scott_w

I 100% agree with everything you said and more. I spent a significant amount of time at my job arguing constantly with the entire engineering department that “Feature Flags” are not all the same thing and had to push back on efforts to mix them all up.

Examples:

Experiment flags for A/B testing

Permission checks at a user level

Product flags for feature gating by plan

Rollout flags to launch a new feature gradually

Configuration for an account/system/feature

The number of times I had to push against the “just put it behind hasFeatureFlag(user, flag)” is more than I can count at this point! I think it comes from a misunderstanding of the DRY principle, to be honest.

I’m not here to defend credit agencies but I will point out that the GDPR does put the onus on them to make sure the information is accurate. This is a net positive.

The power to delete your data with them would actually result in exactly the situation you described, likely without the requester knowing that’s what’ll happen!

> If that's right than handling a GDPR data request 100% according to the rules would require having some way to search nearly every computer we've got looking for anything concerning any particular customer.

You’re only half right. If you habitually store data and never delete it from those stores, yes, you have to find and provide it. If they’re temporary (voicemail, fixing a specific issue) and you remove it as soon as it’s no longer needed, you’ll be fine.

> It included a vast amount of things that the company had inferred from the data.

If you’ve tied it to that person, it’s in scope. It’s literally part of GDPR.

> Customer service rep sends an email to their supervisor saying the customer won't take reasonable advice and then gets abusive and asking the supervisor how to deal with future calls from them?

Possibly but you could argue not because that could be business risk.

> I make a list on my computer of customers that I think are exploiting a bug in our billing system to get a lower price, print out that list and assign it to someone to investigate and fix the bug if it exists.

No, you have a valid reason to not share that, as long as you remove the PII once you’re done.

> leaves a voice mail where they include "my new credit card number is <xxx> with security code <yyy> and expiration date <zzz>", that's supposed to show up in their GDPR data.

If you’re deleting voicemails as you address them you’re fine, you won’t need to include this just because you didn’t get round to deleting it yet.

> So first you tell me to blindly trust officals, now i should leave country! Great advice!

Again, context. I’m bored of explaining it to you like a toddler so I’ll just tell you to reread my comments very slowly and figure it out.

> GDPR is drafted by EU. They went way too far, and made it imcompatible with local laws!

This is just a nonsensical statement. GDPR has been in force for 7 years. You haven’t given an example of where it changes, because it fundamentally hasn’t.

> You said "shady shit"!

Look, I don’t think English is your first language, so I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it’s getting really tiring having to explain basic things like “context” to you. I’m obviously meaning in the context of data governance. I’m accusing you of selling customer data to unscrupulous characters, to be precise.

> You obviously have no idea how business here works! Some gov offical will tell you to delete data for GDPR. Some other gov offical will ask for the same data latter, to prove tax records or people complied with vacine mandates! You get fined from both sides!

Either you’re bullshitting me or you live in Eastern Europe and need to give kickbacks to stay in business. If the latter, that’s not the GDPR’s fault. It’s the fault of your government for not being able to draft law.

> Every two years there is a big law reform of some area, while other areas with conflicting laws are still in effects.

That’s not the GDPR, that’s your country having a poor grasp of how to make law. It’s a different problem and I’d recommend either lobbying your local representative or just leave to a sane country which will let you do business.

> just because I have small profits, does not mean i sell drugs!

I never said anything about drugs. I’m talking about doing illegal things with people’s data.

> And than you get different offical, with different opinion. Their advice have same weight as weather forecast!

If you’re getting audited this often you are DEFINITELY playing fast and loose with the rules. I have no sympathy for you.

While you might hate them, you don’t want your data to be removed from their systems. If you’re having a hard time accessing credit with them, imagine what happens when you try to access credit as a ghost.

By “major player” I meant the analytics companies that you pay, not you.

> Yet more extra work!

If “customer asks me to update my records on them, so I do it,” is too much work then you really shouldn’t be in the business that requires it.

> Sounds like work for extra GDPR officer!

Or you just ask “what do I need to do?” The official tells you, you do it, they say “thank you.”

Seriously, all your answers here tell me you’re trying to do some shady shit and not even making money from it. If you were a simple retailer, as your original post implied, you would not be worried about the complexity of handling GDPR.

> GDPR is easy to implement once, but it is constantly changing every year.

No it’s not. If you’re running an online store, compliance is pretty straightforward. Most of the PII you collect has a good reason: payment, fulfilment, fraud prevention, etc. so you don’t need consent for that.

If you’re collecting marketing data, you need to ensure it’s clear that you’re using it for that and keep your records accurate if you’re informed they changed.

For store analytics, your cookie banner covers you, the major players all integrate into standard tools, and they keep their compliance up to date, so you’re fine there.

Small mistakes are very much not punished. Your country’s Data Commissioner equivalent will want to see you try to be compliant first. You’re only going to get put out of business on a first offence if you’re taking the piss. I guarantee any example you provide me as evidence will be exactly that, but feel free to try.

As someone who worked on GDPR compliance just last year, in a company that is deeply affected by it, no, it’s not that complicated.

As someone who, until recently, worked in a company heavily impacted by GDPR, it’s a good thing. It forced the mindset away from “just do whatever is easiest,” to considering how it affects where our customer’s data is stored.

Was it a PITA? Sometimes, yes.

Was it stressful having a conversation with Legal to determine whether we had a PII leak under the GDPR terms that would mean we had to reach out to customers? Definitely.

But you know what? That’s the cost of doing business. The outcome for EU citizens was that their data is in a better place than it otherwise would have been. And that’s a good thing.

> Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion.

You’re correct but missing the point entirely. I’m answering “why are the MoJ spending money on this?” Whether one should change the law is irrelevant to answering that question.

Doubtful. I suspect the CEO was the one doing the estimating, so any number you give him is ignored in favour of what he provides instead.

That does not counter my point at all. There's a gaping maw between "a person's back garden" and "The North Sea." To demonstrate the difference to yourself, look up "Trump International Golf Links Aberdeen" and "Aberdeen Bay Wind Farm" on Google Maps and tell me the gap, in miles, between the two properties.

Once you've done that, think about the analogy you want to draw and ask it. Because your current analogy is fucking idiotic.

Which laws? Who is "they?" Be clear.

I took the wording from the article:

> The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street. A further £35,300 was spent on overtime and security costs.

I also double-checked against Historic England and I think the one you're referring to is the Law Courts (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1...). It looks like there's a number of buildings in the law courts area between Carey Street and The Strand and each one has its own grading.

> The dull blocks have no character

That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion.

> the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character.

That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion.

> It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.

What on earth are you waffling on about? Speak like a human being instead of getting ChatGPT to write comments for you.

Just to be clear, you're asking the Ministry of Justice, the department responsible for maintaining the court system, to break the law? I can't think how that could have horrendous long-term consequences...

For the comments questioning why the MoJ are doing this, and the reason for the costs, the information can be found in the article:

> A HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesperson said: "The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character."

This is the why. HMCTS don't have the option to "just leave it" because they're obligated by legislation to remove the graffiti. Discussions about whether it'll bring in tourism are irrelevant to the discussion. The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.

As for the costs:

> Court staff barricaded off the area and guarded it. Attempts to clean off the mural began immediately.

> Westminster City Council will have to inspect the wall and if the removal is deemed incomplete, another cleaning method will have to be used.

> As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced.

> A Listed Building Consent (LBC) application has been submitted for the installation of railings across the wall that Banksy targeted.

All of this costs money, it's not just a case of putting a bit of turps on the wall and job done. It'll require experts to remove it without causing further damage.

It's a Grade II-listed building meaning you have to be very careful with it to restore it to its previous state. It's not enough to give it a good scrub, you've also got to ensure you minimise damage to the stonework. There'll also be required paperwork with the local authority to ensure the work they're doing is correct.

My uneducated guess would be that the pressure is the natural state because of the fluid/gas involved, much the same way sediment eventually settles at the bottom of a bottle of orange juice. Over time, the gas will just naturally form inside your joints that way.

Speak plainly. You’re making no sense whatsoever.

Wind turbines are not data centres.

The sea is not part of Donald Trump’s property.

Fair point: I was using the information in the article to form my opinion. I still think that, if the developer in question ignored a compiler error as described, that’s a serious competence issue. It’s harder to spot after the fact because any reviewers wouldn’t have had a chance to see the compiler output.

The article makes the fair point of the size of the change and the complete lack of information in the commit message, which should have set off alarm bells…

Honestly, I'm going to be a bit harsher: I think they're either:

1. A novice who doesn't know how to debug issues.

2. Totally incompetent and copying code from Stack Overflow.

I don't think it's specific to microcontrollers, either, the error from the C compiler is something that a competent programmer would be able to interpret, or at least see it as a signal to get someone more experienced in the domain to learn about.

> This claim that football has always been the "people's game" is in the end sanctimonious romantic nonsense.

I never said that.

> If we're talking about games out in the park, then football is "part of a working class community"

I never said that though it’s true, it’s not necessary for my argument.

> Even if we go back a hundred years, the major clubs were owned by factory owners and other such types.

True but irrelevant to my argument.

> If you want working class football, then it's well outside the premier leagues and even first divisions. But unfortunately that's the stuff most people are interested in watching.

Modern day Premier League attendance is a mix, depends on the club and it’s harder to assess because the class makeup of the UK has changed a lot in the past 50 years.

> Anyway, I've probably written way too much on this subject.

You have, most of it total nonsense. Best you stop before you show yourself up even more.

> I don't live in England

I can tell.

> Maybe not yours.

So why do you continue to talk about it? I know the history and it’s not relevant to my argument.

> It's used this working class status thing to put down other sports.

I’m not doing that, so it’s irrelevant to this discussion.

> there were plenty of "gentleman amateur"

This is the only part that’s relevant. It’s not a rebuttal because a small number of clubs doesn’t change the fact that the vast majority were being supported as part of a working class community.

Literally none of the things you said refute my statement

> depending on where you are in the UK,

I specifically referred to English clubs. The fact that other home nations prefer different sports has no bearing on English culture. The fact that multiple sports are considered working class has no bearing on the fact that football is one of those sports.

> Soccer has conflated its history with the medieval games of folk football

Irrelevant. My frame of reference was working class people over the last century. What Mediaeval England did was never part of my argument.

While true, it’s not a refutation at all. Look at the attendance makeup of every English club in the last 100 years, listen to the stories of the people who grew up supporting their local team, the young boys that grew up playing and became local or national heroes. That tells you where the soul of football lives.

Did you miss this part?

> If the company collapses, those people lose their jobs anyway?

We can do what you suggest but the result is the same for the people being laid off.