chaps

10 ms·

151.
by chaps 6mo ago
It's because you're deflecting. :)
152.
by chaps 6mo ago
I mean, I'm always down for learning something new. But I hope what I learn includes the name of the company I'd like to avoid.
153.
by chaps 6mo ago
Which company do you work at so we can avoid your migrated endpoints?
154.
by chaps 6mo ago
I play roguelikes tons and agree with the article's analysis. A lot of these games feel like the "game loop" only exists as a project management tool to refine the game's release rather than to refine enjoyment. It'
155.
by chaps 6mo ago
How exactly does this provide more surveillance of the police themselves? I've done about ten FOIA lawsuits against police departments and it's laughable to think that they won't just lock footage away and exempt it from the
156.
by chaps 6mo ago
There's more than one definition of missile. Florida criminal code's just one place where a drone could be considered a "missile". Florida criminal code: "790.19 Shooting into or throwing deadly missiles into dw
157.
by chaps 6mo ago
Got it, a surveillance missile.
158.
by chaps 6mo ago
I'm sorry but, in what way is a swarm of surveillance drones NOT a mass surveillance system?
159.
by chaps 6mo ago
Kind of. Motorola (axon) effectively acts as an integration system for flock and about 20 other services. Motorola's stuff is IMO the bigger problem because it includes access to flock.
160.
by chaps 6mo ago
yes, people tend to act differently. not the people they're trying to afect, just random people just minding their business. but it is not an effective deterrent to things like "violent crime". • Meta-analyses (studies that a
161.
by chaps 6mo ago
Speak for yourself, big-holes-in-ground are very valuable to me.
162.
by chaps 6mo ago
I don't have much advice here because ever situation is different and the sensitivies of asking is different with every organization. What's worked for me is being absolutely direct and honest in the situation and the urgency of n
163.
by chaps 6mo ago
Then you might be surprised to know that a lot of those numbers were exaggerated. If you're trusting people to tell you accurate things based on numbers that they won't share.... you're gonna have a bad time. https:/&#x
164.
by chaps 6mo ago
You're missing my point again. My privacy problem exists with third parties AND internally within OkCupid. At some point, running NLP over messages necessitates that an analyst or ops person actually has to look at the underlying dat
165.
by chaps 6mo ago
We're talking past each other. You think the ends justify the means and I don't. Like, if there's a "Read" marker for a person viewing my messages, then I should have the same for analysts reading my messages, too.
166.
by chaps 6mo ago
Hey, my point is that it's fucked up that I went on a date with someone who admitted their job was to read other people's messages. If you don't think that's fucked up, then we simply have a difference in opinion. I don&
167.
by chaps 6mo ago
> I don't think there was anything fucked up about it, as long as it was all anonymized and at scale I'm confused why "as long as" carries so much weight here considering the article that started this discussion. You
168.
by chaps 6mo ago
You realize that you're responding in a thread about OkCupid deceiving users and sharing data with 3rd parties right? 34. In response to this request, Humor Rainbow gave the Data Recipient access to nearly three million OkCupid use
169.
by chaps 6mo ago
You're funny. I think the "only thing" that would make me cherry-pickable from their data is that I used an autoclicker to give everyone a 5 star... I have mixed feelings about doing that, but I got a couple (surprisingly nic
170.
by chaps 6mo ago
I once went on a date with someone who did research at OKCupid who told me that they were doing NLP-style analysis of peoples' messages that they sent to each other. Still not really sure what to think of the date itself, but it was a
171.
by chaps 6mo ago
How much has Microsoft paid you to sell your soul?
172.
by chaps 6mo ago
Like I said in a different post, there are legal reasons for why you would want the original data. Deleting the data from the dataset is negligent. If you want something to blame, blame the system that allowed the data to be bad in the firs
173.
by chaps 6mo ago
When I say "raw", what I'm referring to is the preservation of the data's chain of custody. If I'm looking at the data with an intent to sue the respective government agency, then I have strong legal reasons to ma
174.
by chaps 6mo ago
Sure we should indeed expect that they do that. But look at enough data and you'll learn that those expectations are a path towards never-ending frustration. I've been there, spending >100 hours cleaning data... that never got
175.
by chaps 6mo ago
In fact, the government agencies will argue that they have zero legal obligation to clean the data, let alone figure anything about the data, and that they're just giving you the data as-is. This happened to me on a FOIA call where I w
176.
by chaps 6mo ago
"What does it mean to clean the data?" This isn't possible to answer generally, but I'm sure you know that. Look -- I've been in nonstop litigation for data through FOIA for the past ten years. During litigation I c
177.
by chaps 6mo ago
"obviously wrong" is a never ending rabbit hole and you'll never, ever be satisfied because there will always be something "obviously wrong" with the data. Messy data is a signal. You're wrong to omit signal.
178.
by chaps 6mo ago
Exactly. This is a big problem with "open data". A lot goes into cleaning it up to make it publishable, which often includes removing data so that the public "doesn't get confused". Now I have to spend months and mo
179.
by chaps 6mo ago
What...?
180.
by chaps 6mo ago
Friend, it's truly great that you can do that. But you're missing the damn point.

More ›