jamiemchale

Plus the config for the individual bases is plain text, so in theory the queries could be read and run in other software too.

Can anyone explain how long they expect this potential effect to last? The vaccine DNA presumably breaks down / dissipates after a period of time? And the spike protein fragments too? What might that period of time be?

And this is totally fine! CoCs are there for the end-of-the-line decisions where the "being reasonable" options have been exhausted. They are also useful sometimes for setting the tone for meetings / events.

The various uses and normal behaviour are not mutually exclusive!

Except, in a lot of circumstances you do need it offline. Rules of order for Parliaments, town hall meetings, and everything in-between. Constitutions for local groups and clubs. Bye-laws for local areas.

Codes of Conducts are a lightweight way of expressing how interactions are goverened and disputes resolved.

The idea that adults don't need rules and guides to fix things is disproven by politics and conflict. Good politics is based on rules. Bad conflict happens when there are none.

The key drawback for Backblaze for me is their lack of decent external HDD support. If you don't connect your external drive for 30 days then the files are marked for deletion.

I usually keep my photo library on external HDD and archive every few months from my laptop. I'd be anxious about not remembering to plug back in to keep the files backed up to the cloud.

If Backblaze sorted this out and extended the time to a year then I'd happily sign up again.

I agree with the other commenters here - it can be a bit 'fuzzy', which is disagreeable to people who like definite answers. Case by case is probably a good way of tackling it. The cases, however, do need to be held in reference to the law, and those laws need to be appropriate for the scope and scale of our communication technology.

If we are arguing that someone needs to be 'remarkable' then I'd be interested in what people think counts as remarkable. You may be remarkable in a certain community, job or geography, but not in others.

At what point are you remarkable enough to lose the right to be forgotten? What counts as being in the public eye? Do you have to desire to be in the public eye?

How do you manage the case of an unremarkable person removing something, then becoming remarkable enough to lose that right?

Isn't there a tremendous upside to being physically co-located? Even if the teams are remote, are the founders not usually located in a 'tech hub' city (SF, NY, etc.)?

Matt says to let people 'live someplace remarkable', but for most of the world that want to work in technology SF is someplace remarkable.

The benefits of using group collaboration tools are still available, but you have other people working on overlapping problems on your doorstep, support and service companies, and access to intelligent finance.

Tweeted about it with hashtagging the name. Checked the hashtag. Deleted the Tweet.

Thanks. It's a really difficult area to navigate. Our digital lives are so bound up with our identities - it's virtually impossible to live in obscurity.

What rights should we have over data about us?

"Is there still a place for single-person bootstrapped company which cannot afford to spend money or time on anything, but the product itself?"

If you have time to spend on the product then you also have time to spend on the research, the marketing, the promotion, and the interaction with your customers.

A business isn't purely about the product - there is so much more you have to do to make it successful.

Thanks for the reply Douglas, I'd dropped you a note via FB asking for advice on how to proceed.

It's a very frustrating position to be in. I can understand why you need to test, and the arguments in favour of preventing spam.

It does seem that when you play by (what you think are) the rules you can get screwed, as others take advantage of the system. It's been a very frustrating few days!

They have a blog called "Operation Developer Love" and a 90 day breaking changes policy - but it hasn't been followed in this case.

The problem that I had, and why I wrote about it, is that Facebook didn't follow their own policy on breaking changes.

We had planned to use Facebook-only for the first phase of the app - as it has a prebuilt social graph, friend model, and notifications system. Easy to use, and with a large base of users.

I guess my point is that even if you think you have taken a calculated risk (90 days breaking changes), the companies can find a way to mess up your plans anyway!

This is what I was trying to achieve with my app. The Request notifications were for individual users - not pre-ticked.

The problem is that creating something that people actually want, working via the channels that Facebook provides for people to access the Social Graph is very risky, as they can move the goalposts at any point.

The main frustration here is that the Requests are those that are actively initiated by a user. A friend is actively trying to invite you to the app, rather than just an app spamming those who have once installed it.

The point was that if Facebook are providing the APIs and encouraging developers to use them then it's a crappy thing to yank the rug away.

I don't think that it's a great idea to build a business model that relies on Facebook - but at some stages of developing an app it is very useful to use Facebook facilities to implement a social graph and notifications, so that you don't have to.