Quanttek

> first you exclude 'non-western' nations, and by doing so acknowledge that there are factors besides gun ownership rate that influence gun death rates

Of course, they are. If you live in an active conflict zone or in a country with a weak state, then surely that influences gun-related deaths (e.g. armed conflict doesn't require a lot of civilians to have guns. It's hard to control for all these variables. However, this doesn't detract from the fact that, among somewhat similar countries, gun ownership is a very strong predictor of gun-related deaths. It also doesn't detract that, amongst all nations, the US is still a leading country regarding gun deaths

> Which include gun suicides, and so probably shouldn't be included here!

No, they should be included, because gun ownership makes suicide more likely and much easier (see charts 11-13 in [2]): Most suicides are very spontaneous (see effectiveness of suicide fences) and guns make suicides quick and easy.

> gun ownership rates are not as different in Europe as you'd think - US gun ownership rates are only slightly higher than those of Europe. (Not guns per capita, % of population owning guns) Most of Europe and the anglosphere ranges between 20 and 30 % gun ownership

I couldn't find data confirming that. However, there's an interesting bit on Wikipedia on research showing the correlation between gun ownership and violence [3]. Also, this doesn't change the association between number of firearms and gun deaths: More guns also means easier access to guns. Also, owning a gun in Europe is very different: you have to meet very stringent requirements, go through various trainings, and store your guns safely.

It should be obvious that having two deranged, murderous individuals, having easier access to guns, increases the likelihood of a murder.

> If you want to include countries that the US borders like Mexico, great

I'm not sure why that should be important, but just note that it is the availability of weapons in the US, smuggled over the border, which fuels the drug war there.

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership#Association_with...

In most other (Western) countries, "2+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time", would be seen as a mass shooting and probably reach national media. There's a reason why the US has the highest gun death-rate per capita in the "developed" world [1]. The problem is the high gun-ownership rate [2] - other countries also have bad mental health care, a strong media focus on suspects, or high depression rates but America's gun culture is quite unique

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... [2] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/u... (and the following chart)

Crucial quote:

But in one of the first empirical studies of the impacts of behaviorally targeted advertising on online publishers’ revenue, researchers at the University of Minnesota, University of California, Irvine, and Carnegie Mellon University suggest publishers only get about 4% more revenue for an ad impression that has a cookie enabled than for one that doesn’t. The study tracked millions of ad transactions at a large U.S. media company over the course of one week.

That modest gain for publishers stands in contrast to the vastly larger sums advertisers are willing to pay for behaviorally targeted ads. A 2009 study by Howard Beales, a professor at George Washington University School of Business and a former director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, found advertisers are willing to pay 2.68 times more for a behaviorally targeted ad than one that wasn’t.

Much of the premium likely is being eaten up by the so-called “ad tech tax,” the middlemen’s fees that eat up 60 cents of every dollar spent on programmatic ads, according to marketing intelligence firm Warc.

Also, think about the fact that there is a Wikipedia list for mass shooting in one country this year. Most countries don't even have a list of mass shootings, let alone one for each year. The Utrecht tram shooting was for weeks in the media all around Europe (even in the US) and only 3 people died. This was an unprecedented event in the Netherlands. However, this year, the US had 20 shootings with the same number of fatalities or more

Martin Steiger also responded. Addendum 2 in his blog article [1]:

Tonight, on 29 May 2019, ProtonMail responded to this article with a blog post entitled „Response to false statements on surveillance made by Martin Steiger“. (This article was published on 23 May 2019 and not „earlier today“ as claimed by ProtonMail.)

ProtonMail claims that this article is „factually incorrect“ and states first and foremost that it does not voluntarily offer assistance for real-time surveillance. Apart from that, ProtonMail does not respond to the many points raised in this article.

ProtonMail essentially refers to my addendum, where I point out that the public prosecutor in question contacted me, saying he had been misquoted. ProtonMail of course „forgets“ to quote my full addendum and shows an incomplete screenshot of my addendum. ProtonMail quotes only the part with the public prosecutor’s claim and not my explanation why I am confident that the public prosecutor was not misquoted. ProtonMail also claims that the addendum is „hidden at the bottom of Mr. Steiger’s article“, although it is linked right at the beginning of this article.

In a direct email to me, ProtonMail’s legal department confirmed that real-time monitoring could be carried out. The legal counsel of ProtonMail now argues that ProtonMail is after all a provider of derived communication services and that having to tolerate surveillance carried out by the Swiss Federal Post and Telecommunications Surveillance Service (PTSS) according to Art. 27 para. 1 SPTA is equal to an obligation for real-time surveillance. In addition, ProtonMail threatens to take legal action for defamation pursuant to art. 174 of the Swiss Criminal Code.

As mentioned above, the SPTA provides neither for providers of derived communications services without more extensive surveillance obligations nor for telecommunications service providers with reduced surveillance obligations an obligation for real-time surveillance. As also mentioned above, ProtonMail used to claim to be a telecommunications service provider with reduced surveillance obligations. In either case, there is no obligation for real-time surveillance, i.e., any real-time surveillance is performed voluntarily by ProtonMail.

ProtonMail once again argues contradictorily and inconsistently. Every user of ProtonMail must still decide for himself whether the email service is trustworthy.

[1] https://steigerlegal.ch/2019/05/23/protonmail-real-time-surv...

Stupid question but how can they perform interventions when the data is de-identified? I could see how that would work on a community level but not on an individual level

I actually like this but there are a lot of similar services that make it easy to send GDPR requests with less such biased framing and without the abusive intent.

The arguments brought forwards against GDPR tell you probably more about the author than the regulation if Jerre's only concern is with the potential costs for businesses. That may be news to some, but the maximization of company's profits is not a value in itself or should be the goal of our societies. Otherwise, we wouldn't have safety/labor/product standards regulations, such as OSHA. Instead, ensuring human rights, such as privacy and data rights, (and a high quality of life) should be our concern - and that can cost companies - slavery would've been a lot cheaper too.

It speaks to a certain discourse prevalent in Silicon Valley and among business owners. The main source has been pretty well counter-argued in the original thread [1] but the author rather parrots that misleading information.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20009017

I'm in total agreement with you (see my original comment)

Not really. The GDPR stipulates a right to be forgotten [1] with the following exceptions:

> 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:

> (a) for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;

> (b) for compliance with a legal obligation which requires processing by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject or for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;

> (c) for reasons of public interest in the area of public health in accordance with points (h) and (i) of Article 9(2) as well as Article 9(3);

> (d) for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing; or

> (e) for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

[1] https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/

That is true in theory but it is not (solely) what is at stake here. Here, we are talking about the cost of regulations, and these do eat into the profits of companies. To some extent, these costs could also hurt competition (assuming the competitor had the same data-vacuuming business model). While we can not directly say whether the (possible) decrease in competition compensates for the compliance costs, looking at the overwhelming opposition by businesses small and large (incl FANG), it seems like the cost are higher.

In general this might be agreeable. But in these cases these are not direct unintended consequences of the legislation but rather consequences of companies failing to do their due diligence when implementing GDPR. It would be like companies putting people in bomb disposal suits after sth like OSHA is implemented and complaining about the cost and lost productivity. Or to take the EU: Recently the CJEU ruled that all work time has to be tracked (not only overtime), and a German company (in Germany this wasn't mandated before) would force employees to install invasive phone apps that track location etc. and use to determine work time. Employees rightfully complaining should direct their anger at the company, not at a law that would work perfectly well with a standard punch card system

> Given GDPR took a complain-investigate model

Ironically, when GDPR came into effect so many on HN were spreading fake news that companies would be litigated to death by users. Of course, to remove that possibility and ensure only legitimate claims are pursued, the data regulation authorities act as middle-man. Such cases of abuse could also just as easily be done when people could sue. For example, nowhere does the GDPR imply that you need to hand-over a source - that goes for journalists as well as non-journalists. Companies sued have the right to appeal and, if GDPR wouldn't have existed, the Romanian authorities would've probably just used e.g. tax law to stifle the RISE project.

> individual “data rights” have led to unintended consequences; “privacy protection” seems to have undermined market competition;

That opening paragraph already speaks to the over-elevation of the market over any other concerns. So it perfectly fits onto "news.ycombinator.com". Human rights, including privacy and data rights, are more important than the profits of some companies

Most examples in the text are, for instance, related to companies failing to properly implement the GDPR (Amazon sending data to the wrong person, Spotify not asking for 2FA/email confirmation for the bulk download, companies deleting articles even when there would sufficient public interest, Ad vendors failing to ensure compliance and therefore seeing drops in demand, ...), that is, market failures - something this site would probably not call out but rather attribute it to the legislation.

> Violence is one of the most basic interactions between organisms on the planet. Not only between societies (so that an Uber driver earning $30,000 can be in the top 1% globally), but within societies (the threat of violence is what makes everything from paying taxes to policing work).

That may work as polemical statement but is utterly disconnected from the reality of how power and society actually work. No, you are not kept in your place bc of the threat of violence. The law works only because so many comply with it despite the lack of coercive capacity instead of because - the justice system is simply incapable of policing everybody. We need to acknowledge the role of disciplinary power and biopower. For example, we self-discipline being subject to hierarchical surveillance, normalizing judgment, and examination, and also the productive. You don't run around naked outside, because the police could ticket (or, re violence, jail) you for public indecency, but because you dear the judgment of your peers, the potential loss of access to opportunities etc.

Not to be snarky, but before writing such a comment you should probably read the article:

> Every New York City Transit employee gave the same description of the “surfer” they saw riding the back of the train or darting across the tracks: young, male, wearing black clothing and white sneakers.

I've noticed that myself as I'm analyzing influential public statements with regards to the Rohingya for my Bachelor thesis on their discrimination and genocide. Unfortunately, Facebook was one of the biggest channels for dehumanizing and incendiary content but this is all gone now. I think FB should at least provide researchers access to an archive of removed content.

Are there any good, preferably open source, alternatives to Evernote/OneNote? I like Markdown but plaintext is not enough as I need support for pictures, tables, ...

I'm no expert but regarding your question on precision: afaik the longer the plus code is, the more precise it gets

The "making it simpler" for users is definitely only an excuse for Mozilla to not pay for the servers anymore. Kinda disappointed as uploading was a dry useful way to share in, high quality screenshots. I can't fathom that it would've cost then much to keep the platform running

Thank you! I reached out

How do you get an account there?

I'm on mobile, so I can't provide you the full run-down. In short, I feel like the main problem is an understanding of "development" that may agree with popular conceptions, the UN, and the concept used by economists. However, this doesn't incorporate the thoughtful critiques of critical scholars that show the limits of such a narrow concept centered around economic development. There's a lot on how the cultural, social, political, and ecological dimensions are neglected, how it's operationalizations cover only a tiny sector of the economy (ignoring nature's and subsistence economy which are reduced whenever the financial economy is expanded), or how it reinforces Western and North-South power relations.

There's a lot of literature you might use to read up on this topic, especially critiques of the concept of sustainable topic. Of the top of my head, I can only think of "Ecofeminism" by Vandana Shiva & Maria Mies. While I personally disagree with the conclusions/recommendations of the book, this revolutionary book provides a thoughtful critique of development.

Stupid question, but what does gross profit mean here? How can the costs be so high to provide one more gumroad installation?

(I'm not sure why the mods changed the title as it's quite important to note that this is is an op-ed by Katarina Barley, the German minister of justice)

Have you looked at Citavi? It's the software many German universities offer. While it's PDF annotation system/knowledge database is awesome (elements of different types linked to locations in the PDF, categorizable and taggable) and the Add-Ins are very fast and bug-free (compared to Zotero), collaboration is cumbersome and its focus on "projects" instead of one overarching "library" is annoying

Are you sure you're not conflating IDs with passports?

Though, yeah, in Germany at least it's quite easy to replace passports

The hack is clearly politically motivated, targeting all but the far-right parties (i.e. AfD is conspicuously missing) and left-leaning public figures. The data is often highly personal, including iCloud dumps, private photos, emails, and messages.

Can anyone please tl;dr what's so special about Grin and how it achieves that?

Your apps/schedules don't tell you the platform? Here (GER & NL), they always tell you the track - be it official apps or the paper schedules - and all waiting areas are on the platforms themselves. Utrecht is the only exception I know, where there are still larger designated waiting areas outside the platform (tho the building is on top of the platforms, so you basically wait next to the escalator)

Here in Germany - and I believe most of Europe - these calls are illegal and that works perfectly. I have never gotten a robocall on my life and am still free to phone around as much as I want.

(Not sure how exactly they are regulated. If they're illegal by themselves or if it's a side-effect from the ban on signing contracts via phone)