testvox

I think they are wrong and actually it's the opposite problem. Some applications and libraries that do their own path mangling on Windows will choke if you give them a /. The win32 file I/O API handles them correctly.

Sorry but this article implies that containers can solve issues like the difference between path separators on Windows and Linux. They can't even solve issues arising from differences in kernal versions, not to mention operating systems.

The courts don't review normal business judgements. Even when there is a fiduciary duty. If that wasn't true then no one would want to risk being a officer because they would be constantly getting sued by upset shareholders.

> The courts will defer to erroneous business judgments, provided that the officers or directors did not show gross negligence in their review and decision-making process. Without this rule in place, many individuals would be unwilling to serve as officers and directors and business people might be reluctant to take commercial risks that could benefit a corporation in the long run.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi...

I don't think too many services have a hard dependency on FB. I haven't had an account for years and while many services do their best to convince you to use FB for auth I've only run into a few very early stage projects that absolutely requires it.

Recording phone conversations secretly without the prior consent of all participants is illegal in many states. No state I am aware of disallows the recording of phone conversations entirely. For instance the law in my "two party consent" state, MA, defines the offense as

> 1. Interception, oral communications prohibited. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this section any person who? willfully commits an interception, attempts to commit an interception, or procures any other person to commit an interception or to attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned in the state prison for not more than five years, or imprisoned in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both so fined and given one such imprisonment.

and defines interception as

> 4. The term 'interception' means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication;...

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Cha...

Going to plug Firefox for Android here because using it with ublock is the only thing I've tried that can make the mobile web tolerable these days.

I follow this design methodology https://github.com/testdouble/contributing-tests/wiki/Discov...

It's focus is not on constant refactoring but constant rewriting. Turns out easily rewritable code means easily deletable code. I think the major drawback of this approach is it's hard to follow for systems where you don't yet have some kind of intuitive sense of how the low level implementation requirements since you end up leaving those for last.

The free market types I know are generally opposed to requiring tax be included because they think it would hide the "true" cost of the tax from consumers. They seem to like when a consumer is disappointed by the difference between the base and "plus tax" price because they think it will motivate people to try to get sales taxes reduced or eliminated.

I find myself optimizing a lot of the features I write for ease of deletion. It keeps the codebase very loosely coupled and makes cleaning up dead features, or rewriting them, easy.

Yes that's the entire point of patents. To pay people for sharing their ideas with others. If your patent can't do that you don't get paid.

Um I have a family friend who is a practicing psychoanalyst. They are still eligible for license in all States and remain a popular form of psychotherapy. So don't be so sure the field has moved past Freud. They still think his theories are valid enough to use on people.

One example I can think of is private colleges. Many in the US have made public statements dedicating themselves to uphold principles like freedom of speech. Organizations like FIRE do a pretty good job holding them accountable to those principles and there are many instances in which they have documentated policy or enforcement changes made due to their activism.

The United States has privacy laws also, including a lot of regulation of the credit rating business. The laws are just created on a case by case basis, there is no general right to privacy from other private actors.

> physics solves this problem by assigning different people to each phenomenological class (organized by the engineering similarity of the experimental devices needed to probe them)

That's an example of how multiple equivalent formulations of the same theory can be useful for different things even though they are ultimately equivalent.

But he turned your subjective measure into an objective one.

The problem is you have to do all that or face fines and lawsuits which is outside the risk envelope of most people's side projects.

Currently Amazon keeps your entire order history forever with no way to delete it. Do you think they will change this for the GDPR?

Didn't the United States government remove flossing from their official health recommendations because there isn't actually any scientific evidence in favor of it, and the law required the government only make recommendations backed by science? From what I understand much of dentistry isn't actually backed by science but is rather just the opinions of dentists. So I think it's justified to ask where you are getting the evidence for the empirical claims you are making.

Judgements from intentionally torts are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

What is wrong with being selfish?

I am guessing they make you sign a contract saying you won't disclose "their" data to third parties. So you would really need a lot of money.

I think the fact that people are allowed to invest in gold and bitcoin and lottery tickets shows that the government doesn't actually care about the unwary gambling away their life savings. Rather the government (or those who control it) want to ensure the best investments are kept for themselves. So they place barriers to investment, like accreditation, to ensure only those who already have wealth can participate in the most lucrative of markets. It's not "for your protection" its for the protection of the wealthy.

How would you apply the fairness doctrine to the web though. Will I have to host opposing viewpoints on my blog or face fines? The fairness doctrine made sense back when your ability to broadcast your opinions was limited by the shared medium of the radio spectrum. But now that anyone with any viewpoint can broadcast to everyone via the Internet the fairness doctrine doesn't make sense.

Neither of those costs anything extra to run though. Since it's end to end encrypted with no sever backups the images and video can be communicated directly between the clients, WhatsApp just plays matchmaker.

That only bans employers from asking for passwords. Facebook doesn't need to do this because they already have all your data, no passwords needed.

Also I read through the text of those laws and they all specifically say that they are not limiting the employers right to monitor their own systems in any way. So Facebook looking up how their employees use Facebook would be completely fine under those laws.

The Supreme Court ruled that the fairness doctrine was justified given the scarce nature of the radio spectrum. The doctrine never applied to cable TV and certainly wouldn't be able to be applied to the internet.

On the other hand I really enjoyed all the Brutalist architecture on the University of Massachusetts Amherst campus. The imposing concrete buildings made a great contrast to the otherwise entirely natural beauty of the Pioneer Valley.

Even if the employee sends their social media posts directly to the employer or a potential employer and stores them on their systems? I am interested to read the legislation do you know what states?

Edit: I just realized you were probably talking about it being explicitly illegal to discriminate based on political affiliation in some states which is true.

Why would they not? Any other employer is allowed to, so why not Facebook?