Brotkrumen

>Nope. It's fascinating how many people believe this, but it isn't what that law says

They do because it's true and that's exactly what the law says.

Digital Economy Act 2017 14 (1):

>A person contravenes this subsection if the person makes pornographic material available on the internet to persons in the United Kingdom on a commercial basis other than in a way that secures that, at any given time, the material is not normally accessible by persons under the age of 18.

Section 23: Regulator’s power to require internet service providers to block access to material

(1) Where the age-verification regulator considers that a person (“the non-complying person”) is—

(a)contravening section 14(1), or

Falsifiability, mh? Popper identified that in 1934. Before popper no scientist ever said "your claim is not falsifiable". So science before that was mere philosophy?

I agree with you, but we have to be aware that by this definition two diametrically opposed "knowledges" can be equally valid if they have disjoint justification frameworks.

And that leads to relativism, which we don't want.

Imagine you are designing a software system. One use case requires you to model a fact as best as you can, so you write a fact-class for it. Your software system runs fine, but you notice the class doesn't accurately model the fact in some other use cases. You now know the class is insufficiently accurate. Do you still trust the result of your software?

Replace software with language, class with concept we use to refer to facts and you have to claim that any further thought into the design of your class is wasted, because you hold that to be the case for concepts, language and reality.

The digital economy act 2017 requires porn with "insufficient" age verification to be blocked. Required by law.

So exactly what parent said, happened.

Isn't that worse? People in the highest echelon of power in Germany are corruptible by a mere 50.000€? I could understand millions, but our Democracy being threatened by chump change is ridiculous.

Hey there! I'm a citizen in a country where the current minister of finance was caught with a briefcase of 100.000 DM illegal "donations" from an arms manufacturer to the ruling party. The then-chancellor of 16 years took the fall to protect black party accounts, but nobody spent time in jail. That same party produces nepotism scandals in their home state but nobody cares because nepotism is an open secret through all state institutions. Every citizen knows this dt a continuing functioning press.

What is a German like me to do?

Is-ought fallacy with a bit of whataboutism?

The time or day I complete a task is unlikely the same time or day I spent working on it.

If I complete a task at 11 a.m. I've probably worked on it the day before and just wrapped up final testing before 11 a.m. Same with Monday being the "most productive".

10% adjusted is pretty large. Even sub-10% usually works out to a couple of thousand each year.

How can the paygap truly not exist when there are so many wealthy, right-wing, male sexist types in HN, Silicon Valley and any industry really?

Maybe you shouldn't rely on a thought-experiment when you can do data: Adjusted paygaps consistenly range between 4-7%.

Say, the SJW publication Fortune:

http://fortune.com/2016/04/12/myth-gender-wage-gap/

Or the left-wing washington post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/women-...

The belief that a woman with the same experience, skill, etc. is a worse performer would lead to a lower salary for women. That's the whole point of contention.

And we should probably let go of the idea that markets are rational.

Ever been involved in a project that constantly gets its funding cut?

https://i1.wp.com/www.kickassfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

>enough to solve this problem

The goal isn't to solve the problem, as in predict with 100% accuracy. The goal is to improve by a few percentage points.

Since categorization is what ML does well and credit histories are great annotated training sets, it seems like a perfect fit.

Thats the point. None of the 90% normal pictures will do any psychological damage, the 10% illegal pictures will but those will have to be looked at anyway.

The advantage of an algo detecting illegal content isn't in protecting civil servants, it's scanning everyone without them.

That's what their story is, but unlikely to be true. All "horrific" pictures will have to be graded by a human, because you have the right to face your accuser, the service providers will not let you near their codebase and AI won't be 100% accurate in the next few years.

What they will be able to do with that software is trawl through orders of magnitudes more pictures, filter by probable hits and show those to staff. Right now someone has to be suspected to warrant the expensive attention of an expert. With that software you can fish in everyone's data.

I'm not sure I understood correctly. Could you elaborate?

Wouldn't selling created bitcoin lower the price of bitcoin at your exchange? A lower price would attract USD and the exchange would leak BTC with people doing arbitrage.

Then if you claim a hack wouldn't you have to show that value moved to the hackers wallets and that value and the value you retain had to add up to the total value received in BTC? And if the "stolen" amount of BTC couldn't be shown to be in another wallet, wouldn't the fraud be discovered?

Facebook is a medium by any definition. OP said they kept in touch via comments, a more modern form of SMS or even letters.

This whole X is realer than computers is silly to me.

The british press hates other tax havens because they themselves try to be one. There are tons of PLCs established just for tax purposes.

Pretty much a standard clause. Put it in your supplier contracts! You want to protect your product from degrading by changes in your supply-chain.

Bankruptcy or a new owner of your supplier may change their product so significantly that you want an immediate out without having to keep your side of the obligations. The supplier just restates with that clause that they won't change the product drastically and what that product is exactly is specified in the rest of the contract.

The only thing seckimjohn showed is that contracts, paper or "smart", are only as good as they're written. Since contracts such as _red gave, "we are friends, this is our company, we share the EBT equally", exist right now, it's a perfectly realistic use case for a smart contract. Hell, I'd even do that for a small project.

Smart contracts being fixed and errors being exploitable is a valid criticism but it's not the be-all-end-all argument for them to have no real world applications.

Parent gives you an answer that is scoped to "divide incoming by half and send the halves to given addresses" and you criticizing that the answer doesn't cover all scopes you can come up with?

Him: "This baker makes bread rolls". you: "What about dark bread? What about non-bread items? What's his broker?"

No. There's too many parties involved I'd have to trust to a) want to keep my data save and b) don't mess up. And even if both are true, I have to accept yet another way with several points of failure where bad agent could exfiltrate my data.

Passwords, medical records and credit card information are so sensitive that it's irrelevant that there are good uses for the tech that captures them or that at some point in the pipeline they get masked.

I'm not sure what your point is. Parent says that the article signals it isnt credible by employing a dishonest sales tactic. Your answer is to ignore the potentially valuable signal?

Thats misusing the term responsible disclosure.

Once they knew any something was leaked, no matter what, the responsible move is to inform everyone to give them a chance to lock down their shit. More time or knowledge of where the data is won't save anyone.

As for the "other attacker" excuse, how would that work? Just from knowing that data was leaked no new attacker can deduce the weakness used.

>When I consulted [...] We recommended they implement a PDM (product data management) system.

>We recommended they get a system that manages their product data

Yep, I believe you are a consultant.

Those companies don't exist yet. What sounds better "If you don't save net neutrality, you will pay extra for Facebook!"

or

"Without net neutrality you might have to pay for a service that doesnt exist yet!"

We had a glimpse of the future with Telekom. They looked at startups and offered them faster cheaper access in return for equity.

Now imagine that model with the threat of throttling that startup if they dont comply.

Iirc the netflix CEO himself said in the beginning of this that net neutrality is good for small to medium upstarts and bad for incumbents. Netflix now is an incumbent with enough bargaining power to get a good price for that access and fastlane. Netflix future competitor won't have that bargaining power and will be forced to offer their product more expensively.

Same with all the big e-businesses