rue

…This one?

This one isn’t very privacy-friendly or open. And that raises all the previous questions again. Should they maybe have learned something about clandestinely fucking with people’s systems?

Look, at this point it’s not the user’s responsibility to “chill out”. It’s very much Firefox’s responsibility to try to repair their reputation by:

1. being completely transparent about all the mechanisms that data or code can be pushed to or pulled by the browser, or pushed from or pulled from the browser; and

2. having a toggle for all of them, yes every single one, in Privacy & Security.

Both sound like Nickelback to me so I don’t know…

Some of the comments here are a little too optimistic, although this is a victory.

The fight is not over yet. The directive needs to be written, and ideally in a way that prevents this from being brought back to the table again.

Sure, but copyright vampires have been setting this up for years.

They’re reading everything. It says so in the TOS.

Even if that were true, would that have reduced innovation? How many other innovators has Amazon crushed—fueled by the “top income”?

Have you considered how, say, a recruiter might view your CV differently from someone just getting started?

They don’t need to, but they have found it to be more… optimal.

I would not imagine even the legal requirement would reduce the safeguarding requirements nor allow an increase to the necessary retention period.

Not sure what you mean by optimize, but MLB teams often play several games against each other in a row.

But that’s slightly different because it could be seen to change the dynamic form performance over a season to fewer best out of N events.

God, Go is tedious to read.

Also, just use a code formatter that rejects any incorrectly styled code.

The house always wins.

It’s the share that’s being traded. It doesn’t matter whether it represents reality. All that matters is that the guess about whether it appreciates or depreciates is correct.

In all likelihood an entirely new product will be a better fit in that case, anyway. Especially if whichever direction you do pick completely precludes what you decide not to do.

In practice (and with some experience) most decisions do not prevent revisiting them later.

50 years from now, translation technology has made speaking foreign languages obsolete.

(Except for your own benefit.)

That would be why you also unionize the nurses.

(And also not subject basic rights like healthcare to market forces, but that’s a bridge a little farther.)

The market isn’t related to the companies it ostensibly comprises at all.

Any changes are related to the expected value of the stock, not the company itself.

If a tax is prohibitive, then by the same logic there will be loopholes for necessary usage.

I think that goes to say that probability isn't really useful to most people when we're talking about elections.

Compensation is literally a zero-sum game.

Try looking between the lines.

Anybody want odds on 50% of these comments being exactly that worthless advice?

You know, all immigrants can’t do that either. And other “others” do just fine.

You have what’s called “survivor bias”, and you need to get past it to understand systemic issues.

Isn’t there then just the option of traditional split-risk insurance?

Ship lighting is standardised and very specific (you can always tell which way a ship is facing by the lights for example).

I’m not an expert in visual science, but I suspect it is easier to tell _multiple_ ships apart when they have fewer lights.

ETA: https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-navigation/understandin...

In that the government isn’t using people as tools. People are using the government as a tool.

(Edit: without addressing your questionable definition of what it means to control one’s data.)

Scala is for people who weren’t around for C++ template metaprogramming.

Completely by accident. There was never any intent to mine that information, no sir.

“General concern” isn’t necessarily a valid complaint, or understanding of the situation.

The GDPR gives _individuals_ power over their data. It’s not “big government oversight” (whether you think that’s good or bad).