floatingatoll

7 ms·

31.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Note that their goal is to master programming on a new platform, not just to play it in a browser.
32.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
That’s correct. However, purity is not relevant; only hate and non-hate is. The only requirement is to have non-haters that hate the haters. Everything else is specific variable details per social group and per person. “A bunch of haters gr
33.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Under no circumstances do I support publishing real names for users in association with their online activity. I grudgingly concede that some will wish to do so voluntarily, but it should never be compulsory, nor should it be permissible to
34.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
No. I’m arguing that it makes no difference whether the admins and law enforcement are working for an authoritarian regime; either way, the regime will just as readily be able to identify its citizens, voiding the theoretical protection tha
35.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
I disagree. The vast majority of SWATting has not been considered worth prosecuting, much less targeted hate speech directed at women. We are nowhere near the absolute minimum that societies enforce in-person.
36.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Incorrect; Apple allows apps associated with purchases and rentals of physical objects to add credit cards to pay for things. In one digital goods example, Kindle books are not “sold”, even though Amazon uses the word “Buy” in the button; i
37.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
In reality, when hate speech speakers congregate, they eventually end up being forced to stop by an ever-growing collective of people who will not tolerate hate speech; with speech, courts, laws, and violence. In the world you describe with
38.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Authoritarian countries that actively seek to identify and prosecute their citizens for thoughtcrimes have simply compelled citizens to install tracking apps and/or use government-monitored data centers and/or SSL proxies that de-
39.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Privacy would be fine, as long as the identity is traceable by admins and authorities. We’ve experimented with true anonymity and it’s garbage for humanity, so now we need to come up with a better way to protect people from being identified
40.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
This is wrong on two points, based on the other discussion and the post itself. There was no Telemetry outage. An HTTP3 response header’s case was changed by a third party without notice. Telemetry continued working, other than the case cha
41.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
(FYI: The bug was not in the telemetry code, it was in the http3 code; see comments further up in the post for details.)
42.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Per other comments here, supposedly the same issue would have occurred with a variety of non-telemetry tasks as well. One of them is indicated to be certificate-related, which suggests to me that CRL lookups could have triggered it, though
43.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Per elsethread, supposedly any site could have triggered the crash, not just ”side functionality”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30175916
44.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
That's probably a violation of the App Store Review Guidelines; you're not allowed to withdraw app functionality unrelated to notifications if a user denies notification access; Apple has various language in various places that hi
45.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
It's just a debugging step. Don't delete your existing profile. If you confirm that it's fine in a stock profile, then you can use various methods to see what's different and find the bug (eg. “what non-default settings
46.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Did you reuse existing profiles on both versions, or in either case did you start a completely fresh profile? If you haven't yet tested with a newly-created profile (which doesn't require deleting your existing profile), then yo
47.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
If Google restructured into a franchise model, where each franchisee independently operates Google XY per country XY, then that would legally allow each Google XY to comply with GDPR while paying Google US a franchise fee. Technically, howe
48.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
As long as you proxy^ all requests to Google for that data through your own servers, and do not include X-Forwarded-For: <gdpr-protected-client-ip> or any other identifying details in the request you transmit to Google on their behalf
49.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
That’s not how the GDPR is written. It may seem premature, but someone has to be first to be ruled against in order for the interpretation to come into being, same as the Supreme Court and any other interpretive judicial systems. That the p
50.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
The rulings this past week specifically contradict this. Subsidiaries of US corporations are subject to illegal-under-GDPR data collection requests by US authorities, just as much as any other US corporation, as the subsidiary has no lega
51.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Yes, they could theoretically file a GDPR complaint. It is not certain that the courts would judge it a violation, but it’s quite likely, since their data is resting in servers owned (subsidiary-to) a US business.
52.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Google would have to redesign their corporate structure so that EU customers of Google EU are never subject to US law, with no US-owned business anywhere in the subsidiary chain. Imagine that this is the current chain: Alphabet (US) -> G
53.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
If y’all write a blog post about how your preblinding option makes you GDPR-compliant for silent embedding even though you’re a US entity, that would be front page material right now.
54.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
And because websites used to link to other websites for non-profitable reasons (blogs, directories, and webrings).
55.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Note that the US is absolutely capable of passing a data protection law at any time. I wouldn’t hold my breath, though.
56.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
And GCP.
57.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
In your scenario, is the theoretical Google GmbH a subsidiary of a US corporation?
58.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
If you, a GDPR-bound business, are silently serving, embedding, or otherwise using resources served by US businesses without explicit opt-in approval, then you absolutely could be violating GDPR, specifically for example if the user’s IP be
59.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
Your interpret my wishes correctly, but take comfort: I already expect near-universal disagreement from my peers here.
60.
by floatingatoll 5y ago
I am absolutely onboard with expressing our dismay at how Tesla altered a core safety feature of our vehicle with neither consent, nor an updated printed owner’s manual (which requires a formal recall). I’m not onboard with telling them how

More ›