_qulr

14 ms·

121.
by _qulr 6y ago
> I like how strongly people seem to be reacting to having to ask permission to digitally follow someone around I don't have any analytics whatsoever in my apps. When I make the "cake or death?" analogy, do you seriously b
122.
by _qulr 6y ago
Eddie Izzard: "I'm simply asking people, cake or death? It's disingenuous to suggest that this is a loaded question. After all, people could choose death. I'm only presenting the options."
123.
by _qulr 6y ago
From the article: "In the coming weeks, iOS 14.5 will require apps that engage in “3rd Party Tracking” to ask explicit permission, which most users will opt out of." If most users opt out, then an analytics SDK becomes effectively
124.
by _qulr 6y ago
Is it accurate to say that your only evidence that this article constitutes "Apple bashing" is the word "ban"? If so, that seems hypersensitive and defensive IMO. A "de facto ban" is not a "de jure ban&quo
125.
by _qulr 6y ago
> the author of that blog don’t like to face up to that fact, so they will assiduously blame Apple for this Could you please quote the relevant section of the article you're referring to? If it's just "the article title&qu
126.
by _qulr 6y ago
If, as you say, the preference of users is obvious and predictable, and Apple gives an option to users with a completely predictable outcome that will prevent analytics SDKs from being viable, then I think it's fair to say that this is
127.
by _qulr 6y ago
Where do you see Apple bashing in the article? It was an article targeted at app developers, offering them advice on how to adapt to the new rules.
128.
Apple apologizes after mistakenly removing Indigenous language app(globalnews.ca)
2 points by _qulr 6y ago|0 comments
129.
by _qulr 6y ago
Oh yes, I agree!
130.
by _qulr 6y ago
> well regarded philosophy journals (in my academic neck of the woods) have ridiculously low acceptance rates (2-3% often) This just shows that academic philosophy is a very exclusive club. It doesn't say anything about the standard
131.
by _qulr 6y ago
> the majority of philosophers silently agree that 80% of all publications or more in philosophy are nonsense or bullshit > These disciplines have overall lower standards in comparison to philosophy Given your earlier statement, may I
132.
by _qulr 6y ago
> we're only back down to three because of a (going on) five decade streak of executives that favor laissez-faire economics, which kind of proves my point that it's a good solution I think that kind of disproves your point, but
133.
by _qulr 6y ago
> That's not what the laws on the books say. It's a colloquial term, and nobody like a pedant. It was merely a play on words, but the point was that antitrust only kicks in when significant market power is involved, some kind o
134.
by _qulr 6y ago
> I don't believe we are as impotent as your response would imply I don't believe we're impotent, which is why I'm suggesting new laws such as a consumer bill of rights and right to repair. I think that antitrust is a
135.
by _qulr 6y ago
> It's a bit strange to think a nebulous "consumer bill of rights" is going to protect you when the actual Bill of Rights is routinely violated. The Bill of Rights were written over 200 years ago and could really use a rew
136.
by _qulr 6y ago
> The only resolution guaranteed to work is to break up these companies down to smaller parts until they no longer act like quasi-governments. Why not both? A consumer bill of rights and breaking up Google are not mutually exclusive. Con
137.
by _qulr 6y ago
> As an attacker, you can also hire people in call centers to make phone calls at scale for you. I think we may be talking about different things? I was just talking about a scaling problem of providing legal notifications of account sus
138.
by _qulr 6y ago
This was specified in my original comment: "At the very least, companies must be legally required to present you in writing with the so-called violation of terms they're accusing you of, evidence of the violation, and a phone # or
139.
by _qulr 6y ago
> E.g. if a spammer can pretend they're 10 million different people, and each of those "people" requests an explanation, the whole system grinds to a halt. Again, it's not a "request". If spam detection and
140.
by _qulr 6y ago
> Want to be treated like a person? You have to pay for that. Andrew Spinks, the author of the linked tweet, was a business partner of Google's. That didn't save him.
141.
by _qulr 6y ago
> This isnt criminal law. Not yet, but that's my whole point, it needs to be: It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. You can't r
142.
by _qulr 6y ago
My point is that literally millions of people could be considered "high profile". Does (the recently deceased) Leon Spinks pass the bar? I could go on naming semi-famous people indefinitely, they all ought to pass this bar.
143.
by _qulr 6y ago
> they don't give away these explanations because such explanation would hint the spammer to what they should _not_ do next time We've heard this excuse countless times, but it's simply not acceptable. The foundation of ou
144.
by _qulr 6y ago
> You’d think that there’d be a “this person is high profile and any automated bans will cause a stink” flag on accounts What does high profile mean? I've heard of Leon Spinks, the boxer, but I've never heard of Andrew Spinks i
145.
by _qulr 6y ago
> If every abuser requests those explanations (which they will) It's not a request, it's a requirement. If your account is suspended, you deserve an explanation. You should get one without having to request it. I'm not say
146.
by _qulr 6y ago
It's painfully clear at this point that we need a consumer "bill of rights" to protect us from these giant tech companies. At the very least, companies must be legally required to present you in writing with the so-called vio
147.
by _qulr 6y ago
Excellent point. There's also the dubious assumption that increasing the divorce rate is a bad thing. Kids can sometimes suffer more from an unhappy marriage than from divorce. Especially older kids who are more aware of the situation.
148.
by _qulr 6y ago
It's crucial to understand what these percentages mean. "between the ages 13 and 18, parents of first-born girls divorce more than parents of first-born boys. The odds of divorce within this period are 10.7% for parents of boys, a
149.
by _qulr 6y ago
I don't know. Does anyone know? Accurate stats are hard to come by, as this is of course underreported by the victims. We do know the number is greater than 0.0% though. The Conversation article has a link to the original paper https:
150.
by _qulr 6y ago
This is much ado over almost nothing: "between the ages 13 and 18, parents of first-born girls divorce more than parents of first-born boys. The odds of divorce within this period are 10.7% for parents of boys, and 11.3% for parents of

More ›