RandomThoughts3

If you don’t read what you sign, it’s not uninformed consent. It’s you being an idiot.

Of course there was consent. There is even an explicit EULA listing in plain writing that you are actually collecting data for them that people have to agree to before playing.

That people suddenly wake up to the fact that they were dumb for providing labour for worthless virtual gifts doesn't magically allow them to claim it was abuse post-fact.

> So obviously, now that Niantic is getting things outside the game its reasonable the people who did the work ask for something from that.

Absolutely not.

If you are compensated for doing something, you can’t suddenly come back for more 5 years later because it was used as part of something bigger which is now making money.

I have little sympathy for the players here. If you are voluntarily doing free work for worthless virtual things, you can’t come complaining when it dawns on you that it might have been dumb from the start (and to be fair maybe it wasn’t and they did it because it was fun which is completely ok).

I guess we could ban in game shop and game reward for real work as they are somehow predatory but that would be a bit paternalistic.

GDPR is about personal information.

If they just keep the positional data and location information like the video gathered without linking them to a player, it’s perfectly fine.

I don’t think there is something amoral here. Niantic explicitly sends players to take videos of places for rewards. It’s not like it’s done in a sneaky way.

Being somehow surprised they actually plan to do things with the data they have you gather is a bit weird.

> prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It prohibits certain actions that might restrict competition, like tying agreements

So, it's plainly written - ations don't have to actually harm consumers, the fact they could do so is enough - and the key criteria is that they might restrict competition.

> It sounds like the end goal of this is to enrich other companies, not customers.

Then end goal is fostering competitions in a market where there is basically none. So yes, it obviously benefits would be competitors. That's the point.

Sounds more to me like Google taking convergence seriously which is a clever way to attack Apple in the tablet market since Google has no real laptop line to actually cannibalise.

With side loading, nothing really prevents you from doing development on Android apart from the poor UX. Technically, I’m fairly sure Google could probably easily give you access to a full sandboxed Linux environment if they think it’s a good idea.

That’s irrelevant. Pneumatic systems don’t expose telemetry towards the network.

If you want to do that - and you do because having someone next to your equipment all the time to monitor things is both a waste of time and money and very error prone - you will need a data diode.

I have been using upstream kernels on multiple machines including network equipments for more than a decade now. I will take the risk of regressions over back ported patches any day.

Apart for regulations mandating vulnerable (we can call them outdated if you prefer being coy) versions, the elephant in the room is obviously non mainlined drivers but I wouldn’t touch that with a ten feet pole anyway.

Sure but the world would also be better without out of tree patches which don’t track the mainline.

I used to work on military boats combat systems. I scanned the title, read it nanometers, thought it was weird, mentally corrected to nautical miles being familiar with the context and cursed the person who wrote the title for the incorrect capitalisation.

So, yes, people who have worked in a related field get it. Still annoying though.

> Ibm was not in the punch card machine making business. It was in the data processing business, and still is.

IBM absolutely was in the punch card machine making business in that they were absolutely selling punch card machines and not data processing consulting. And no, they are not in the data processing business today. They are clearly a consulting company first with some software development bolted.

They actually pivoted twice from a mostly hardware company to a mostly software one and once again to a mostly service based one.

> Go is the main language for the CNCF project landscape ecosystem and that is about it. And even then, newer projects are more likely to pick Rust.

This part of your comment lost me. It seems to me that the overlap of projects where it would make sense to either use Rust or Go is pretty much empty.

Why would you use ever choose Rust and all the complexity it adds if Go is a sensible option?

The actual problem is that Provider real POV is actually: "We already do the bare minimum required by the law and you are too insignificant to damage our reputation. It would actually cost our shareholders money to do more so please go die in silence somewhere else and stop bothering us. Replying to you costs us money too."

This kind of article is actually useful because it raises the risk of actual reputational damage thus encouraging companies to do more.

Their point wasn’t that innovation doesn’t exist. Obviously things change. Still, both Exonn, Coke and Wells Fargo are still fundamentally in the same business as they were before. That’s not the case of other companies. IBM became big selling punch-card tabulating system. Have you seen a punch card recently?

Note that the world would be significantly better if entreprise distros stopped doing that and just shipped the latest kernel. I understand freezing user space because most developers don’t care about shipping stable software and break compatibility all the time but the kernel takes its pledge to never break user space very seriously.

The backporting is very much hit and miss.

The quote at the beginning of the article tells it all: "However, none pretend to describe optimal pathways for achieving a sustainable, equitable and secure energy outcome for all. Instead, they settle for “practical” solutions that avoid rocking the ships of states".

It’s an article written by a proponent of the new economy which is officially alter-globalization. It’s actually internationalist in its vision, opposed to free markets and wants a solution which is equitable for all. Everything old is new again, a spectre is haunting the new economy, the spectre of…

> I get having monitoring systems for it that are accessible in a way they could be hacked and disrupted

Actually it’s very easy to isolate that part. One way network equipments with physical isolation have existed for decades. An optic fibre with only an emitter on one side and only a receiver on the other will do the trick.

> We would need global participation, otherwise carbon emissions can just be outsourced to other countries

You can simply add a tax at entry to match your own carbon tax until evening rules are added into trade deals. The fact that such a tax is not in place in neither the USA nor the EU is proof enough to me that neither is serious about stopping global warming.

Growth doesn’t have to depend on finite resources. Growth is simply more value being exchanged. You can have sustainable growth.

Plus the human population will soon be drastically contracting anyway.

Abandoning the only system since the birth of humanity to bring prosperity to billions in favour of one which has repeatedly be an utter failure, systematically lead to totalitarianism and is responsible for millions of death might not be the wisest choice especially when it’s pushed by people who think they should be amongst the rulers due to their moral superiority.

> To cut emissions, we need to kill materialism, consumption economy

That’s a moral statement not a factual one. To cut emissions, we need to do exactly that. Pricing in externalities (yes it means less beef but that’s not the same thing as an end to the world as we know it) and investing in cleaner means of production is enough. Most of the people pushing for large societal changes are doing it because it was their goal from the start and they are using climate change as a mean to an end.

> We know GR is wrong because it is incompatible with any form of QM and we know some form of QM is more or less correct.

It’s not really about one model being correct. GR is not a perfect model because its predictions don’t match what’s observed on the scale where QM gives predictions which do.

"Wrong" is overall a poor way of thinking about models. People would like a model which is both general and elegant, not simply a model which is "right". A large and very general model with a lot of parameters which can be well tuned to fit all the observations we have would be "correct" but I am not convinced it would be very useful.

I would reverse the question: if it can be done by a BPF module, why should it be in the kernel?

Distributions turning it on by default is another story. Maybe it deserves to be shiped on all the time but that's not the same thing as being part of the kernel.

Clickbaity title. They are not halting international student admissions.

They are reducing the existing quotas and there is no available spots remaining for 2025 as all have apparently already been filled.

I know it’s upvoted so the community must find it interesting but this is an article from a site called "Hitsubscribe" which could as well has been written by ChatGPT (and to be fair I’m fairly certain that ChatGPT would give a better answer to the question "How to effectively delegate?").

Intro to management is not a common topic on HN so I was wondering if something special was linked to it.

Meta question, what is it with all this cookie cutter articles targeted towards new managers on HN at the moment?

I find it strange especially when you consider that these are not even particularly good or insightful articles.

The way music is written has more to do with tradition and legacy systems than being efficient and correct and musicians like to fight about ultimately meaningless things like time signatures.

Your post reminds me of the very underrated latest film from Orson Well, F for Fake, which is about forgery. It contains an excellent quote from Elmyr de Hory, a notorious art forger, who at some point exclaims: "Guilty? Of what? Making masterpieces?".

> Evolution does care if something is useful, if it aids in reproduction.

Evolution is an abstraction subsuming other mechanisms. It doesn’t care about usefulness. That’s a finalist bias. Individuals reproduce or they don’t.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture. You can’t work backward saying: this thing is useful therefore it’s evolved. That doesn’t make sense especially for complex behaviour.