parasense

> but the value you bring to the company!

I hear you! But the value brought to the company is still relative to the cost of doing business, and that ultimately becomes calculous on where the business & employee are located.

This is the whole idea with outsourcing. I'm sure cheap labor in less developed places like Mexico, India, or China... provides huge value for the foreign companies. In those other economies the workers can be paid a huge amount of money compared to the local average, and yet still be significantly lower than equivalent people living in the developed world.

The concept is not limited to other counties, it makes perfect sense here in the USA and around Europe. People earning 100k in a place like Alabama or Mississippi are high earners in their area. Take that same person, same amount of pya, but put them in San Jose... now they are effectively in poverty.

What is 100k worth to somebody in China, Mexico, or India? Just because that's the cost of somebody somewhere else, doesn't mean the same applies to people located elsewhere. Likewise, same applies to people in Colorado.

That's fine, actually.

Why would anybody have an expectation of privacy from aerial vehicles far above?

Nonesense...

* What about looking at people with one's own eyes, without the express consent of other people?

* What about people with photographic memory, who are effectively walking cameras?

* What about artists who draw pictures of people they see in public?

Where does this nonsense ever end? While the question is hyperbolic, and I apologize, that's intentional use of the "Reducto absurdum" fallacy to help illustrate the absurdity of this kind of idea.

Violence huh?

That's what this conversation is devolving into, a fluidic interpretation of violence? Seems like a strawman argument; change the topic to violence, then argue a truism that violence is bad... all the while maintaining a pretend causal link between privacy and violence?

Sorry. Not. Persuasive.

That said, for the sake of civility and moving past this distractio... I will concede the point you seem so adamant to make, violence is not so simple. But again, not on-topic here, and it adds nothing to the conversation.

My dude, that's not ancient at all! You should be good, so that's perpelxing.

You can try my improved version in the comments: https://gist.github.com/rudolfschmidt/b79b7864bac19cc7148edf...

Skype resembled malware back in those times. No idea where you got the "pretty good" stuff?

Like, an ancient version of bash.

Can you please try doing this:

$ echo $BASH_VERSION

It's the natural outcome of the EU's chosen policies.

> Collecting and selling digital data is not a legitimate business enterprise.

According to who, you?

> It’s spyware.

How is it spying when the people are freely giving away their data?

> If no one wants to pay for your product, the market has spoken. Too bad.

Very true, however it's not clear how a truism about something else relates to the topic? Was this supposed to be persuasive about collecting digital data?

> We must correct the insanity and digital economic imbalance that spyware businesses have created.

Fair enough, but that entails not creating or fostering an imbalance by constantly providing the internet with your personal information.

> 1. They are ugly. Honestly, the code with typing is not pythonic, at all.

Not pythonic according to who, you? Besides, all the ugly type annotations could be moved out of the executing code, and into separate files. https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/#stub-files

> 2. They require additional knowledge to implement correct type hints. The language is much less complex without them. It is even getting hard to track the changes without including typing.

Correct, one is required to know how to do something in order to do that thing correctly. This argument is fallacious because it relies on a truism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism

> 3. It encourages bikeshedding on features useless to the core language. Manpower is wasted on something the majority of Python developers and applications don't really benefit from.

So a topic that causes vibrant discussion is a bad thing according to you? Okay, so assuming you actually believe that, would you then agree Python language features should be unilaterally implement without any discussion? If however the result of a discussion is an agreement to move one way or the other, and that outcome is according to you wasted time? Exactly which discussions are or not wastes of times, perhaps just the one's you don't like? People who make tough decisions, and who have tough conversations are the proverbial "adults in the room", so perhaps you should avoid those kind of things? (I'm not trying to disparage you, just say you might better choose what you ignore or pay attention to)

4. It creates the rift in the language. The language is "extended" with features that push the developing tools (such as Pycharm) in the certain direction. The editors and IDEs have become too reliant on type hints, so they changed their linting algorithms to basically require typing. Now they are nearly useless without them. This creates the division in our community and further pushes away those who don't want typing in their code. Sure, they are not required, at least for now. But people are really making it harder to develop without them.

There is no rift in the language. You are not required to use new features you don't want to use. For example: Got an issue with the walrus operator? Fine, write more lines of conditional statements to do the same thing. Don't like type analysis, fine... you run the risk of non-obvious bugs in the code you write, or hitting bugs with imported libraries 5-levels deep. As for the IDE's, you make a fair point... perhaps real programmers should use vim or Notepad instead? Type hints are going into most of the popular libraries, and unless your responsible for one of those, I fail to see your point... no body is forcing you to use type hints, much less vigorously encouraging you to use type hints. There is no type hints conspiracy to encourage you to use them.

5. It affects the startup performance. It is not a big hit if the application is small but it adds up.

I'm super skeptical of your claim. At most the runtime would have __annotations__ attributes declared, and you will have a difficult time persuading people that populating those magic double-under (dunder) variables has any significant cost. https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#introspection-...

> So please, stop with the useless typing PEPs. Fork the language if you must. But don't call it Python anymore.

Don't let the door kick you on the way out.

For perspective, Apple was scanning iphones for allegedly illegal files, based on their hashsum. However, I'm not sure the database of illegal hashsums is publicly available?

Presumably Google is doing the same thing, but in the cloud. However, does anybody have access to the database of copyrighted hashsums?

If society is going towards a world where we blanket filter based on the file's hashsum, then perhaps the government entity overseeing copyright should have a public database of these hashsum's? That way the public can know things are, or not, prior-art? Not only prior art, but potentially illegal in other ways.

I feel like this is a very common delusion, the expectation of privacy when going into public.

It's like public photography. Some folks get really upset if their photo is taken out in public without consent, but those folks were out in public so zero expectation of privacy. Same exact thing for the Internet.

If for example the high range is ~200k in the SF bay area, but the low range is ~80k in Denver.... that isn't about gender inequity, it's about geographic cost-of-living inequity.

Let's be for real here, cut the crap.

This is not about gender equity issues as the labor law purports, it's about people wanting to earn that FAT silicon valley salary, but live somewhere cheap(er) like Denver. I totally get it, and to be fair we all probably would like for that to happen to ourselves. My modest home in Dallas area would be worth Millions in the Bay area, so I totally understand why people in that area are paid more, and yet still get less quality of living by comparison.

I dunno, I want to be polite... but honestly I feel like my spidey-senses detect a level or willful ignorance, or intellectual dishonesty with people advocating for this kind of thing. If Colorado actually catches an employer paying women less as a result of this law, that's awesome! But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that press release from CO labor dept. What I think is actually happening is Colorado wants to support it's remote workforce by forcing higher salary jobs from the Coastal cities.

The only issue I have with the law, is the compelled speech. It seems that the idea of this law is that job posting are not normal speech, but I guess "commercial speech" and therefor regulated outside the 1st amendment. ehh

Yes.

Technically Soft Bank still owns 49% of arm-china subsidiary, and they could theoretically take control back... but the belligerent CEO of arm-china has supposedly setup private security forces barring access to the facilities, and there is something about a legal seal. So far Soft Bank has opted not to escalate the situation any further. There is of course a lot more to the story.

> Additionally I believe there are still restrictions on the export of strong crypto.

That might be true, however exporting strong crypto is easily achieved by publishing the source code in a textbook, which is exactly what the Author of PGP did back in the days. At this point the goverment probably wouldn't dare file criminal charges for exporting strong crypto, because said crypto would probably be published under the 1st amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i...

But it's a red herring, because in present day modern crypto in the sense of a munition is so far ahead of what block chain technology actually uses that it's a moot point. We are developing quantum resistant cryptography that moves away from traditional ideas. Like for example, RSA modular arithmetic that can be done concurrently by a quantum computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_arithmetic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12Q3Mrh03Gk

> You would think that freedom of expression would cover that but it does not.

It does, at least in terms of source code. Same issue with 3D printed firearms, the source code is free expression. However, taking the source code and printing/machining a ghost gun is an entirely different topic. Same goes for blockchain, but it's nuanced. If somebody perceive cryptocoin as a kind of financial "Securities", then the exchange of crypto could be regulated as commerce. But what if the exchange is not financial? What if a blockchain doesn't have any "platform" to regulate, such as services that trade crypto for ccurrency?

What if I use a blockchain to publish a book, for instance the source code of the blockchain itself could be in the blockchain. We start to see paradoxes and circular reasoning. Blockchain schemes have both commercial speech, and regular speech.

I used to think the ideas of NixOS were great, but then I learned about `ostree`, and in my opinion things like Project Atomic (in Fedora), are probably more pragmatic or straightforward idiomatic implementation of those ideas. In essence the software packages resemble how git works behind the curtain.

Git has a bunch of objects with cryptic names resembling hashsum's, and those are the files in your git working tree, they are sorta symbolically linked into the working-tree of the git repo. In the case of ostree, the working tree is a filesystem path such as the root of your filesystem. You can checkout a branch of the root filesystem on bootup, etc... and it's great for A/B testing because if there are any problems one simply boot into the previously known-good branch, etc.

The problem there is people sorta hate having to reboot after modifying the HEAD of the ostree repo, which might conceptually resemble a git commit into the main branch. Flatpak to the rescue, which is itself another implementation of `ostree` but not for entire root fielsystems, but for the package's filesystem layout, what you might think of as the contents of any given nixos package path. The same kind of things happen, bundle libraries can be different in different runtimes, and multiple runtimes can co-exist, and their file objects are deduplicated, and shared or isolated. The configuration language is JSON, so it's easy to manage as a packager.

> lowers sperm count

Alas!

We can probably have an interesting conversation about evolution, adaptation, and fitness for survival.

Besides the obvious potential for lower population growth, how does a lower sperm count of any entire set of generations impact the future species, and society?

> but if there's an overriding reason to protect consumers, then it is entirely irrelevant how long companies have been doing this, how many do this and in what other countries they do it.

I hear what you're trying to say, but there are problems with this basis.

There is no clear established legal-nexus between the your purported statement of "protecting consumers", and banning the use of any data center owned by multi-national corporate entities who host protected data exclusively internal to the EU in accordance with all known EU data-protection regulations. Now to be clear, I'm not saying this is your statement or position.... but it's what you wrote.

So it boils down to a false-dichotomy; This is protectionism, but not to be confused with consumer protection. The protectionism is the kind protecting EU owned & operated data centers.

I think analogies are awful, but to give an analogy it's like banning a product sold by any multi-national corporation simply on the basis they are not originally EU multi-national corporations. For instance, banning the sale of McDonald's chicken-nuggets, because McDonald's is a foreign corporation, and then alleging the corporation violate the consumer data protection laws because the nuggets are not EU nuggets

It makes no sense because there is no causal-link or rational basis, it's all irrational. Just because irrational laws have been the norm for a while, as you say particularly in Germany, doesn't make them rational now. That's a variation of the ad-populism fallacy.

I would imagine that a virus would eventually adapt/evolve to a point to where it co-exists harmoniously with the host organism. I've heard somewhere that herpes simplex virus used to have terrible symptoms, like genital blisters, but over the years the most common variant has no symptoms, and most people have no idea they have it.... and a huge proportion of human have it.

I would imagine all viral contagions would eventually go that route. Because a virus cannot propagate if the host organism goes extinct, or for whatever reason the host organism is itself not fit for survival, or diminished in any way.... anything that might impact virus propagation.

I've read some where the common cold was probably a pandemic virus originally, and it mutated to a common cold we have today, and we mutually evolved to deal with the common cold. Something like that...

I would like to think it's an invalid contractual clause at face value

Actually, what happens is a channel you were subscribed to, or one which you have consumed enough content from to influence the YT algorithm.... has been compromised, taken over, the password was discovered by crypto miners.

They take over the channel, change a bunch of settings, etc... then start spewing out the usual Space-X live stream crypto-mining pyramid-scam. Sometimes if you look at the channel hosting the live-stream, you can sometimes still see clues to the old channel you were subscribed. You have to audit through the videos and playlists, old comments, etc...

> Garg told Fortune that a month earlier, the company began to review employee productivity data, including missed telephone call rates, number of inbound and outbound calls, employees showing up late to meetings with a customer, and other metrics.

I mean, data driven decision making is actually pretty great!

I'm curious how many people here would disagree?

That being said, who here thinks the CEO had a complete picture of the performance metrics? Or perhaps he was operating from an intentionally incomplete data-set to self-fulfill a prophecy, or some other ulterior motive?

I call BS.

Why?

You should see this video for an explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

> Bold move for a declining country like the UK

Agreed

Not sure why the UK regulators are even concerned about the Giphy deal, it's small time... like, compared to the Nvidia + Arm deal.

> Meta could probably just pull out of the UK entirely without any serious bottom line impact.

Not sure about that, but there are plenty of options. Meta probably needs data-centers in the UK, but those could in theory move to Ireland at great expense, probably at far more expense than the Giphy deal was worth. Then comes the issue of Facebook employees in the UK, and to what extent their jobs contribute to the UK economy, and what impact that would have for those jobs to move to another country. I'm not sure regulating Facebooks' small-time deals like Giphy is worth the potential risk of losing Facebook in the UK.

Another potential way forward would be to sell Giphy, then create new Giphy-like business unit. I'd argue this is perhaps the least expensive way forward, costing more than it was to buy Giphy, yet much less than the cost of moving UK operations out.

It's not ironic at all, nor is it very persuasive.

It's pretty well established truism by now that start-ups are a business model where the founders and angel investors become wealthy once the business sells. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of how many start-ups sellout, continue as an independent entity, or completely fail. Regardless, just because Facebook recognizes the business culture in the SF Bay area is not a persuasive argument for why they should be broken up.

> Bodycams are frankly an attempt to answer "who watches the watchmen", porch cameras are not.

That's missing the point, and possibly willfully missing the point?

The point is.... people are being watched. Both criminals and police change their behavior when they know they're being monitored, or under surveillance.

> They both involve cameras but I don't see the connection aside from that, and would dispute one thing being the inverse of the other.

Again, I can only guess willful ignorance it to blame. criminals take steps to avoid cameras, or cover their faces. Police are less likely to abuse their authority when the body cam is activated. Do you see the connection, in both scenarios the subject changes behavior.

I think the Browsers should swing the axe the other direction. Indicate the website is broken when EV certificates are present. Also, indicate all websites are broken if/or when the Root-CA-trust ever be forcefully extended to include EV CA authorities, in particular state backed authorities.

I'm not sure about the EU, but forcing browsers green-light weak security is a violation of the USA's 1st amendment freedom of speech. Regrettably I would not be surprised if EU took a more authoritarian stance.

Interest rates on treasury notes need to rise, period the end.

Yes, I understand the implications and entailment, but don't care about the risks. The cure has side-effects, yes... we get it, but low interest rates is cancer that cannot be allowed to become systemic new-normal nonsense. 10 or 20 years from now is when we see the lagging effects, and of course the problem we have now is short-term thinking.

This is effectively the inverse equality of police body cameras resulting in less belligerent policing, etc...

Does anybody remember back in the early 2000's when ISO attempted a passive-aggressive coup on the TIA/ANSI standard for Category Ethernet cabling? For Years the TIA ( Telecommunications Industry Association) was evolving "Category Cable" standards, then one day the ISO declared a new category cable with a sequential number bump of the previous TIA standard, which was cat-6. ISO called their so-called new standard Cat-7. I write so-called because there was already preliminary draft work on the same technology by members of the incumbent standards body (TIA). Pretty much ISO modified the TIA's existing draft with a certain member company's ideological opinion on new cable connectors, and rushed it out.

I won't say which ISO member company was pushing hard for their concept of Cat-7, but it was a large European technology company in-and-around Germany, and they had an idea to introduce new cable connectors for which they owned the patent. The new connectors improved interference, and thus improved bandwidth, etc... but were not the backwards compatible traditional RJ-45 style connector the Americans in the TIA were keen to preserve.

This was the most down-played and suppressed drama of all time. Both parties played it very diplomatically, and made absolutely zero public fuss about the issue of ISO attempting to assert itself into another standards body's domain. You may have noticed one or two belligerent nerds on IRC chatting pedantically about this topic every few years. Mostly one clueful nerd saying there is no such thing as Category-7 cable, as if to say that if the TIA doesn't make the standard for cable, it doesn't exist, etc... while another would say that any standards body can make a standard, etc... implying that they didn't care who makes the standard. Regardless, it was well outside the zeitgeist of Networking professionals in the industry, meaning your average network administrators. That is why the ISO thought they could get away with the scandal.

Ultimately the issue was resolved when the TIA established Cat-6a, and then Cat-8, thereby re-establishing their line in the row of category cables. Cat-7 was simultaneously ignored by most-all the members of the TIA member companies, and not certified by many vendors for interoperability. That said, Cat-7 was interoperable using RJ-45 style connectors. It was a sort of industry wide scarlet-letter, the TIA was going to make Cat-7 irrelevant by having the previous standard adopt sub-categories, E.G. cat-6a, cat-6b, etc... And of course reasserting itself sequentially in the versioning scheme they themselves created.

Finally, the ISO was going to do the same thing to networking cables, lock the standard away behind closed doors, but they had misappropriated the technology from an open standard. It's probably unethical, or at least shady. To them it was a new potential revenue stream, and pursing the interests of one of their committee member. All around it stank of collusion, conspiracy, and cronyism.