klvino

To receive funding from some government bodies in the US there is an accessibility requirement the funds recipient must attest. Of course they could attest to anything if they know the party they're making these statements has no mechanism to ensure the statements are valid.

Our best results in meeting accessibility has been to incorporate them into design standards guide and in a brand's style guide, right next to approved fonts, colors, logos, etc. Teams never think about asking for accessibility standards but always make sure to references the other guides.

Thank you for linking to all of the data. Consumers have different priorities than society when it comes to these systems, "convenience" vs "safety" respectively.

If these systems are not improving safety above baseline (rate of accidents for non-assisted driving) it would be interesting to find out how this difference appears with each system's level of assistance. Then within those levels, are there certain platforms which pull the numbers in different directions (e.g is a Tesla more or less safe than other DAS of the same level).

If these systems are not resulting in a reduction of accidents, should we rethink what kind of 'driver assistance' should systems provide? If higher level systems are less safe, should the industry hold off on pushing those systems to market until they're developed further? If a specific platform is a significant source for the reported accidents, then what action should be taken to address? (disable those specific DAS already in market?)

With the repostings, does this hint that they're looking for additional funding/investment or attempting to further scale the business.

Objective analysis. Cuban, Musk, and others have developed fandoms yielding coverage that portrays them as 'saints' (an overly positive light). With fandoms comes some degree of polarization as non-fans present their counter-points.

Cuban found there is margin that can be squeezed in the pharma market due to being a high margin product with inefficient distribution. He moved on a revenue opportunity, plain and simple.

That was my first thought as well, heavy use within an existing desert environment would likely have negative ecological impact.

When reading through the article, it has potential application in areas where a local water supply may not be clean enough to drink or lacks sufficient water treatment & filtration.

My 90+ year old father-in-law still drives and does shortcuts in both urban and suburban environments that none of the maps programs have caught. None of his driving was remotely 'dangerous' either.

Not everyone ages at the same rate or in the same way. If only I could be that active at 90. First, have to make it to 90.

Would probably include ICQ in the list for #2

For some small freshwater lakes, they participate in "weed harvesting" to keep waterways navigable and reduce "nutrient load" to the lake which can trigger algae blooms. The "weeds" are various forms of aquatic plants (e.g. Eurasian watermilfoil) which get removed and often transported to local farms for use as fertilizer. This isn't a very widespread practice, but has been included in education from state-level DNRs.

Agree, it brings a proper closing to the individual discourse.

Regards, The Lannisters

Guess we'll skip branding and awareness campaigns, ignore all post-view purchases, not use cross-device or cross-channel attribution, and not look at attribution of offline conversion/visitation activity.

If the only thing you do is Search and Email Blasts, the query string on your URL might work okay.

Understand the intent behind the bill. Wouldn't the bill be closer to effectiveness if it banned corporations from selling to any government and not only the US government? By only banning the "US government" in the "purchase" of the data, it doesn't prevent acquiring the same data from another governmental body (Canada buys the data and shares with US Intelligence community, suddenly & mysteriously trade relations with Canada improve).

So many loopholes, the bill becomes 'feel good' legislation instead of effective legislation.

The Uber incident has been known for almost a year. There are other instances, mostly undisclosed audits which have shown similar results. One audit revealed $220m in ad spend for a global brand with a +$500m budget had no impact on their results, it was vapor. On the finding of these results, they didn't want public embarrassment or the hit to their share price.

Not everyone in the industry is fraud, not everyone in the industry is a huckster. But most of the industry is people talking up their game and creating a facade, from Brand CMOs to Pubs gaming their performance numbers. Fraud can be reduced, but few want to engage in the rigor and even less want to recognize actual/validated performance when the current fiction suits their purposes more easily.

Settings > Location > Improve Accuracy

2 settings, one for Wi-Fi scanning and one for Bluetooth

First off, not advocating a position just providing background.

The interpretation of GDPR by certain companies is that when someone requests "data deletion", they are to delete the association of the data points to "known identifiers" and are not required to delete the data itself. As the user has decided to disconnect their association, the data remains in the hands of the organization for analysis, look-a-like modeling, etc etc.

Scenario 1 - Insta didn't fully delete the associations according to policy and thus one of their processes is still linking the contacts. Scenario 2 - Even with disconnected data associations, the ability of Insta to re-identify you was too easy and thus the contacts are showing up.

Either scenario shouldn't be viable under GDPR. If you're in the US, you're SOL (CCPA isn't as robust as GDPR and focuses more on 'data sale' and less on data privacy & protection).

Short answer, yes. The concept of "foreign governments" is very US-centric. This tracking is not a US-only concept and the connection of these data points is already being used in non-US markets by companies which cross these boundaries. The only differences with each market is the number of signals available for capture. For example one party operating in the US is capturing DNS activity while in Brazil they are capturing telecom data.

Question, why was a Facebook click event (fbclid) query string included in the URL for this article? Did you find the article on Facebook and forget to remove the string, which results in anyone on this site that clicks on the string to be identified to Scientific American's site analytics as having come from a Facebook page, and thus mis-attributing traffic.