semperdark

Interesting. I've heard that before, it does seem to be mostly a matter of building up a solid reputation over time and getting referrals. Thanks for the info!

How do you market yourself? Personal network?

They also own 40% of Fortnite.

Quarterly GDP growth was 4.1%, which is not unprecedented at all, if uncommon. We had a quarter of 5.1% growth in 2014. Annual GDP growth of 4.1% would be a really big deal.

Unfortunately, it can't protect you from China.

To give some local context, this building is iconic in Detroit. The previous owners let it rot for decades, and Ford's purchase has been a huge PR win in Michigan.

Part of the reason it has such a high profile around here is just how far it fell. It's been popular in "ruin porn" profiles of Detroit. Ford will need to do an enormous amount of work restoring it, as it's been left without even window panes (or boards!) for a long time.

I've always liked this building, so to me it feels like the Empire State Building being owned by a slumlord who ignored it for 20 years.

Ah, I see now - sorry for the misunderstanding. I was so surprised by the post that I didn't stop to consider alternative meanings.

I'm sincerely interested in the motivation that leads to hoping your government controls what you may read.

Is it protectionism? Shielding people from radicalization?

You should see Nevada - the federal government owns 85% of the land there.

No, not my web service. Some may be, but my web service is still punished. Most of the rules apply even if you are sharing no data with third parties.

If this was just about third-party trackers, the EU could have written a law similar to the cookie warning. People who care about that (including myself) can use browser addons or block third-party cookies.

I was debating whether to remove that sentence, and ended up adding the (non-structural) part because I though someone might take the analogy that way. Note that fire codes in particular don't exist in many places, including much of the U.S.

Nobody is going to die from not exporting their data - except in medical software, where the current U.S. feature checklist regulations haven't helped. For many websites, GDPR is next to pointless while adding broad legal requirements.

Only public companies are required to respect GAAP, and they choose to do so because they want access to a regulated market.

Is a building on Pluto subject to the same building codes? If my server spontaneously combusts, should I warn those with IPs near mine that theirs may catch fire?

You have no obligation to visit my web service, enter data into it, or interact with it. It takes up no space, and you have no "passing" interactions with it.

The contention is that others should not be allowed to use my web service, unless it provides you certain features.

I'm believe we should support privacy on the web, but this is not the way to do it.

I think that you're misunderstanding the spirit of the "full force" comment. The fact that I'm subject to the "full force of the legal system" to with regards to preventing murder, doesn't justify every new regulation and its effects.

Does the law prevent it, if I don't want to spend time adding a full account verification system for personal data dumps, permanent data deletion, and other requirements?

Right, that's fine in the real world, where the existence of something affects you. Real objects take up physical space, and can be noisy, polluting, or inaccessible.

Nobody is forcing you to look at, interact with, or even acknowledge the existence of my local web server. There is no stronger sense of the word "voluntary" than the one that can be used to describe web services. My service doesn't even exist to you, unless you explicitly choose to engage with it.

You, on the other hand, believe that it should not be allowed to exist for other people (at legal gunpoint!), unless it conforms to the features that you believe it should have.

This is more akin to not being allowed to invite people into my home, unless my bathroom and kitchen meet certain (arbitrary, non-structural) requirements.

It's astounding to me that people believe they're entitled to force free services to provide them extra features by the force of law.

You're not allowed to launch a service that provides X, and if you want to, you must also include X + Y + Z.

Am I allowed to even open a port to a server on my local machine that allows users to voluntarily enter some information and does something with it, without being subjected to the full force of the legal system?

I have some experience with the US medical software industry, and this sort of feature-checklist regulation doesn't improve anything. All it does is lock in the existing players and prevent any innovations that aren't explicitly outlined in the law.

Wow. I've been checking in on the Crystal ecosystem every few weeks, but I somehow missed Amber. It feels like someone has finally cracked the code that made Rails great.

Not pedophilia, I hope? Unclear if you mean this century (2000 onwards) or the last hundred years (1918 onwards).

Third, doctors order unnecessary but "by-the-book" tests to document things that they already know in case of a malpractice lawsuit.

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

Bug report: When I add an invalid link (Like "123") to the Links widget it sends a request to "publicApi/links" which hangs for a few minutes before failing.

It looks like you're requesting the URL server-side to provide a preview, you may want to validate the URL before making the request, or catch invalid requests.

Spotify is a European company, but in the US there are limits to the numbers of shareholders allowed in private companies. Something similar may apply here.

I have no experience in the Aerospace industry; won't announcing that the A380 is so precarious make airports reluctant to spend on supporting them anyway?

Maybe the huge numbers at play here change the economics, but in other industries a signal like this would often kill off all related investment.

It sounds extreme, but it's definitely necessary in order for a service to be treated like a tool. When was the last time your screwdriver decided to fail for undefined reasons? For that matter, how about your text editor?

For something like a voice interface to become second nature, you need to deeply trust that it'll do what you expect. Work with screwdrivers enough and they become an extension of your hand.

Thank you for the recommendation, I may just pick it up.

It's not just you. I've been running a company on Rails for four years - never heard of that book.

Interesting enough to be frustratingly incomplete. I wish they had the time to go into more depth rather than debating the meaning of terms.

Your point seems to have changed. The point of those replying to you is that snap judgements happen, and rarely are they correct. Your point was that we should be putting them into a global database for others to make second-hand judgements from bad data.

Growing up in a racist area and taking a public stand against racism would give one a very poor score, even after leaving.

This post gave me a negative opinion of you. See how this works?

The arrogance is unreal. Your difficulty communicating with your customers is not my problem. Keep it out of my website.

This is a perfect example of the culture problem at Comcast. You seem to have worked yourselves into believing that you're something other than a dumb pipeline. Now you feel entitled to stick your fingers into the content.

I suspect this mass-psychosis is coming from the top, and the need to move into higher-margin businesses. Keep your messages on xfinity.com.

Not monopolistic, but pretty obnoxious. I don't think that move made them many friends.

This post was built to influence the largest number of people possible. The title is worded to reach people that don't click with the suggestion that the accepted view in the community is that they aren't spying. It's also by a newly-created account made by a Facebook Ads employee.

The microphone privacy invasion rumor has spread so far without evidence because people are tired of the 1000 other privacy invasions for which there is evidence. They don't care whether or not this specific instance is true. People are tired of FB being openly scummy at every other turn. FB is the least respected tech company for a reason.