cblades

Because you have to eat, and eating a Big Mac isn't unhealthy. Eating a Big Mac several times a week is.

You don't have to intake nicotine, at all.

Says who? What long-term studies have there been on the effects of vaping?

Maybe "unreadable" and "readable" aren't the best ways to approach this conversation.

It's certainly less readable than, say, my_str.strip()

I could understand not being happy about it, but I don't understand the desire to make google or waze be at fault here. Those drivers are ultimately responsible for where they drive, and in any case, the way they are using the roads is legal.

It would be irresponsible and make their respective apps uncompetitive if they arbitrarily chose to not give me the best route to my destination.

well, there's a lot of value in ground cover. Now, a conversation about moving to native plants instead of grass everywhere would probably be worth having.

Even then, unless they are coupled with a comprehensive psychological evaluation that could identify sociopathy, they could not be considered a useful tool (generously assuming that they have any truth-discerning usefulness to begin with).

Which is why they are interested in the applicant lying about those contacts.

The application will provide an opportunity to disclose foreign contacts.

A large number of people already believe that devices and apps are constantly listening and sending recordings home, despite there being no evidence for that. It's a rampant belief supported by "I was talking to Jimmy about these shoes, and suddenly I got ads for those shoes!"

It was prompted, it's just that the match for the activation phrase was incorrectly identified.

That's not the same thing as the near-universally believed internet truism that these devices are always listening and sending recordings home.

No one that gives it more than a passing thought could fail to realize that there has to be some human interaction. Someone has to do manual transcription to check against output for some portion of the data.

HN is not an audience of CS and Stats academics, or those familiar with the literature in those fields.

I agree, but I think this issue is incredibly mishandled by reporting. The title in the linked article being a great example.

There is absolutely no proof of number 2 in your list, but that is by far the widest-held belief.

It's infuriating, because we can't have a useful societal dialog about the issue if the largest chunk of concerned people are, essentially, conspiracy theorist.

Those aren't comparable things though. Our driver training just flat-out isn't robust enough to support a similar system, and there's only one person in control of the car.

He's also leaving out checklist-driven procedure, which is a huge component of airplane safety that is entirely absent from car driving.

It's a metaphor. It's not meant to be taken literally.

Not who you're responding to, but:

>and the parser can deal with it.

That's not ideal. You need a defined schema so that the majority of parsers can reliably parse the majority of objects.

>in my projects we typically would have a nosql database Parser implementations shouldn't be assumed to use the same or similar tech stack that you do.

So you're asking if they'll comply with legal court orders? They've already said they will.

What does real-time surveillance mean in your question?

In your world, is there no room for mistakes? Do you expect your service providers to not make mistakes? Do you think that acknowledging mistakes and agreeing to fix them is a desirable outcome?

Where does proton mail advertise or promise to offer a service that fulfills those obligations?

>Isn't it more likely that the state prosecutor spilled the beans?

No, why would it be? As you point out, they've disclosed turning on logging in response to a legal request. Why then deny the event?

What's the allegation here? The mail stored on proton's servers is encrypted. If you send that mail elsewhere, it's subject to the security of the receiving server and any intermediary servers.

That's not secret, or hidden by them.

What does real-time surveillance mean to you?

You're asking a loaded question. Of course they have access to some real-time data re users.

Your second bit is a non-sequitur. Climate change is not a simple factor of how many trees there are, and no one claims that to be the case.

No it's not.

The privacy debate is not black and white, especially concerning the obligation of service-providers to go to bat for every customer that a lawfully designated entity has the legal authority to investigate.

In the black and white world you're living in, there is no privacy, as no one can live up to your standards.

twice as long?! That is nuts, what's the math on that. Am I wrong in understanding that to mean, e.g., in lots of places the life expectancy was 40 and now it's 80?

I don't know if that would be in the flight manual. Presumably that's more a tactical/combat doctrine type thing.

The person you're responding to didn't say that.

I'll go out on a limb and say this though: right-focused news organizations have conditioned the US conservative base to believe highly editorialized articles that aren't fact-based (wether or not the actual assertions of the articles are true or not). I believe that style has seeped into other news outlets as well, but those right-leaning news sources have a head start and at this point their audience is more susceptible.

Maybe in a few years the difference will be negligible, but right now it's not.

> Should regulators really be preventing a team of people from buying up historical intellectual property?

That's not the question, is it? Take any monopoly from history and examine individual purchases, and they can usually be reduced to a question like yours that seems benign.

Murder isn't the act of firing a gun, it's the act of firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill them.

Ah, from your other comments I thought you were an American for some reason. That makes sense.

I think the difference is the size of the US. I've traveled a fair bit for work, but never been asked to leave the country. Jobs that do require international travel often explicitly say so in the description and say you must have a passport.

As far as freedom to travel, unless you happen to be on the northern or southern border, you can't just hop on a plane and travel out of country on a whim. It's just flat-out not as easy to travel to other countries here as it is in Europe.

This is a sincere question: what's your background that you have such a skewed perspective of US travel tendencies?