The question at this stage of the lawsuit isn't whether the investors actually did rely on the fraudulent claims, but whether each of the investors should have to show they did. The judge isn't saying that "well maybe it was a friend" contradicts their case.
I don't think it's necessarily the case that everyone's using consent currently. They just think (probably correctly) that regulators will be more favorable to a company that always makes disclosures and asks for permission up front.
In most countries, regulators are given broad authority to issue supplementary rules, explaining exactly what's required or forbidden to comply with the original law. The goal is that people who know a lot about data privacy, rather than random EU representatives, can figure out the specifics.
On the contrary, it's the legal perspective that's most worrying. If every software bug carries the potential for liability, there's no way your legal department will let you have a widely-visible bug tracker, or easily report bugs at all. It'd be much like copyright violations are treated today, where there's a formal process to raise the issue and everyone's specifically trained not to discuss them openly.
COPPA only applies to sites that are directed towards children or have "actual knowledge" that they're collecting data from children. It's legally sufficient to ask for birthdays and refuse signups from anyone under 13.
I don't understand what Schrems is alleging here. "They totally know that it’s going to be a violation", and they're not bothering to do anything about that fact, because... why?
The policies required for PCI compliance are all straightforward too. But enforcing large sets of policies across an organization is a challenge, no matter how simple the actual policies are.
That's not how jurisdiction normally works. A French citizen working within the US for a US company can't demand that they follow French employment regulations.
File a complaint with who? There's no EU-wide data privacy regulator. Which specific EU country would have jurisdiction over an interaction which took place in the US?
High level estimates aren’t optional for most development. Customers waiting for an important feature won’t take “ it’ll come when it comes, estimates aren’t real” as an answer.
You can skip low level estimates, but the consequence of that is that high level timelines are uninformed by them. That’s how you end up in the archetypal situation where all the engineers know a project will slip while their managers report it’s right on track.
The question is what specific anti-competitive action Google is taking. It would be very strange to decide that, simply because Google's made a really good service everyone prefers to use, they should be forced to pay Yelp for permission to display Yelp's content in their results.
He can certainly send private emails, Slack messages, or even Twitter DMs. What he can't do is publicly broadcast his tweets to the world, and then exclude people from them on political grounds.
Absolutely. Facebook deliberately chooses to have a business presence in the EU, and nobody denies that this means the EU can levy fines against them or set rules on how they operate within the EU.
I imagine US regulators would be on Facebook's side there. The US can't really tolerate a world where the EU purports to reach inside American borders and forcibly reorganize American companies.
Isn't that exactly why we should expect a solution from them? Google knows first-hand why some leaders are opposed to remote work, and stands to make a lot of money if they can overcome it.
But imagine someone sitting there in 1804 Wales, looking at the first steam train, saying "slow down buddy you haven't actually changed anything yet". It seems like there's a sense in which this is short-sighted.
Mr Clueless X didn't want the feature because he read it off an Ouija board. He wanted it because sales told him "this feature could make us millions of dollars a year!", or a customer asked him "how could you possibly sell your product without this critical feature?".
Without a Mr. Clueless X in the way, it would be presented as your fault that the company lost suchandsuch major deal by not already having the feature. That's a much harder political game to play.
For an embarrassing amount of time, I didn't even realize Java interrupt() could only interrupt blocking operations. I guess I thought they were like hardware interrupts, capable of just showing up anywhere without the program's cooperation.
But isn't that the problem? When we see the news media blasting articles about internal disputes most Googlers hadn't heard of, that could mean the internal culture is secretly toxic and the employees are too brainwashed to notice.
Or it could mean that people are selectively leaking a misleading picture of the company.
It's a lot easier to get a $250k position at Morgan Stanley than build a business generating $250k in profit. If more people go the latter route, that's just a matter of a larger denominator, not an indication of what's actually being rewarded.
You're mixing up levels of indirection. Financing the creation of businesses that create products people want to buy isn't itself an example of "practical products that provide value that the average working class person would want to spend money on".
You can say that what our system rewards is always derived from practical products the average person wants, but that doesn't seem like a useful way to think about things.
For career driven people, it's not enough that just some company will hire them for something. And there are very few cities where it's easy to find a job matching the skills and expertise of e.g. a Microsoft tech lead.
When you let engineers run around doing our own thing, we never have to show that the work we're doing is the most productive use of company time. We just have to show that it plausibly could be. Nobody will hesitate to reward the well-liked engineer with a cool sounding project, even if other things would really be more important.
As the author noted, Scrum solves this problem by making number of story points completed the primary tool for a team to measure its productivity. If the cool-sounding project isn't important enough to take other items out of the sprint, there's no way to offer a post-hoc justification for doing it anyway. It has no story points, so work on it is considered non-productive.