jakubp

If they claim "here's the API you can use to control network access" but can then put arbitrary apps to work around that, that's the definition of backdoor access to the device.

There is no mention of "P1" in the entire article. What did you mean?

The true problem to me here seems to be then that I don't know what type of queries I'll run in the future, so I can't attach proper labels (to edges or nodes, doesn't matter which).

I see this exact problem with bookmarking tools. I have a large collection of bookmarks with many kinds of tags (topical, meta-tags like !important, !soon, !followup, !share, ...), etc. But the reality is those tags are not sufficient to search for what I need - adding a piece of content and searching for it are far removed in time (weeks, months, sometimes years), and "future me" doesn't remember the context something he put in with. The today-me can't anticipate which of the pieces of content will be useful and to what end.

So I don't know _what to search for_ or _how to search for it_ == but just as importantly, I don't know _what use to label something for_ and _what terms/structure_ to add to it.

I think the semantic web must have assumed we'll tag/label things correctly, and the reality is we don't do it because it's on average too hard.

How can one use the labelled edges in [[ ... ]]-formatted personal note collection to get any actual value from it? (personal note because that's what at least some people use roam, obsidian, etc. for)

This doesn't address the key issue of how many "in head" horcruxes you want to have. Is it one and the same for all passwords? Then two broken passwords reveals it (if someone's clever maybe even 1, not sure here). If it's different for different passwords, you now need to memorize (or store elsewhere) a list of many, many such horcruxes. Not 7... but maybe a 100 or 200 to be practical for a heavy user of internet apps. Which basically means you need 2 password managers.

So where do I store the 100 horcruxes? What's your take on this?

Yes, it would stall development of a lot of business. Many of these businesses are not necessary. Humans would start a different path of looking for what's actually useful rather than falling for what's out there -- or at least that's the dream :)

[edit] Onto your second point, that you need ads to promote price competition, I don't think so. There's almost no advertisement in many kinds of services like e.g. hair salons, but they still very much compete (price included). Also, huge majority of professional trainers do not advertise anywhere in my area, and yet we all compete on price and our customers know the range of prices that are reasonable. So information about price etc. flows quite well regardless of ads.

Wow, I never knew, thank you. These pictures look lovely, now in space like this one might actually focus :)

I had a different idea, which was that governments of the future could ban advertising altogether.

I know it's a... stretch, but imagine this: - you can't put billboards in the city - you can't place any images, text, etc. banners anywhere (except for tightly controlled, single-design descriptions of businesses in buildings, decided by each municipality like it's already done in some cities to maintain consistent look of historical town centers) - in general, no publicly visible ads of any kind are allowed - no ads in videos, TV, etc.

Where would ads be? - you can search for ads like you do today, in search engines (preferably opt in), i.e. ads become a catalogue, not a "here I am" attention grabber - gray line (recommendations/suggestions which really are ads would need to be limited/removed as well) to be decided

In general, clear up public space and attention holding spaces from explicit commercial interests as much as possible.

I'd love to live a few years in such a world and see whether value propositions of businesses would start shifting...

The store where the price is low also needs it shipped and stored, and is also close to my home. So that's definitely not a reason.

Did you mean "convenience makes the price higher"? No quarrel there! The issue is how much higher. 8x more expensive (as an example) is in the "ripping me off" territory, if you ask me :)

I'll give a practical example. If you got to a gas station near me, you can get a CR2032 battery for say 2 USD. If you got to a certain home decor/equipment store a mile away, you'll get 4 of these batteries for 1 USD. That's what, 8x more expensive for a relatively common product? Gas stations and convenience stores in my country routinely charge 500-1000% more for common products because, and here's the gist of it I'm sure for most store/chain owners, "why not"?

GDPR does cover inferred data. Source doesn't matter. Only whether this is data about a specific identifiable person and whether it's covered by the list of protected types of data.

I can tell you first hand that while you can indeed become somewhat... used to that constant ringing sound (1), it isn't exactly "tuning out" like with typical environmental noise (street sounds, wind or rain).

Here's what it's like.

Imagine someone is standing right behind you with a little whiteboard and scratches the chalk on it. It makes this high pitched sound you cringe at, right?.

Someone is doing that slowly, and the chalk is tiny, so the sound is not super loud, and can be covered by music, people talking etc.

But that person keeps scratching all the time. A little bit. Every second of every minute, of every quiet moment at home, in the mountains, in your electric supposedly-quiet car, of your every mindfulness meditation practice. For years.

So can you "tune out"? Maybe if you dull your senses and have laser focused attention for most of the day. But it keeps coming back. And again, and again. It can be confusing, annoying, funny, or just be there. Your reactions vary, as you learn to adjust to it (if you try to).

But "tune out" suggests once it's done, it's gone.

This is never gone, it's the opposite of gone - it's there even if I stop breathing!

(1) Actual nature of the sound varies between people.

If Model 3 doesn't have a competitor yet, why is anyone worrying about the potential of the competitor to win through fit and finish? When that competitor comes, what is to stop Tesla from releasing Model 3 Mk II with better design??!?!!?!

Thank you. Something to think about.

No, no. The reason I suggest face-to-face is because only face to face is good at conveying emotion. Everything else falls short in that respect, and because work has a lot of conflict involved, non f2f comms increase unnecessary conflict, slowing everything down, creating (!) personnel problems, etc. People arguing on Slack and email are an HR and management nightmare, they really are. Once you get someone to actually talk in person to them, and then get the parties to talk about the issue in person, things get magically resolved.

Nice! I'll think about what you've written. Thank you.

I get it. But we have to weigh both sides of the cost, and if you want me to type something up, it's not just that you gain by it because you read fast - I lose something because I type slow! And org pays for both our times.

What's the median age of people you work with in that mode? (my guess above 35)

Interesting. May I ask -- what are the written comments responding to? A question? A problem statement? Is it a full forum-style thread/discussion (with message-response-response...response) or is it a 1-shot style comment from anyone who had something to say before a meeting?

If you are on a team, and you know you need time & space to think things through, they should know it too (from you). It's your job to tell them, no? Then they either respect that and give you time when you need it, or don't. If they do, no issue. If they don't, they are going to go around you anyway whether you like it or not... just how work works.

I don't mean for this to be blunt, but since we're talking about work, if I want to persuade you of something, it's your job to listen to me, because my persuasion will be aimed at accomplishing company goals! So we are both on the clock here, not just you.

I can also assure you I speak faster than I type, and so it's not just your end that counts.

I'm also pretty sure I can say much fewer words with proper tone of voice to convey as much as 5x long email correctly, and a single word of your response and a look at your face as I speak will tell me more of what I should understand of your reaction than even the most elaborate written response...

Persuasion and discussion isn't about me laying out my point clearly in a tidy format though, right? It's about mind-sharing, interaction, sensitivity, etc.

Maybe we come from very different types of organizations? I have never, ever (!) in my 15+ year career been in a position where too many unprepared people forced me in any way to listen to their stupid / ill-prepared ideas....

[Edit] I'm also confused, how does someone coming up to talk to you forces you to write anything down?? (seriously I don't get that part :) )

Yes, it's bad. In my experience it's because relatively low percentage of people in a typical org have enough trust to one another that they won't misinterpret the wrong way.

Any written medium is a bad forum for discussion because it completely lacks the wide emotional bandwidth. If the topic is in any way subtle, risky, controversial, etc. you will get more conflict, misunderstanding, etc. in writing than in person, and fallout will be much harder to get away from. That has been the experience of me and many managers I worked with in IT over the years. I would be shocked if you could get anywhere near the results of in-person conversations with written comms. That should only be possible if you are incredibly aligned with everyone in your org (how likely is that?) or you aren't really discussing anything openly (feigned discussions).

If you want to compose better emails, forget formatting.

- practice making emails short. Write, then rewrite to 50% of original length, then try to make it even shorter.

- make the request a separate paragraph (request = what you want the other person to do)

- if your email is an attempt to persuade someone, don't bother. Go talk to them. Email will cause you problems in your career if you keep that up. It's unsuitable as a means of discussion (same as Slack and any other written medium). The only reason to do that is if you can't get the other party on the phone/in person (which is almost never the case).

Nope, unfortunately, this seems like a serious, well-intended advice piece :)

Why do you guys speculate what the reasons are instead of just asking Spotify?

She does put the stress on the second syllable.

It's not just productivity. It can also damage quality of relationships and introduce unnecessary conflict - as any written communications tool does - because people also fall for using Slack to discuss tough issues. It doesn't replace actual in-person conversation, but especially younger workers and managers don't know that and suffer a lot due to lack of emotional fidelity of actually using their bodies to talk.

Interesting. I wonder if we had different experiences, or was I blind to something done _to_ boys. Something to ponder.

Not familiar with Connie St Louis. I see a twitter channel by that name. What happened? Curious to read a bit more, any pointers?