she tends to take criticism as a personal attack.
I'm actually more interested in why Fries got fired after defending her on Twitter. As far as I can tell he was perfectly polite.
One might if they've any hope or faith that the degree of wealth somehow correlates with effort or ability or contribution to society. Admittedly naive but one can still hope.
Well, maybe you’re right. Maybe one should begrudge them their fortune if their actual contribution to society falls well short of what they have amassed. But I’m careful with that sentiment, because the follow up question is: what ought to be done to make it right? Taxing the rich is a popular notion but not with me, because 1) the actual rich have no problem moving their wealth out of harm’s way, and 2) it invariably ends in classifying regular middle class folk with a bit of savings as “rich”. Because that’s where the real money is to be had. The middle class are docile, without much influence, without many options to flee heavy taxation, and they come in great numbers.
Exactly. Who gives a rat's arse? I don't begrudge either person their fortune, but their net worth is not a matter of competition nor a measure of their worth as a person.