HN user
Oh I don't disagree with you!
My purpose was not to suggest you were wrong, just present my experience and thoughts about why it's become so widely used _despite_ the issues you've raised.
I think people overcome the awkward UI because of the perceived benefits of the platform verses alternatives. That has certainly been my experience, which I appreciate is a single data point.
In my experience, discord was better than the previous options for a few reasons.
A) it's free, as opposed to a vent or TS server, which while they are not expensive, it's still a barrier to setting one up.
B) the free tier has quite a lot of functionality without paying for servers, even for a lot of players (like a World of Warcraft guild).
C) it merged voice Comms with a community hub where people could communicate and share things relevant to their game (to use the WoW scenario again, raid organising, upcoming patch discussion, guides and other helpful information) in an organised and central location.
I recognise there is a bunch of issues with discord, I've had it have complete melt downs when the voice systems have broken, it can be a real resource hog, and don't get me started on the security and privacy (it's not great), however because of the additional functionality I still think it's a great bit of software.
I'm so glad I don't have to be in Warcraft guild Facebook groups anymore!
From the switches I have used it does appear that Gateron QC is more consistent than Outemu or Kailh - but I have handled 10 different mechs at most so the sample size certainly isn't large enough to draw any meaningful conclusions!
Well I have a KC60 with Gateron Browns which I have used with both a plastic case and an alu one, and whilst this does change the typing experience quite a lot I do enjoy both. The feeling is consistently a nice, clean and snappy typing experience.
One thing which could contribute to why I don't enjoy the Cooler Master board is that the switches sit on a plastic plate which does cause the keypresses to feel a little mushy. That and the fact that the keypresses themself feel coarse, so the combination of the coarse feel of the brown switch and the flex in the plate ruin the experience. Perhaps if I had MX Browns in a different board I would feel differently but I must admit the experience has put me off, moreso considering the premium you often pay for Cherry. I would probably want to spend a week using any MX Brown mech in future before committing to a purchase (which I probably should have done before buying the CM mech, but it can be hard to find shops near me to experience a wide range of mechs).
I say all of this knowing that I could disassemble the MX Brown switches and lube them, as well as changing the springs. However the 1 Gateron Brown and two Gateron Red mechs have been really enjoyable to use 'out of the box'.
In my experience of Red and Brown switches, Gateron ones have always been more pleasant to use than Cherry ones. On my desk at home I have a Cherry MX Brown board (Cooler Master Masterkeys Pro L) that I am seriously considering taking apart in order to replace the switches because a cheap mech I got years ago with Gateron browns is probably the most plesant switch I have ever used.
Edit: Having said that - I admit my sample size is small and I did enjoy the two Cherry MX Blue boards I have used.
I am by no means an expert on this area of the law, but I think this is a really interesting topic that I tried to explore in a recent dissertation.
I think the issues come from the fact that copyright law really fails to represent the realities of creativity in humans. As you point out, the laws don't really address the fact that often the things we create are based on all of our experiences and consumption of creative works, yet a machine which can produce the same process may fall foul of the exclusive rights of reproduction and adaptation. Is it merely the fact that humans have consciousness which means that we are able to do this without violating copyright law?
At least in the US there is more flexibility around derivitive works, which give creators of derivitive works some avenue to enforce exclusive rights over their creations, or at least avoid claims from original rights holders. Here in the UK we really lack such a flexibility, with the only exceptions along the same lines being 'fair dealing' which is not really a fair comparison because it requires the derivative creator to jump through a bunch of hoops.
Having said that, I'm not sure derivative works are really a suitable legal definition for AI created works, but until we can have a conversation about the role of originality and creativity and the role of consciousness in those proesses, this imperfect definition will probably continue to be applied to those works.
Lawrence Lessig writes a lot about this sort of thing, if you are interested.
EDIT: Also the academic Omri Rachum-Twaig recently wrote a book called 'Copyright Law and Derivative Works: Regulating Creativity' which also covers a lot of issues that are interesting, such as the disconnect between the psychology of creativity and the structure of copyright law.
I feel that electoral law needs major reform in the direction of transparency and openness. It is not equipped to deal with the digital age, and asking platforms to turn down cash and refuse to publish political advertisements is the wrong way to go about addressing this issue.
Peter Oborne wrote a good article [1] discussing the issues of relying on unnamed government sources to print stories. I think it has been a continuous source of highly questionable information and we really have no way of holding anyone to account.
Also, appears there's lots of dead cats being thrown around. I often find myself wondering how we have got to a place that feels so nuts. Nobody is talking to other people with whom they disagree, they are just screaming at them.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/british-jou...
It's not necessarily about wrongful convictions, though they are included, but I'd recommend reading a book called 'The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken'[1] if you were interested in some of the issues in the criminal justice system in the UK. Things have got so bad recently that criminal justice practitioners have actually been on strike a few times.
I was sceptical at first - but the windows key + shift + s shortcut really made it work for me! (I know I could have mapped Snipping Tool to a macro easily enough but... I didn't)
EDIT: Oh, also the fact that it automatically copies the snip'd area to your clipboard is nice.
I have a CoolerMaster Masterkey Pro L with Cherry MX Browns - Its a nice keyboard, well built and not too showy. I got it for the office and I didn't want something that was very 'gamer-ey'. Only criticism is that the Cherry Browns are nowehere near as nice as the Gateron Browns I have in another keyboard (although I suppose you can't put this on CM). Oh, and maybe the ABS keycaps, they aren't great and the PBT Keycap 'upgrade kit' that CM sell isn't really a direct replacement. I'll probably pick up a separate PBT Double-shot set, but that's optional. I have recommended the CM Masterkeys Pro L to a bunch of people. I had a Corsair K70 (trampstamp edition) a few years ago, and the quality was good but the non-standard bottom row got on my nerves because it severely limited keycap replacement options.
Fellow T1D in the UK Here. I'm coming towards the end of my 'trial period' with my FreeStyle Libra and I am shocked at how much I have been able to take control of my glucose levels. I have never had particularly bad control - but finger pricking 4 times a day is like using your phone light in a pitch-black forest. There are so few data points that it is nearly impossible to identify patterns. The sheer amount of data that you have access to with the sensor is amazing. You've gone from 4 data points a day to a minimum of 96 (if you are scanning once every 8 hours). Within a few weeks I had adjusted my basal insulin dose resulting in much more stable blood sugar during sleep which has gone a long way to improve my general health and wellbeing.
One other aspect of the FreeStyle Libre that I was not expecting was a feeling of accountability. When I was just finger-pricking I could essentially hide high blood sugars. Say I had eaten some sweets or something, and forgotten to take my insulin, I could sort of hide from the responsibility of that high reading by just taking my insulin when I remembered and testing in a few hours - my Consultant would never know. However, now I am aware that my sensor is going to read that high sugar, and that makes me feel accountable for it - so I have seen my insulin taking get more consistent, and this has resulted in less hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia (as a result of mistiming the insulin and whatever I have eaten).
On your point about accuracy - I have found it to be a little out in the extreme highs or lows - for example there have been a number of times when my sensor has given me a reading of, say, 2.4. However when finger-pricking I might be 3.9 or 4. Now this could be because the reading is about 15 minutes behind, and since that moment my liver has pumped out some glycogen. But I have had similar accuracy issues when high - say above 18. Having said that, to me this is not a problem, and the accuracy between 4 and 18 is pretty spot on (apart from one sensor that went bananas and was reading at least 15 above what I was for about a week).
I'm not sure if this breaks the rules by not being a substantive comment - but I'd just like to thank you for writing this out. As somebody who is trying to move into a very competitive field (and finding out just how competitive it is the hard way), this kind of insight is really valuable.
I would second Uniqlo, and also suggest GAP. But honestly I am not really aware of either of their ethical records, but have found their clothes to be a good balance of price and quality, and they are about the only shops I can find as a Mid-20s male where you can buy good quality 'foundational' items, rather than fashion fads.
I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society.
Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often.
As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081
Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.
I think it is partially due to the fact that the establishment of the NHS has always been framed as a monumental act. It's creation is seen as part of the country's recovery after WW2, and has been used as a political tool in almost every General Election since 1945. I think people see it as a source of national pride as well (there's some irony in this considering the significant role played by immigrants in the service). Certainly from my point of view, Britain has an extremely questionable history, and for me it feels wrong to have a sense of national pride about the British Empire, or British Military Might etc. However, the NHS is a remarkable organisation which is inherently tied to an ideology and a movement which I believe in, so I am comfortable with feeling proud of it.
I do think that it needs to be open to criticism, though. There are issues in the NHS and I'm sure there are problems with the way that National Insurance works (our way of paying for the NHS). I have unfortunately had a lot of exposure to the NHS and the way some things work is frustrating. For example, I am unable to get an insulin pump to treat my Diabetes because there are national requirements that I do not meet. I undertstand why this is in place (budget cuts) but that doesn't stop it from being frustrating - I'd essentially have to sabotage my condition to the point where my control was so bad that I would qualify for a pump.
Like the other commenter said, I think what most people hear when people talk of reforming the NHS is an Americanisation of the NHS, and they believe this is inherently bad. Rightly or wrongly, that is the impression that people get. It's a shame because I think it shuts down all talk of reformation, despite the fact that there are other European countries which also have socialised healthcare but operate in different ways which I have heard are more efficient. I haven't done enough research into this to really provide any helpful comparisons, but if anyone has any information or links which explore the funding and service provision of other socialised health care provision in contrast with the UK, I'd love to have a read.
I thought it sounded a bit like one of the Witcher trials.
Thanks for sharing this.
I have just completed a European Law module for my Graduate Diploma in Law, and this answer is a really concise and organised version of what I've been trying to say to people since the first few weeks of the course.
I have studied the European Union as an undergraduate politics student and now as a postgraduate law student, and I would totally agree with you that one of the primary issues of the European Union is its perception among citizens. Another commenter here mentioned how low the European Parliament Election turnout is in Britain, I think it was about 34% last time round, and this vote is often used as a 'protest' vote.
The public are not aware of how the European Union is constructed, and they are not aware of how the balance of power is determined. Much of the dialogue before the referendum in the UK was about 'unelected' and 'undemocratic' power in the EU, and this was usually directed towards the commission - a body that has no lawmaking power, and is selected by directly elected bodies(at the EU and Member State levels).
I really think the EU needs to speak louder and more directly to European Citizens about the role it plays and how it functions. Perhaps it does already, but I have not come across much outreach.
Full disclosure: I am an ardent remainer, and believe that whilst the EU is not perfect, we are much better off inside with influence than outside without.
I would recommend reading James Boyle's 'The Public Domain'. It's available free from his site on a creative commons license[1]. He makes a great argument about the development of IP laws, similar to the points you have made.
I agree with you, and frankly, hacking something together on your own or in a small group is not necessarily going to produce a product that you can then sell, especially considering the potential ramifications due to faults or misconfigurations, specially if you start using the data to automatically adjust your dosages. I suppose what could be nice is if the manufacturers could open up roads to hacking your own gear, but I think that this is highly unlikely as creating an 'official' route to 'mod' is going to open you up to all kinds of liability.
I get frustrated by the lack of visible innovation in diabetes treatment technology, because in most other areas of our lives we are surrounded by tech which is constantly innovating. Unfortunately it's a reality that if you are designing systems and technology that manage critical functions then they are going to take a long time to develop, let alone test, distribute, and support.
it actually provides better information to base decisions on (fast acting) insulin dosage
Would you say that's because you can get a better idea of trends once you have enough data? My understanding has always been that the true value in a CGM is revealing those trends and patterns that are really unique to the person and that are hard to spot with regular glucose testing.
EDIT: I realise that this is basically what you've said. Apologies, brainfart.
I suggest you do everything you can to get a continuous monitoring system.
I'm currently jumping through the hoops to get myself one now. I can get my hands on one via the NHS fairly easily, it's just the pumps which are hard to get. I've done a lot of work over the past few years to get my control to a place I am happy with (finishing uni and that awful realisation that you are in fact mortal). I also wanna say that I recognise that as someone who is able to control my diabetes using injections it would be wrong for me to demand a pump when there are others who for various reasons can't control their condition. In a perfect world it would be great, but hey, we work with what we've got, right.
Can you imagine how much money big pharma could make if they pulled their fingers out and actually created and supported a solution?
If a bunch of parents on the internet can hack it together, it's hardly impossible (I'm not trying to detract from the awesome work these people have done, but my point is that they have nowhere near the same kind of resources as pharmaceutical companies).
As a Type 1 Diabetic it's really frustrating seeing how stagnant treatment technology is.
I can't answer your questions from a clinical perspective, however I'll have a stab at them. I'm a type 1 diabetic, diagnosed when I was 9.
Do you know why the applicability to type two diabetes is not as clear as for type one?
I'm only stabbing at this, and it's anecdotal, but I believe it is likely due to the lack of consistency across type 2 diabetics. Whilst there is variation in Type 1 Diabetes, it is largely limited to lifestyle but the basic principle is the same - you don't produce insulin yourself. Type 2 diabetes is often caused by insulin resistance, and I guess varies wildly based on the individual, their lifestyle, and their genes.
I live with someone who has a CGM (continuous glucose monitor) where the device came in a box with an insert saying "do not use this device to make medical treatment decisions." To see any of the readings you have to install an app whose start screen says it's experimental and, again, can't be used to make treatment decisions. But the user's manual has a chapter titled "Treatment Decisions" that tells you how to use it to decide when to take insulin and how much to take. It's frustrating that the messages have to be so contradictory.
I haven't been given a CGM for longer than a few weeks (NHS rules are a bit restrictive in my area if your control is good). However the rationale for not using the CGM to make decisions is based around how it gauges your blood sugar. Because it's relying on blood glucose levels in the skin tissue I have been told that there is a delay, and basically the CGM operates about 15 minutes behind your current glucose levels. This is ok when you're using it to track glucose levels over a day, but not particularly safe if you're relying on it to make a decision for obvious reasons.
A final question: how essential is it to be tech-savvy to use this technology?
This is a question I have asked myself a few times. As mentioned above, it's pretty difficult to get a pump and CGM on the NHS in my area without proving that you can't treat yourself adequately with regular injections. I am unwilling to sacrifice my health to have a pop at getting a pump, so I had a look at private options. Whilst initially I think there's a fairly steep learning curve, there is quite a lot of documentation provided, and the community is pretty active and helpful. I suppose it's also helped by the fact that there is only a few pumps on the market (relatively speaking). The issue is that if something goes wrong in your config, which is not uncommon for a homebrew solution, then you have to go back to manually adjusting your insulin.
It's good to hear that there are plenty of technology focused opportunities in the legal profession. The only one I had thought about prior to your comment was specialising in IP and technology, so I will definitely look into those other avenues.
Cool, what you said about going to do another degree gave me the impression you were probably based in Europe! I'm in the UK myself. Yeah I think that's probably the way to go, thanks for the advice.
If you don't mind me asking - whereabouts (geographically) are you based? I'm hoping to get into law after a couple of years working in technology but I haven't been able to find that much information online about the meeting point of law and technology and my searches haven't found me any communities for law similar to HN for technology.
I'm gonna go one step further with the off-topicness. Do you get much of an opportunity working within law to focus on technology?
I'm about to go back to University to study law but I would love to be able to combine Law with technology. Seems like an interesting area.
So it looks as though the article has been edited to say the anonymisation and aggregation was carried out before being transferred to a third party, which craps on our discussion a bit.
However, to answer your question anyway - I don't believe you could justify the work as being in the public interest. I think it would be an extremely tenuous link and I think you'd be a fool to try and rely on something as flimsy as public interest if you're not a government body, or processing data on behalf of one.
I suppose I was taking a stab at understanding what their thinking was to see if anyone else could provide me with something which I had not considered.
Yes, you are correct. I think it would be extremely difficult to justify that this kind of processing was necessary for the provision of service.
It seems to me that an organisation the size of Dropbox would have a fairly watertight justification. However if the legal basis for processing is neither consent nor provision of service, then they must have done a pretty good job of obfuscating all PII (as the article says "...we and Dropbox employees could view no personally identifiable information.". If this is the case then this sharing of information may not even be in-scope of GDPR.
I'm not sure if the public interest exceptions would be a safe route to go down. The EU has made it clear that, like 'Legitimate Interest', the get-out-of-jail-free justification is going to be highly scrutinised.
EDIT: I have just seen that the article has been edited to say that the anonymisation and aggregation was carried out by Dropbox before being transferred to the third party, which kind of kills the discussion.
You are correct, however this is for when consent is relied upon as the legal basis for processing.
My guess is that they are using provision of service as the legal basis for processing, whilst relying upon the "public interest" clause in the ToS to justify the sub-processing by the third party.