nannePOPI

A lot of companies don't "need" anyone because they are not subject to profit and loss anymore. This is the result of government policies of cheap money, government contracts and higher and higher barriers to enter the market.

If there was a need, even if there were a lot of candidates managers would prefer the first to be enough. But they don't have a need, government policies give them all the time in the world. So for managers it's worse to get the "wrong" candidate than a sufficient one. Managers also prefer multiple rounds, testing, etc, because they can avoid blame by showing they hired someone that passed all the tests. At the same time for managers it's better to get one superstar they can brag about than a person that can do the job, because there is no job subject to profit and loss in the first place.

This is how I explain the current situation, situation I find absurd. I may be wrong, but that's what I think. I don't know if it can help, I think your pain is fully justified and this is my attempt at easing it. It helped me a little, knowing I'm not the problem and nor is the person in front of me (at least not really)

Reading about things like this I love the way we select people for university in Italy. There is a written test, multiple-choice questions.

Those who score higher, pass. Yes, it sounds like a system that favors test takers, but there are so many seats to take that if you don't score enough you really don't deserve the place (I say this as a person who was never smart not good at tests).

Nobody will consider anything else. Sadly, I've noticed a slight shift towards a more american way of talking about things like race and sex, even in universities, but I hope the legal system is strong enough to keep having neutral admissions.

Our economy is already in a bad place, last thing we need is young people being discriminated for anything but their ability to perform a task, even if arbitrary.

"So it’s possible that big companies are increasing their market power by using lobbying to capture politicians and regulators. If this is true, it’s very bad news for free markets and capitalism."

So, they managed to blame capitalism and the free market for the effects of lack of free market and the will of politicians and the public to accept regulation that causes less free market? What the hell!!!! This is the kind of culture that makes it possible for estabilished companies to lobby for increasing regulations. If there were a "free market at all cost" approach, maybe even punishment for those who attack the free market with lobbying, there would not be this kind of problem. There would be other problems, of course, but not this one. Of course, they had to blame even the lack of free market on the free market. Come on!

the housing market, especially in the US, is far from being capitalistic. You have all kind of weird rules, zoning laws maybe are the first culprit, and guess what is the result? You don't have enough houses, people are homeless and prices are most often ridiculous. This despite the fact that you have really a lot of land and the kind where you could build really high structures to house people.

this argument against IP is really good

I wish I knew this 10 years ago, when I decided to study math and get a CS degree. Sadly, while I'm good at programming (at least to the extent that nobody ever complained and projects got shipped), I'm really uncapable at math. I don't know what it is exactly, I just can't do it, no matter how much books, video lessons and tutoring I throw at it. I always understand theory but I cannot solve most exercises and problems despite a lot of practice.

Anyway, I wasted my 20s trying to get good enough at math, when I could've pushed on my talents instead. I really thought it was all about hard work and that I wasn't working hard enough, or maybe that I should've approached the problem from some other angle. Big mistake. Wasted opportunities.

The article says that China is doing good and the US is not doing well in this regard. I think they're both wrong. It's really stupid, and offensive and immoral, to put individuals into boxes. We don't know how the talents of individuals can express themselves to serve the needs of other people. That's why there should always be complete freedom of studying and working, instead of universities and States deciding who can do what job and on what terms.

Eventually I know programming will become a closed profession and I won't have access to it because of my inability to do math despite my ability to ship software. I can't even imagine how much we have lost in other closed fields in terms of productivity due to this belief that you just have to put in the work. I hope I'll manage to get out of programming before it's too late. Clock is ticking.

If facebook's actions are illegal now, they are illegal now, there is no ex post facto. Can't talk for the US, but for example the "friendly fraud" could be considered fraud in many European countries, since it brings profit to facebook by inducing people into error. The punishment includes jail time. You do need someone to start a lawsuit, of course, and that's what the judicial system should do when the fraud is repeated. But do they do it? Nope, instead we just have the politicians whine that they need more power. What a surprise.

The reason why FB and big companies in general are unafraid of current laws is that they know they won't be applied. It's a big hassle to punish the rich and the corporations, because people working in the judicial system just don't care about making big enemies. Also it's a pain in the ass because there are two thousand layers of limited liability they have to uncover before they can put the responsible people in jail. It's much easier to focus all the energy on some poor guy selling some weed or a small business not submitting the right form at the right time. Punishing them need zero effort, they can't defend themselves properly and their punishment justifies the work of the judicial system.

Elected politicians should be the one to keep the judicial system in check, but they don't have an incentive to do so that it starts to punish rich people FIRST. In the end the people, by showing support for "more laws" they only get more laws, which will cost more money to the taxpayers and also will make life difficult for the small business while big business won't care and will even be advantaged by them. All this aside from the fact that it doesn't make sense to make another law when there is already a law.

This is a classic tactics by politicians: instead of reprimanding the judicial system for refusing to do their job properly, they cry and whine publicly in order to get the consensus to create more laws, which often guarantee more power to the government and also the creation of special regulatory bodies where they can put their people with a juicy governement salary.

All the problem described in this thread could be solved with laws from 25 years ago. Facebook stealing call and contact data? No, they can't do it. No, GDPR was not needed. No, putting a phrase in a ToS that nobody reads is not enough to save a company from being destroyed in court in case of serious wrongdoing. Friendly fraud? Also a crime, just use the existing laws. Calling the users dumb fucks? Not a crime. Manipulating the users emotion or testing the algorithms on users? Also not a crime and I don't see why it should be.

Of course, it's much easier for the judicial system to not bother with those big companies by applying the existing laws. Why risk getting attention from such powerful people? And after all, if they were to apply the existing laws, then the poor politicians would have much less fake crisis to work with in order to expand the role of government and make money.

This is how the whole government thing work. Proved since the beginning of time. Trust them even less than Facebook.

Did you ever noticed that when it comes to protect a public official, for example a cop killing someone, all the State pieces work in perfect synchrony? I mean, everyone, from lawmakers, judges and the lowest of clerks suddently learn how to make exceptions and interpret the laws in new ways.

Yet, I have to believe that lawmakers aren't able to stop billionaires from screwing up the small guy without making complex regulations that impede progress and innovation, regulations that in the end make the rich and the bureaucrats a lot of money and sink hopes for the honest entrepeneur. I have to believe they're making the laws in good faith because they really have no alternative. Of course. I totally believe it.

Targeted ads are great. Things cost less because there is more competitions between suppliers and they don't have to pay a lot per piece, since they can target only the specific people who needs the thing they sell. This is GREAT for people with small business and low budgets... but we know now that Europe only care about the big business and billionaire overlords. Also with targeted ads you don't have to hear/read about products you will never care for a moment in your life.

I can totally see the sites that caused the GDPR to become a thing on the list. What an incredible job EU bureacrats, keep it up, it's not like the economy here doesn't need more rules.

If they just had to rely on the free market, colleges would have closed a long time ago. They can't improve anymore because they don't get any signal they're doing a good job. If I'm doing a good job, I know because people will pay me or I win (cold)battles in war. Instead in these peaceful times, colleges don't have a way of knowing for sure they're doing good, except with self-congratulations and educational theories.

At the same time, I think if it wasn't for State licenses, regulations that force to have a degree and a culture that discriminate against people without a state-supported college degree, we would see no advantages for the college degree holder, at least with current colleges.

Would a person with a significant project hire through middleman websites? Maybe, but it wouldn't be a very smart move on his part, and would also denote some inexperience dealing with professionals and consultants. Finding good clients is not easy, but removing places where there is a higher chance to find bad clients helps.

design isn't something "objective", so it's where they usually put the worst candidates that they were forced to hire. This gets worse when companies grow bigger because the hiring is done by people quite far from the product

Thing with rules is that you can't know when is right to break them if you don't know them.

Well, european countries usually didn't shy away from bureaucracy. Now that there is the EU, there is another big layer of bureaucracy, and it doesn't help at all. Even worse is the fact that these bureaucrats are really distant from the people, both physically and with their hearts. We are still going on because we're wasting the capital we accumulated in hundreds of years, otherwise we would have succumbed long time ago. Of course, this is a summary of my political analysis, I don't pretend to know the truth or really anything. Don't want to offend people with my opinion.

You need to reveal who is managing the data in any case, which is separate from the DPO.

if I have a forum I store the email of the users so they can recover the password. Same thing if I put up a simple newsletter to contact my users, I have their emails (newsletters may not be fashionable but they're much more effective than using a facebook page or other systems, since you own the email list of people who want to hear from you).

So, even in the boring world of small websites, you have to comply.

The law is for everyone, it doesn't matter if I profit from it or how big I am, I still have to reveal who I am if I take data that is often needed, like emails in a forum.

My judgement is that US is also in a bad spot, but at least the first amendment give them a little more protection, and there is a much stronger stance on freedom of speech, and even more variety in opinions compared to Europe.

These kind of laws make it much more difficult to spread content and therefore they consolidate informations in few player, often loved by the governments and their puppeteers.

We used to be able to put a website online, gather emails to send newsletters, offer services to our users, etc without any help from the government. Now, every time I put a new website online I have to fill pages of pages with stupid policies and I know I'm not even fully compliant because honestly it's impossible to really be since it's all about how it's interpreted by the current bureaucrat. These kind of laws don't deserve a place in Europe.

You need people to be able to be naturally compliant, so that they can promote their stuff wihout being scared of persecution if they say something the government doesn't like. Today you don't make a website and say controversial stuff, otherwise you know that when the government will notice it will uses the broad interpretations that stupid laws like the cookie law or GPDR give them to drag you into court and destroy you. By government of course I mean bureaucrats, political figures and your bigger competitors.

These kind of laws, like the GDPR, where they say "we will use them for good, don't worry, we will ony use them on big companies" are those that freedom-minded people should be mostly scared about. Of course the proposal in OP is much worse and makes no sense.

If you put population control, you will have honest people not reproducing and dishonest people reproducing, therefore you'll end up with spreading the genes of dishonesty.

Natural selection at work.

Most laws of this kind are made so that they can exclude small players from the market.

If something goes wrong, Facebook can easily hire an army of lawyers and "prove" that they "processed [data] in a manner that ensures appropriate security".

But a small player can't do that. This has the follow advantages for big corps and governments:

1. Big companies can use the laws to destroy small companies (they just need to push the enforcers of regulations in the right direction, maybe with a little gift or something wink wink) 2. People don't even try to create a small company, because it's too risky, so big companies don't have to face any competition at all 3. Governments and other institutions can use the laws to stop people who spread informations or products that go against their interest. In fact the main reason for GDPR is stopping the spreading of true informations about the current political situation in Europe (what they techinically call "fake news"). It's much easier to control the web if you only have Facebook, Youtube and other channel you can easily manipulate. Good luck instead controlling hundreds of thousands of small blogs, mailing lists, chat rooms, etc

Looks like defamation to me. Just because a website doesn't have https doesn't mean it not secure. It's not secure for some activities, and if the browser marks the whole page as not secure, it's defamation.

I don't care if the web would be better with all site having https. Chrome is saying something defamatory about websites without https.

you are doing what libraries should be doing, especially for books they intend to throw out.

I mean, the US government has warehouses of data with the most inane things about people and then they can't manage to store books before throwing the physical copy out.

Damn.

Obligatory Aaron Paul Xbox One ads https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEoZbXB78NI

there is no place in the world where you can do this. All countries force you to hire "diversity" at a certain point.

>When someone gets questioned by the police, you expect the person to tell the truth.

Police should not expect anything. Even if you tell the truth, police could still build a story so that it will make you guilty of something. Not because police are evil, but because investigation is not easy, so any interaction with the police is a great danger for any person, especially the honest ones since they are often more naive and less equipped to deal with the police.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

I'm still paying taxes on money I didn't even earned.

As usual people ask for more regulations, but when you do regulations corporations always find a way around and become stronger. They become stronger because the small guy doesn't have the money, the energy and the lawyers to abide to every stupid regulation thrown at him.

It surprises me that it's the founder of tpb to call for more regulations, since he made a website that survived this long thanks to a lack of regulations.

Also it's false that today there is nothing outside of fb, google, etc There are a lot of websites and services one can use and support so that they can improve. There are a lot of cool communities outside those blessed by big corps. But I can see how the billions of internet noobs that do stupid stuff on fb or google get a lot of attentions. But they truly are noobs.

The only problem with fb, google, etc is that, as all corporations do, they will eventually lobby the government to pass regulations so that they can have an easier life against competition, and they are smart enough to do it so that you can't see it coming. They won't say "google must rule", no, they will push for ten new law every day, until there are thousands of laws and only well-payed lawyer can abide them. This is how it's always worked in all industries, in all countries. It's like a circle of economic self-destruction.

The only rule that the internet need is a rule to define what the internet is, and that rule is embedded in the concept of Net Neutrality. Because of course if I buy "the internet" I want the damn internet, not cable tv 2.0. And all the extra rules, those about freedom of speech, etc should be about how there shall be a lack of rules, not more rules.

If you ask for more rules you first get stupid stuff like the EU cookie law, and then really bad stuff that makes life difficult for the little guy, but not the big guy. When you ask for regulations from the government you pave the road for the CORPORATIONS because they have the lawyer, the money, the energy that the little guy does not have.

If you hate google and fb so much block them, for now it is possible to do it. In almost all industries there are a lot of regulations. And most of this regulations are in the end against the little guy, and favor the big guy. Maybe one day there will be a lot of regulations for the internet, but none of them will help the freedom of normal people, but just make corporations stronger. And then you really won't be able to block fb, google, youtube, etc