While there are a lot of truths in this article, there's also a thread of misconception running through it, embodied most prominently in the line "Without some ownership of one’s feelings and thoughts, it is difficult to take responsibility for them."
Mindfulness is about creating space between you and your thoughts, not ignoring or discounting them. It allows you to look at them subjectively, rather than being carried away by them. This in no way prohibits you from being introspective, and analyzing the origin of these feelings/thoughts. If anything, it empowers the individual to more rationally grapple with them, without falling into the various psychological traps that often come with certain feelings, such as rumination or avoidance. And whether or not we believe that there is a self, this is no way invalidates the reality that your thoughts ultimately reside inside the mind of a human being, with a real world story. It's unclear to me why the author does not recognize this duality. Most of the literature on mindfulness I've read, including Jon Kabat Zinn's, explicitly mention this duality and its power.
As both a gmail user and developer interested in applications to help me manage my personal information, this is incredibly depressing to hear.
The idea of a verification process itself is great, and I applaud that effort. But some of these barriers seems put in place solely to kill competition and prevent startups from filling the personal data needs before Google comes up with its own plan.
These exorbitant fees of $15,000 and $75,000 are completely unjustifiable.
Stupidity and malice can often be two sides of the same coin. I once worked with an individual who shot down a project idea, but then executed it in secret for two weeks before revealing it as his pet project. After confronting him, he initially did not understand why this was deceitful. It took 3-4 conversations before he finally understood and sincerely apologized. He felt he was simply being competitive and that everyone did these types of things.
Ranked voting is sorely needed in the US. Plurality vote, the predominant US vote tallying system in the US, actually maximizes voter dissatisfaction. That is, if your candidate loses you are most likely to end up with a winning candidate that is polar opposite of your values.
What's more plausible in this scenario: One or two journalists run a fake story, possibly for financial gain or simply notoriety, or that hundreds and even thousands of engineers and managers across multiple tech companies are all complicit in the most elaborate and coordinated corporate conspiracy in history, all just to hide the fact that they were breached...
Are you tailoring your resume specifically to the jobs you're applying for? This can be a big issue for people who have a long broad history of experience. The more experience you have, the smaller percentage of it will appear 'immediately relevant' to the job at hand. This isn't actually true of course, but it's a recruiter bias.
The average home computer user has terrible security practices. Frankly, their email is safer being managed by a competent business. So who is the intended market here?
There are already a number of media outlets picking up these stories, including gizmoto and business insider. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Just takes time to propagate outward.
What I find troubling about this incident is not so much the change itself, or even how quietly they did it. It's the doubling down when users became critical. Rather than a "Okay wow, we clearly misunderstood the impact of this change and regret pushing the change without proper announcement or informed consent. We'll work to fix this." the messaging feels much more like "You're wrong to be upset. Trust us."
I agree it's worth acknowledging that it is the tech crowd that is concerned, and that's exactly what we should expect. This was a stealth-release feature that doesn't really explain itself and has no clear way to disable. It seems completely reasonable that it is tech experts who are the ones to first notice this problem, and rightly criticize it.
For people already logging into Chrome, perhaps.
For people who have chosen to not sign into chrome, this is a breach of privacy and of trust. Without warning, we've been force-signed-in with no clear way to disable this setting.
Users who already sign into Chrome are not affected by this issue. But for people who do not already sign in, we have now been force-logged in without consent. That is the problem everyone is outraged about.
How is regulation to protect people from being taken advantage of by malicious data-mining practices "worse" than the actual practice of maliciously mining data to rip people off?
If the experience is "so nice" why are so many people outraged? The data suggests this is a terrible experience to look up and suddenly see you've been auto-logged into a browser without your consent. Terrible UX.
This can't be overstated. The update did not even mention this feature change, making it even more difficult for non-techies to know something has changed, and what it means.
The lesson to companies should be, don't provide a Hobson's choice up front like this. Offer the webpage you meant to offer, and simply don't try to nickel and dime all the data out of your visitors.
Yes software itself is safe. But eventually you'll want this stored online. At that point, the company hosting your data will be obligated to comply, but by design, cannot. In that sense, it's worse than simply incompliant. It's virally incompliant. Any software that uses it will also be affected.
It seems weird that deletion is prohibited. As we grow as people, sometimes we no longer want to associate something with ourselves. A photo we don't want to remember, for instance. This feels like an unnecessary restriction.
This is just inaccurate. GDPR is derived from warranted concern over rampant data abuse. And it's actually much easier to make a startup GDPR compliant than it is to overhaul a large company with rigid systems already in place. If anything, GDPR favors startups.
Sure, ultimately most rendering is about producing 2D images as output. But the whole OpenGL pipeline is designed around taking 3D data, and providing abstractions to enable that rendering. Rasterization and depth sorting are only one piece of the rendering pipeline. Of course it's also possible to drop the z coordinates, or use orthogonal projections, to use OpenGL in a purely 2D way. Plenty of applications do that, but that doesn't make the API 2D. It just makes the use case 2D.