fromMars

Yeah, this all seems strange to think that young women are only coerced into relationships with old men.

I have seen many young women court older men for various reasons.

The term sugar daddy comes to mind.

One can question the basis of such relationships, but I think it's a huge stretch to suggest they always arise out of force or coercion.

I enjoyed Sandworms.

At some point, I was so sucked into the Dune universe that any continuation would have intrigued me.

Well said. I always bristle when I read an articles drawing such conclusions.

With GDPR no backup can be kept more than 60 days.

Honestly, the biggest problem with GDPR is it's current implementation, i.e. the on demand wipeouts.

Are you sure that GDPR only concerns itself with PII information. In other words, is it legal to collect information about users as long as it isn't tied to PII?

I consider PII to be things like name, Social Security Numbers, a credit card #, an email, DOB, etc.

You seem to be suggesting as long as the data isn't associated with the above or can't reasonably be tied to the above then GDPR doesn't apply.

I am in favor of rules around the usage and collection of PII information. i.e. that information should not be shared with other parties without the user's consent and in general access should be restricted.

My main beef with GDPR, is the difficulty to implement such a system, with on demand wipeout.

> Not sure how when all that changes is the clock.

This is most surely not the case. Many data stores are simply dated collection of files.

With fixed expiration for all data you can simply implement GDPR with things like TTLs and making sure that any downstream systems do not consume data older than a certain date.

With individual wipeouts that can happen at any time this becomes much more challenging.

Now all data, in all systems that use that data have to the ability to wipe data at the individual record level on demand.

This broad implications especially depending on how interpret whether things like derived models, aggregate stats, etc. need to be recalculated in light of GDPR requests.

What constitutes proper justification for keeping information?

That's a fair point. It isn't public information.

But, GDPR applies to any information, even if it isn't available publicly.

Anecdotally, I thought that many companies just decided to exit the European market because the costs of GDPR were so high.

This is so simplistic. There are many storage solutions for many different use cases.

Some of these are write once and immutable afterwards.

There are relational structures for transaction history that may also link to customers.

These all have to be re-designed in such away that information can be removed from the system and exported from the system, while keeping essential information (such as past sales records).

This is not an easy problem to solve.

I don't believe that is true. Credit Bureau's and Insurance companies have information about every place you have lived and worked, what school you attended.

The actual ratings may be waited on information in the last X years.

Also, it is much easier to implement a policy where no data can be retained after X years than on-demand wipeout.

This is a strawman. You are talking personally identifiable information and data usage policies which is an entirely different thing than the requirement for all data to be deleted.

Agree, and it doesn't even exist in most domains. I can't expunge my school transcripts or information from credit bureaus.

Do we really think a society where there is no public information about people better?

I am sure I will get downvoted to oblivion, but I think GDPR is a colossal waste of time and money.

I think mandatory do not track settings are great, but the right to be forgotten is to onerous to implement and not present in other domains.

They do make it harder for smaller businesses to compete.

I can't go to my school or a credit bureau or an insurance company and say that all my past history should be forgotten.

Why should we enforce such a regulation online?

Second the Aluffi book. A brilliant treatment of Abstract Algebra from a categorical point of view.

There are too many code words in that post to take it seriously. What did he mean by "elite", etc.?

I agree. I am not sure that any substantial "loss of privacy" has even occurred.

Just to posit an example, Banks and Credit Bureaus have long tracked extensive information about us including where we have lived, worked, and what we have purchased.

Should we be able to have our credit history erased from Credit Bureau and Banks in the name of privacy?

I am believer in promoting from within for the most part.

At the companies I have worked at, hiring people directly into principal roles hasn't worked well. Invariably, they struggle to fulfill that role because they don't have enough knowledge about the inner workings, code base, etc.

It usually takes them at least a year before they contribute at their level.

Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it makes everyone uncomfortable.

I agree with the previous user that it isn't that different than what Nielsen does to collect TV ratings.

Maybe Facebook's execution here wasn't the best, i.e., I agree that a better device would have some limitations as to what kind of data it could access.

> but with the amount of data that google or facebook has now oit is so easy to smear anyone

I think this problem won't go away even if google or facebook didn't exist. This is a fundamental problem of the internet.

> There are no protections in place as proved by multiple data leeks stories.

Are you referring to data breaches? Not sure what protections you think will prevent them.

> There are no settings provided by tech companies that let use use there services in total anonymous way.

Again, these aren't essential services that you have to use. You can use Google via Duck Duck Go if you like.

You can't use Facebook but you can use What's App if you want end to end encryption.

> Do you think gmail will ever implement end-to-end encrypted email service ever?

I believe they already provide a browser plugin for pgp encryption.

Full end to end encryption would probably require changes to existing email protocols.

> We need such articles to remind people of what they are getting them-self into.

This is a valid point, however the hyperbolic tone of these articles is off putting to me.

I think these companies are handling data in a responsible way.

A more rational conversation around the real risks of these data collection practices, the value of the data,and the exchange of this data for services would be more enlightening, IMO.

Too often these articles and the comments degenerate into X is bad and this bad without any nuance.

Also, as I have stated, it is very easy to not use these services.

> encourage communities to build alternative solutions

I'm all for this. What I am not in favor is asking the government to force these private companies to make these.

> Data that was collected before on an average citizen is puny as compared to what they collect now.

I worked at Credit Card companies a long time ago, and I wouldn't call the data they collected on people puny. In many cases these companies had access to every purchase a person made, every place they lived, their income, etc.

To me that is very sensitive information.

Again, I would like a rational conversation around how is the information that is being collective sensitive.

That might actually be more useful to people.

God, I get sick of these articles on hacker news. The same regurgitated horse bleep.

This has become a meme around here to laud articles like this that use not so subtle words like "surveillance" and "manipulate" to suggest that something much more nefarious is going on here than actually is.

There are already adequate protections in place to deal with these issues. If you don't want to be tracked don't use Facebook or Google or use them and opt out of tracking. It's that simple.

We don't need these hyperbolic articles exaggerating the nature of this problem.

People have been collecting data on us before the digital age.

Credit Card Companies, Banks, and Credit Bureau's have long maintained profiles on us and sold them to partners.

Just curious, were you working while you studied? How did you manage this?

I'm with you but I think it depends on the person.

I have actually found people to be very different in this regard.

For instance, I work in data science and a lot of my peers like to learn about new techniques by applying them to real problems or working with datasets and exploring.

I don't like that approach. I always like to learn the theory of something before using it.

Similarly, I had the goal of learning math for statistics and general relativity among other subjects.

But my desire to have a deep understanding, ended up with me essentially learning the equivalent an undergraduate math degree and selected graduate level topics.

In my case, just learning in a bottom up way with maybe a slight direction would have been sufficient.

I think Pearl is more a theoretician. I believe some of his descendants have done some work that might qualify.

But, I agree that it would be nice if Pearl used real world problems using his methodology.

Sad day for me. Honestly, I'm more scared of the negative economic impact of Amazon than Google. I am big fan of brick and mortar businesses.

> This is a claim that nobody is making. The claim that can be made is that no equivalent effort is made to include men. That is, there is more opportunity for women, but still fewer women ultimately participate.

I think we are at an impasse here. Our definitions of what it means to be denied opportunity in a field are divergent.

I was imagining systemic hurdles to participation. I don't think outreach to a community or even specific scholarships qualify as such.

> If you have had any connection to an HR department at a typical North American company in the 2010s, you would know that programs to specifically recruit men are effectively nonexistent; so it doesn't much matter what the specific measurements for the female recruitment programs are, because no matter how much or how little the investment, it is infinitely more than no investment whatsoever.

I would also posit that focusing on any particular program and claiming since it isn't accessible by all that there is unequal opportunity.

Do you object to the myriad of scholarships that are only available to specific ethnicities?

> Honestly, at some point the corrupting effect of history (especially in sex discrimination, where the effect is not generational [everyone is the descendant of a woman]) is less severe than the corrupting effect of accepting discrimination today as some sort of "balance" to that perception of history.

Agree, which is why I stated that these policies should only last a limited time. The tough question is how long should these policies last.

> You could make a credible case that Gen Z (my generation, by a hair) North American girls have had considerably more encouragement and opportunity to enter TEM fields (the S is more evenly split) than the boys who grew up with them; so will we still discriminate in their favour when it comes to hiring?

I would not find such an argument credible. Clearly males are not being prevented from entering these fields as the ratios of males to females is still greatly skewed.

So it would be far fetched to claim that the effect of these programs that encourage women to participate has denied a significant number of men to enter into these fields.

I would be interested in some concrete facts on just how many of these programs even exist and the monetary expenditure of such programs. As someone from generation X, I know that no such programs existed at that time.

I found this article to be an enlightening analysis of the "Gender Equality Paradox".

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-gir...

In particular,

“Broader economic factors appear to contribute to the higher participation of women in STEM in countries with low gender equality and the lower participation in gender-equal countries.”

I agree that outcome as an indicator is not entirely reliable.

Most likely many factors, including cultural, genetic, and economic, also play large roles in these outcomes.

However, I think it is a reasonable policy to try and reduce differences in outcomes if a group has been historically denied opportunities, at least for some period of time.