gdfasfklshg4

It is the FS for Red Hat 7 and CentOS 7.

Should a fair comparison not include the features of LVM etc that Red Hat etc are layering together with XFS?

I guess I am saying that the intrinsic nature of the two topics are so different that arguing about them is a matter of deep philosophy rather than right vs wrong and point scoring.

> it's conceivable their arguments may extend to widening current law (or college policy, since most discussion on the topic takes place in the context of universities[1]) to take into account microaggressions

Terrifying

I guess you should take a statistics class before taking this class so that you can understand that people are varied and different and not entirely defined by which groups they fit into.

EDIT: NB In case it is not clear I personally don't think that there are meaningful e.g. IQ differences between the (in my opinion totally arbitrary) groups of humans that people divide other people into where those groups are based on external characteristics.

>> microagressing them

> Somehow I'm reminded of the debate over corporal punishment in schools, where pedagogical effectiveness takes a back seat to more primal ideas about punishment, conformity, and order. People used to be beaten for being left-handed, remember.

Can you provide some context to justify comparing microagressions with beating people with sticks?

Science and religion are not comparable. A key difference is that science is stronger when people question its authority. Science does not require faith but scepticism. That is the whole point of the scientific method! Meanwhile religion requires faith.

This sounds like a good question that should promote a good discussion and would probably end with a cohort of people far better equipped to argue the case for science in a way that shows how the science vs religion debate is not even worth having rather than people who engage pointlessly in a a faith based discussion.

In similar situations I

1. Explain that the 'hack' does not actually fix the problem. This is absolutely the engineers responsibility. In your example Alice does not say that. This has always been sufficient.

2. I make a habit of sending emails or keeping minutes confirming such meetings and the details of who said what.

Is this not a highly inefficient implementation of an integer comparison?

Also it will give a tool for selective prosecution of undesirables...

If everyone breaks the law then the prosecutor has the ability to arbitrarily imprison anyone.

If a login form breaks because of an ad-blocker then the site is broken. Ad-blockers have a bigger market share than most browsers!

I think that how bad burning is depends upon the temperature. The level of control of the temperature and the sortedness of the plastic. Also whether the generated heat is actually used.

Don't beat yourself up! I think the problem is that there is so much FUD and inaccurate groupthink around GDPR issues. Whenever I have spoken to subject matter experts they have pointed out what you did that it actually is not that complicated.

But I guess that the average lawyer knowledgable on GDPR issues would struggle to sort an array even in O(n^2) time so what do they know...

I.e. all things are simple to those that understand them!

I guess it is just a matter of getting the right systems in place to manage the administrative overhead.

There are quite a few lines of work where this might not be a bad idea. E.g. also Police and government employees in general.

Thank you for answering. I assume you are a subject matter expert qualified to interpret the legal documents?

I have actually read some of the resources AND been there whilst customers received advice from lawyers. From what I had understood this model looked dubious.

I have not seen a discussion of this that didn't just end up in talking about morals. Even excluding this I really only wanted input from experts - answers from actual lawyers about GDPR have surprised me compared to what developers had assumed about it...

NB If I had a customer that proposed this model I would still insist that they consulted with their own legal advice before proceeding!

Really? I get a blank page (umatrix with only first party images and css enabled).

Is this model actually GDPR compliant?

EDIT Either way I definitely don't want to trigger another conversation on the ethics of script/tracking/ad-blocking. I am wondering if this subscribe-with-your-data model is legally compliant with the GDPR. This is not a moral question (or at least I am not interested in a moral answer).

I just don't think that content owners will get on board without asking you to implement DRM or invasive severside analytics.

Good luck though.

> The odds of both of those people entering the same piece of data incorrectly is tiny.

This is just not correct. There may be a systematic reason why they are making a mistake (e.g. a miss-pronounced word) in which case increasing the confidence intervals does not increase the accuracy. Check out the concepts of accuracy, precision etc from physical sciences.

The issue would be safeguarding.

> Apparently when a woman uses a pseudonym on facebook, it is not unlikely that it is because of a nasty/stalkerish ex that she would rather get away from.

Also men do this...

If it is all client based someone could chose to use a patched version that e.g. donated all their money to charity. NB "never trust the client".

You will never get the big websites that monetise with advertising on board with client side analytics. That would need e.g. server side analytics or DRM on the client side app. Either way I wouldn't touch your app and nor would most that block adverts - and the big websites would probably not be that interested either.

Maybe with reproducible builds you could have a trusted build that people could build at home that also signed the requests with the analytics data. I don't think that the technology to do this exists yet.

Interesting! I started doing some validation a while ago then stopped because I figured it would be the other way around and I wasn't prepared to speak. I will start validating again!

And the original GP was pointing out that they had carefully selected an ISP that they trust and wanted to use as their DNS provider and did not want the browser ignoring that...

We basically seem to both agree with the original GP. Things just got a little confused.

I thought that once DNS is resolved the DNS request doesn't go any further and the actual request is sent to the IP address...

Is that not the point of SSL?

How do you do this without tracking us?

I use it but it is slightly annoying actually. It is vi emulation not vim emulation so e.g. diw does not work. Similarly visual mode involve opening the command line in vim. This can be a little jarring.

> Workspaces are per monitor so its easy to switch all screens at once or just one at a time.

This alone keeps me using i3.

It is completely consistent to follow rules whilst opposing them. There are many laws I would like to see repealed but I still follow them.