Sacho

The counter-argument here would be that the drug dealer should not be able to use the cash(and other assets) they obtained through their crimes to defend themselves. Waiting until conviction would mean that the alleged criminal could exhaust those assets as part of his defense.

You could read the judge's close to 200 page opinion on why he ruled the way he did, based on law and the evidence presented in front of him. It's publicly available: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/17-2511opinion.p...

What about lodash's lazy evaluation/chaining/shortcut fusion? I don't think the ES6 standard library offers any alternative to it?

Uh, there is in fact, an absolute(position:absolute). It has caveats, but doesn't XAML? The 'certain location' bit is actually quite complex:

- how is it supposed to adapt to different resolutions?

- is an inner absolute component allowed to escape its container?

- how does it layer with other components?

The CSS required to position an element at an absolute location must take all of these into consideration, and I'm not sure how much better a native toolkit can make it.

React is a UI layer, but Angular was a full-blown framework with routing, services to handle business logic, and so on.

"Sucking just in a different way" is reductive to the point of meaninglessness; For example, if I'm broke, life sucks in some ways, and if I'm a billionaire, life sucks in different ways, but still usually people clamor to be wealthier rather than poorer.

Angular's UI update mechanisms were(are?) miles worse than React. The prototype-based inherited scopes contained a ton of gotchas compared to React's prop-passing. The $watch mechanism inherently scaled poorly - changes were not localized and required going through all watchers! What's worse, the (primitive) mechanism to localize changes - local scope $digest, was essentially unused by the base framework and by pretty much any app developers(the documentation and the base directives would all use scope.$apply(), which caused a global digest, going through all watchers). There were several micro-DSLs that you had to learn in order to do iteration, filtering, sorting, etc. "Filtering" was a mess, leading to Ben Nadel's articles about it(e.g. https://www.bennadel.com/blog/2766-stateless-filters-don-t-a...). There are practically no lifecycle concepts that are exposed to the developer, leading to a lot of confusion on when a directive is instantiated and rendered, with a reliance on implementation details. Angular used a ton of confusing jargon - controllers(a directive provided by the framework), services/factories/providers(singletons with varying control over their instantiation), filters(actually formatters...), and so on. The name doesn't match what you would expect from it.

React improved on all of these things. While it has its own shortcomings(e.g. explicit passing of props leading to lots of boilerplate code), those exist for meaningful tradeoffs. This is why Vue and React are competing products, but they're both a massive step forward from Angular.

(Disclaimer: I haven't used "Angular", just AngularJS, but presumably calling React the new Angular means we're talking about AngularJS).

The plaintiff trying to block the merger is Trump's administration's DOJ.

This is a gross oversimplification of the issue. Here is the judge's opinion which actually explains his rationale: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/17-2511opinion.p...

His rationale on this particular is over 30 pages long. It starts at page 57-ish.

You seem to be arguing that, in balance, there are more low-paying jobs where the government can convince employers to increase wages, rather than the employers closing down and looking for another enterprise to pursue. Otherwise, even on aggregate, you are actively harming low-skilled or desperate workers who are looking for a job.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that this is true - labor laws and protections increase wages in aggregate enough to account for all the jobs that are abandoned because they are not profitable enough to pay the required wages. There's one more thing to consider in Uber's case - the regional availability for jobs. Can we assume that the low-skilled adequate-income jobs you create through labor laws would be concentrated in richer towns, richer neighbourhoods, where the industry and market can afford the higher wages? What about the poorer neighbourhoods/towns? Uber(well, taxi service) allows people there to take a job which might not be available to them otherwise, without moving to a different town/neighbourhood.

Half of those are assertions libraries, not unit testing libraries. What are you comparing this list to? What is the appropriate number of unit testing libraries a language should have? Do you scale that number for community size?

I'm not sure this is a fair reading.

> The Blackberry used by the Times got data about the friends of the journalist even if those friends didn't consent to that.

They did consent to that - by becoming your friends! Are you saying that every time you open your friends' Facebook pages, a notification should be sent to those friends requiring consent?

I think perhaps you meant something else - the Blackberry got data about the friends even though the user did not consent to that:

> The Hub also requested — and received — data that Facebook’s policy appears to prohibit. Since 2015, Facebook has said that apps can request only the names of friends using the same app. But the BlackBerry app had access to all of the reporter’s Facebook friends and, for most of them, returned information such as user ID, birthday, work and education history and whether they were currently online.

This is also questionable. Would you say that Chrome requests and receives prohibited data, when you use it to browse your friends list? We are talking about the distinction between client(full access) and third-party app(limited access). The cases described in the NYT article seem to be clients.

Further on your point:

> This is different from email and email clients. First, the expectations are different: if I send you an email I expect that you can forward it to your friends or anybody else unless I explicitly ask you not to.

You seem to be making an argument against your claim here. The parallel would be, if I accept your friend request, I expect that you can see my data and use it(i.e. by browsing your friends list on the Facebook site, or the Blackberry client).

> Second, local clients don't send mail to their authors, same for address books.

Perhaps, but doesn't that hinge on the definition of "local clients"? For example, my Outlook definitely shares information with a cloud server. Was "The Hub" an unknown/unexpected feature of the Blackberry client?

> Third, we know that Google and others can see most of our mails anyway, because most people use only webmail and messages are stored on the servers of those companies.

Are device manufacturers not included in those "others"?

The email client parallel with Google is even more in Facebook's favour. For example, is Mozilla stealing data about my friends when I use Thunderbird to access my gmail account? What if I explicitly ask it to store my emails in a "hub" of sorts, so I could sync them between PCs?

> Finally, FB didn't tell us about this API and what it can do.

I think this is the strongest point, but it's important to note that we are judging Facebook's old decisions by our new increased focus on privacy and user-focused control. As one user gave an example, we used to give our passwords to sites back in the day, so they could integrate with other services(actually, this still happens in some apps..)

> My suggestion for a social network of the future is to have a single API, used also by the official client. The servers must not trust any client, which is the usual thing we do in web development, and give all them the same level of access. It's up to the user to decide if they want to use the official client or one of any third party.

But isn't this literally what is happening here? The "secret" API does not have access to any data the "official" one(used by the site) doesn't(at least, the NYT does not present any evidence to that effect). You also seem to access it by giving your credentials to the "third party client", i.e. no "special access".

It seems like Mark would always have to answer 'yes' to that question, since accessing Facebook via the web means you share your data with Google(Chrome), Mozilla(Firefox), Microsoft(IE), etc..

(Also any OS/kernel manufacturers who get access to your data through your usage of the OS or TCP/IP stack).

Facebook is sharing your data with Blackberry in the same manner.

I don't even see a consent difference, since you need to explicitly consent to sharing your data by entering your Facebook user/password into the Blackberry UI app. Similar to how you write your user and password into Chrome, thus "sharing your data" with Google. It also doesn't seem like there's any evidence that the UI apps were intended to secretly collect and store data(Was "The Hub" an unknown feature?)

I don't believe the evidence presented here invalidates Mark's answer. His answer would have been meaningless if he had taken the definition of "third party" put forward in the NYT.

IANAL, but his reasoning would probably be in the summary judgement denial that's on the docket:

ORDER re Summary Judgment Motions ([257], [299], [307]). Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/14/2018. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2018)

Unfortunately, I don't really have access to PACER or money to gamble on opening random documents to see which one has the actual info. The US "public access to court electronic records" isn't very "public"-friendly.

(docket listing kindly provided by user thinkcomp - https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2mwpixhn9/california-north...)

Should the manufacturers of locks exhibited in DEFCON's lockpick village be sued for negligence? Are they getting sued for it?

This lawsuit doesn't seem to stem from the GDPR, despite the article (mistakenly[1]) mentioning it. I don't even know if the regulatory bodies are enforcing the GDPR yet, much less in February this year, or even worse, 2015.

Here's a statement from the CPP, connected to the 2015 lawsuit. They mention Facebook being in breach of Belgian privacy laws from 1992.

https://www.privacycommission.be/sites/privacycommission/fil...

[1] - none of the other reporting I found on the subject(Guardian, Bloomberg, etc) mentions the GDPR. They also don't show the court order, which is frustrating.

How does that defense work out for marijuana growers in the US?

There's probably many movies like this, but I'm not a movie buff so I can't give an example right off the bat. I know of the video game Quantum Break, which included short live-action episodes between gameplay chapters from the villain's POV. They served to explain the villains' actions and humanize them.

> Would we tolerate it if the phone company refused service to gun's rights advocates, or if airlines or bus companies refused them transportation? In legal fact, perhaps they could, but in reality they do not - however, Internet firms like Google and Facebook ban large swaths of content off their platforms.

That's an interesting question, and it's not hypothetical(assuming you consider financial services as part of your "public goods" argument) - https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-directs-depa...

How dated is the joke? Is it not about current US policy?

> It's kind of like when someone tries to talk politics, but they can't stop using terms like "libtards" or "conservatards" to belittle their ideological opponents. They can't effectively communicate their actual message to you because they're too busy denigrating everyone who hypothetically disagrees with them.

I get the gist of your argument, I think - needlessly insulting people unrelated to your point just takes attention off of it. I'm not so sure it's the same thing. Usually, when people talk about "libtards" and "conservatards", they're strawmanning, which means their argument is not as logically coherent as they might think. I don't think Stallman is building a strawman here - he never speculates about what useds are doing, in fact, almost all his arguments are about Facebook.

It is precisely Stallman's argument that people are made into hapless pawns of a megacorp. The usage of the word is his point, and all the argumentation is to demonstrate why the usage of the word is appropriate. Think of a parallel to cults - it's definitely offensive and insulting to some cult members to be described as being part of a cult. However, when your argument is indeed "X is a cult", what words would you use? Would you shy away from using 'cult members' and 'cult'?

It's also not obvious that it is Stallman's goal to convince people who are happily using Facebook to stop using it - many of his arguments are about people being pressured into joining Facebook, through friends and relatives, and pressured into giving up their anonymity. His arguments could relieve some of the social anxiety those people are feeling("am I the only one that doesn't like Facebook? I should shut up and join..."), for example, and help them reject Facebook.

Just to be clear, this isn't sarcasm? The use of this word caused you to ascribe to him a multitude of opinions that can not be derived from his arguments, which has led you to boycott any project he's been associated with? And Stallman is the unstable one here?

I think they were referencing the "go play with the kids down the street" part.

If their diet is what is causing them to commit violent crimes, which is what the majority of prisoners are in for, not weed, then yeah, that diet is a problem. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-real-answer-to-...

Do you also block all US IPs to avoid patent infringement claims? What makes you think the GDPR is broader in scope than the patents the USPTO hands out? In the patents' case, there is even a direct financial incentive for companies to sue you, whereas in the GPDR the interest of the regulatory body is primarily compliance.

This does not resonate with my experience. In the US, reporters will often describe sentences as "up to 1024 years", but the actual sentences are different. See https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

Note that, in parallel to the EU regulation, the statutory maximums can be enacted(ever since Booker judges can use their discretion again), but in reality most judges rule within the sentencing guidelines.

I think you're giving too much weight to the questioner's feelings, and none to the answerer's. Sure, the questioner might feel unwelcome when answers are curt and elitist. But also, the answerers might feel unwelcome when the questioners don't put in at least some effort in their question. Why do you privilege the questioners over the answerers? As a worst case scenario, how do you plan to supply unpaid volunteers who are willing to spend x10 the effort for each questioner? Many of the policies under fire here came out from people criticizing SO for having too many "spam" questions and not retaining experts' interest.

Here's a discussion to the same effect: https://twitter.com/robconery/status/974678531832610816?lang...

The accepted answer is decided by the person asking the question - I'm not sure SO moderators are allowed to change an accepted answer(at the very least, they're heavily disincentivized to do so). I think your example is a case for more moderation, not less.

Alternatively, assuming good faith, he claims that this is a possible explanation, and that perhaps Hanlon fell victim to the very common base rate fallacy on his off-hand comment.

But the goal of SO is not for you two to have a chat - it's to produce quality questions and answers for future visitors. When SO's moderation team does its job well, you only see them "harassing" you. When they don't, you google your question and get vague, poorly-worded questions answered by incorrect one-liners. SO's moderation is an effort to balance three parties with conflicting interests:

- the people asking questions just want a solution for their specific problem, which may or may not be useful to SO. This can include homework problems, RTFM problems, vague and unclear questions, etc.

- the people answering questions want interesting questions that stimulate them to keep using the site. SO really needs those people to feel happy answering questions, otherwise no one will visit the site! You need experts providing quality answers, who can find something interesting.

- the people visiting the site after-the-fact. Those people are (usually) just googling a problem they have, but aren't willing to commit to a question. They need both the questioners and the answerers to have done their jobs, otherwise either the questions are too poor a quality to be sure it's the same problem, or the answers are too poor quality to be of use to them.

To all those groups, effective SO moderation looks antagonistic, because they wouldn't go to the site if it had awful moderation - it would just be "that useless place where no one answers your questions and you keep getting the same question over and over".

Are those the only two options? How about a haystack full of maybe-needles, where each answer is subtly wrong because no one has the willingness to go through and vet all of them?

Er...why does this suck? What do you replace it with?