estaseuropano

I have a two year old Bauknecht machine. Sadly realized too late the brand had been bought by the consumer-hating Whirlpool group. 600€ for a machine, that breaks exactly 25 months after we started using it. Lots of small plastic parts already broke in this time period as well, e.g. the basket.

It would be 180€ to get it repaired, spare parts are not available even aftermarket/Ali baba/... But then I know I'm going to need to call them once a year or so - so instead we buy a miele which is a higher initial price but longer lifetime in every test a d at least decent reparability.

Op should really consult a lawyer. That said I don't think your draconian conclusions necessarily hold. If you are a neurointerface engineer and generate neurointerface IP that you'd prefer to commercialize on your own, probably thats an issue. But if you write an unrelated javascript framework, author a podcast or invent genetically modified corn that makes your hair grow back surely that would not be covered. An agreement that covers any and all intellectual output will not hold in court.

So it really depends on details about what exactly the agreement says and what domain they work & generate IP on.

Finland has a vast and long coast that could be used to build on or offshore farms. There are also wave hydro systems and Finland has many rivers etc that could be used.

Really a choice to go nuclear. Not a necessity.

EDF (France) keeps building nuclear reactors around the world. Not sure whether they are the only EU company active in that market, but I doubt it. Either way, some expertise definitely exists in Europe.

Germany had spectacular delays and overruns for a new airport for Berlin That too doesn't mean Europe forgot how to build airports.

This is whataboutism. BBC might be biased but it is not straight propaganda and lies as RT.

Honestly there is no point in discussing this if you cannot see the difference between a state sponsored channel that pumps out literal lies and fake footage, invents conspiracy theories, and tries to sow hate against e.g. jews and migrants vs one that has a conservative and pro-British bent but is free to criticise the government and often does so. BBC is boring and conservative and I would rarely waste my time on it, but it is an entirely different category of media.

Nonsense "first punches".

Russia has been censoring media within Russia for many years, and has gone increasingly harsh. The RT ban in Europe came after Russia banned several western and local critical media and disaccredited journalists.

In addition RT and Sputnik have been spreading literal fake news for years to rail up opposition to national governments both with a pro Russia slant but often simply to attack national policy and cause rifts with minority groups or migrants (e.g. [1])

[1] https://observers.france24.com/en/20160128-fake-video-german...

Well, try living in a country with two or more official languages. What you get is basically a random language. Anyone in those places suffers from such bad design choices.

Or they could do the obvious, which is to let the Palestinians form a full state within the internationally recognized borders. But Israel does not want to respect those borders so does not want to accept a two (or three) state solution with a Palestinian state.

This is still not answering the question whether these are legally recognized wives; whether they have residenve./nationality rights, right to work, etc

While the poster you are responding to seems to be a mythical creature, this is very strange gatekeeping. Hacker news has never been a purely technical forum, given the business, marketing etc side of startup culture. This intermixes with legislation, geopolitics and many other topics. All these have a legitimate place here.

To dismiss views of people with no strong tech background as not able to "filter their thoughts" or that they come here to "talk to smarter people" is rather ridiculous. You will find lawyers, linguists, public servants, medical professionals, tax advisors, HR people, ... here. Why would their analysis be less valid than yours just because you happen to have a CS or engineering degree? Who is the most rational and "smart" for you? Applied mathematics? Logicians? Philosophers specialized in philosophy of science?

Assuming other people are less smart than oneself and that one's own expertise implies superior knowledge/analysis in unrelated fields is by the way a key sign of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I certainly as the reasoning but still this is fundamentally a problem that should not exist.

Here's where the service would be actually powerful: if it sends you proof if a broker added you within the 12 month period and tells you where to file a case against the broker.

Sorry I might come across as harsh, but you indicate this is a 'defect', at the same time your comment makes clear that this is a known issue and you choose to keep it that way.

> The other reason this product defect has persisted is because our Free Basic users use the links to QA their own self-service opt out work.

You can't have it both ways - either admit its intentional or change if you know its deceptive.

The whole thread here convinces me that this is neither a product that should exist, nor does this startup have the users' interests in mind.

Can you give an example of a company that mandates this?

So they will enter all this data on the websites of the brokers which sell such data....this reminds me of the website that promises it contains all/most bitcoin private keys - just enter yours to find out if its there!

> Which presents the second problem: If you don't hold on to their identifiable information, you cannot determine if they have previously requested to be removed from your offerings. So it may be dumb to have to opt out again, bit the alternative is to trust them not to use your information in the mean time.

This is just false. You can opt to keep e.g. a hash to check against future additions. Else you also would not be able to comply with the 12 month requirement.

Lobbying. That's the reason. There is no rational reason why a user's explicitly expressed preference would become irrelevant after a year.

The organ donor database won't ask you every month to verify that you still want to do it - there is nil legitimate reason why this would be 'needed' in this case.

What's the point? The company a you are asking to remove data will anyway know which dataset you asked to delete.

What would work would be a mandatory self block list (e.g. most EU countries have a 'do not call' opt-in list against telemarketers) and then the brokers have to check any new days against the hash of data points in this block list. But that requires government intervention, not startups that bandaid the problem.

But this seems to be neither software nor does it actually make it more difficult to sell data. Its a servive that sends opt out requests for you. As far as I can see there is no legal value to this, nor is this sustainable - the next scrape and you're back in. There is (obviously) no guarantee that you data won't be sold, nor any guarantee that their opt out requests don't become basically a signal for 'this is a real person with money to spare'.

I have no opinion on the service itself, but the very concept that such a service is 'needed' just is wild. Have we reached a peak of capitalism where I have to pay someone monthly to check x/year who is selling my data?

Seems that the law needs to be changed urgently from "right to lot out" to "automatically delete data within x months of collection".

What is the purpose and added value to society of these brokers? Why do we allow such businesses to exist at all? And with all the GDPR-bashing on HN, is the existence of optery and similar services not proof enough that it is needed?

Now I'm not a lawyer but very familiar with EU legal texts.

Firstly, the part s/he quotes at the beginning is from the preamble/recitals, essentially intention statements, explanations and background. This is not in any way legally binding, but a court would use it to interpret the articles. The articles are what matters

And then we get in the messy things: article 12.

> It shall be prohibited to participate, knowingly and intentionally, in activities the object or effect of which is to circumvent prohibitions in this Regulation including by acting as a substitute for natural or legal persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 2e(3) or Article 2f, 5, 5a, 5b, 5e, 5f or 5h, or by acting to their benefit by using the exceptions in Article 2e(4), 5(6), 5a(2), 5a(5), 5b(2), 5b(3), 5e(2) or 5f(2).’;

Eu law tends to be intepreted conservatively. Its not like US law which is largely case law - in EU law, except for judgements by the ECJ, the measuring stick is the legal text and intention, not a wide interpretation that extends the actual text as you might do in the US.

So e.g. if users can upload text or video on your service and do so to spread/share RT propaganda, you would certainly not need to fear anything directly unless you notice/are told its there and then don't take action (different rules for large platforms though).

Similarly, a VPN or tor node has many functions. Unless you actively and intentionally host such content or explicitly advertise or distribute it (think e.g. a Popcorntime for RT) you would not expect sanctions.

Problem beyond this is that the EU is 27 legal systems. The intention of this regulation is to empower national media regulators to take action against the propaganda anf lies spread by these state media. So while the regulation applies directly, each national law might have slightly different ways of implemeting this. E.g. Poland might take a much stricter view than Portugal, in line with national media regulations.

True, they are smaller, but the key is they managed this shift. Their education was not always top notch - it changed by careful and wise policy design over ~2 decades.

And while Estonia is small (1.4Mio), that still means we are talking about 600+ schools spread over an entire country (land area of the average US state), with a very low budget and vast differences by region, e.g. an impoverished east with Russian speakers, some very rural areas, and Tallinn and Tartu as major university towns with startup scenes.

Finland is a bit bigger in population but even more population diversity, from a significant Swedish and Russian minority in the cities and east to finns spread out over rural and city areas, up to nomadic reindeer herders with their own unique language in the far north. So definitely an entire education system with its own challenges, which was not always good.

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Estonia

Indeed, both made masters level pedagogical degrees and regular upskilling mandatory. The salaries are also decent but not actually extravagant in comparison to other jobs. They do of course have six weeks summer vacation, which certainly helps to make it attractive :-)

This is utter nonsense. Yes there are homework help businesses (and NGOs, council-run offers, etc) in Germany or Sweden but this is a fringe business and the vast majority of students never use it. If you have evidence for the contrary please provide it.

Its not like e.g. Korea where this is basically obligatory to use.

Just to highlight this book is 40(?) years old.

If you want to see how an egalitarian education system reaches the best education system results in the world - Estonia and Finland are the countries to look at. Their education indeed follows the second model here. But rote learning is also included - the point is to challenge and support the child in manifold ways and keep in mind that they should enjoy themselves.

My point is though while in some countries this might be a class difference, really it comes down to a quality difference. Good quality does not actually need to be very expensive/rare, you can reach it at system level as do Estonia and Finland.

This was some story from before the agreement, and it seems the story lived on. The legal text is not yet out, but you will find it on consilium.europa.eu probably later tonight and can check then.

This sounds like a lie. There is no obligation to pay everyone the same (and neither would this regulation, once it is eventually agreed, create such an obligation).

Does that sound like initiatives written by corporate lawyers?

@dang, i would suggest to change the editorialized title.

Its not a fait accompli, its a draft under discussion.

E.g. Proposed EU directive on pay transparency andbetter access to justice for victims of pay discrimination.

You're missing the main point of mnemonics, which is simply to help recall. Anki is designed to reinforce memories, but any additional context and connections help this recall.

The best way to learn is really to combine both: make once the effort to build a mnemonic for things that you don't remember easily or which you expect might end up confusing - and then use anki to reinforce this memory.

Our brain works with connections, and connections take effort to form, so all you do to form a single personal mnemonic by definition helps you build these connections, with the mnemonic then helping you later to again find this chain of neural connections that means 'flag of ireland'.

There is always a tradeoff, we have sexual fitness but also survival fitness more general. There is a ceiling to each trait - in particular such as physical size there are significant tradeoff such as visbility calory need, skeleton strength and weight, etc. Presumably voice has less negative impact on survival so would be more affected by sexual selection, with the upper ceiling.

So a totally expected difference in difference.