766 karma · joined April 3, 2019
I don't see how content policy, adhering to privacy regulations, etc... would be different when there's facebook person or an ex-cia person.
Afterwards, law enforcement could get a court order to release those logs if the judge deems the "crime" is severe enough.
This seems more like an ethical, philosopical, or even an legal issue. I doubt it can be resolved by using automation.
In case they use a bit of force on the gas pedal, you can push slightly harder to override it. Depending how it's implemented and how good it works, I think the bit of push back of gas pedal is good idea. Then I can avoid looking at the dash to check my speed. If it's unreliable, I guess they'll probably opt for a warning light instead.
You have no problem when someone decides to kill someone and thinks the laws doesn't apply to them. To make matters worse, you think someone who tries to obey the laws makes a terrible decision by not killing anyone.
If killing someone doesn't give you a pause, I would be afraid to be a minority in whatever society you live in. The laws, which you so easily dismissed, gives some rights to minorities.
What's next? Here are five people who are dying... Let's kill someone in the minority to get their organs and transplant them. It's ok! Five people will survive, while only one dies.
Laws, whether or not you like them, are there to also protect minorities.
I didn't introduce the convoluted idea of there being train tracks and a switch. If it was purely hypothetical, you could've asked: "Would you prefer to let 5 people die or let 1 die"
Here's another hypothetical:
"A train is on a track and you are standing on bridge above it. You spot a couple of kilometers further down the track 5 people who are going to be run over by the train. Do you push someone standing beside you over the edge and onto the tracks so the train will register a collision and stops in order to save those 5 people?"
This is the exact same scenario. Only instead of pulling a lever, you have a human interaction. The percentages of who would kill that 1 person change when the trolley dilemma is asked in that way.
If we're getting to the crux of the problem, then why does the response change when you provide the exact same scenario but replace the mechanical with a human-to-human interaction?
Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know all laws of all countries.
I'm hoping a lawyer would jump into this thread.
I would never criticise someone for making the decision to pull the lever. I understand that decision, I really do. I only said I wouldn't do it and explained why.
It's not as clear cut as you think it is. If you think it is, then write to a philosophy professor and say you've solved the trolley dilemma through an internet vote. I hope this sounds absurd to you.
You can play with numbers, but if I were to pull the lever, I would feel I would kill someone for the sole reason they were in the minority. Which is an extra reason for me not to do it.
The calculation for me would change if there was a choice between killing 5 people and potentially killing nobody. But that's not the hypothetical here.
If those rules needs to be changed, then change them through debate and well reasoned arguments and not a split second decision. The "good samaritan" law is an example of this. If perform CPR on someone who's heart has stopped, they can't sue you if you save their life but cracked some ribs.
The war in Ukraine didn't cause the inflation (I think), although I admit it probably made it worse. I think it was the other way around. The prospect of inflation caused the war in Ukraine. Russia thought with all the challenges we would face, we wouldn't react to an invasion in Ukraine.
I'm not an expert in macro economics, so do you think there wouldn't be an inflation if Russia didn't invade Ukraine?
I was responding to this from an 'EU' perspective. For the tech companies who do bussiness globally, my objection still stands. In the country I'm living in, the data collected to determine whether someone is pregnant or had an abortion, is data collected beyond what they should be collecting to provide their service.
I have no idea why a company who provides: email, vpn, search, etc... should be able to figure out users health data.
The laws differ between what law enforcement can and can't do.
The question is whether they have enough data to provide to law enforcement if one their users underwent an abortion. If they aren't collecting enough data to determine this then they could just state: "we can't and therefor we won't"
It's a huge red flag if corps think they have enough data about their users that they think they can provide this data.
edit: I'm not talking about social media where people might explicitly say this.
For me, the sanctions aren't about stopping the current war, but about stopping future wars.
In your analogy...
Rusty doesn't know how to make a baseball bat. We supplied rusty with baseball bats because we thought he would use it to play baseball games. Instead he used it to threaten his class mates. We took that supply of baseball bats away from him because we can and don't want him to threaten Suzy like he did with Ursula. It doesn't matter to me what Rusty wants to trade to get those bats.
I don't supply bats or anything that can be traded to bats to Rusty in order to protect Suzy and I'll give Ursula whatever she needs to protect herself.
Sincerely,
Amanda
Did you even read the article?
They said this in point 1 (!), the one of their first points of their conclusions was that advertisement is adviced for start-up companies.
They explicitly said their conclusion wasn't that ads didn't work. I find it hard to believe you read the article and somehow not read that part.
In the second world war, the germans went into the municipal buildings, raided the census data and eliminated everyone who wrote the "wrong" religion in the census data.
I think this is why Europeans care more about privacy than Americans. It's not only about why it should matter, but also it shouldn't be weaponized.
(Don't take this seriously): Suppose your country was under attack and foreign troops invaded. They take you and say: "Well, well, it seems you're a javascript programmer according to your linkedin profile... We don't like javascript"
That was WWII, privacy is also weaponized today. Rogue regimes will use whatever is put online to harass or even assassinate people in other countries.
The thing that bothers me the most about this sort of discussions is that it's all done on "paper"[1]. It would be helpful to actually release a balloon, or whatever object you think it was, and check if you can reproduce the glare and other sensor data.
If it's very easy to reproduce then we can be more confident in that explanation and probably nail down more detailed characteristics of that object. Once we have that we can look where this object could've come from. For example, if it points to a balloon, did a company/organization lose a balloon in that time frame? Once we have all this info we would have an explanation that's more robust than someone saying: "It might be possible this and potentially that"
This requires money, time and the hardware. So I guess it's unlikely that will ever happen.
[1] Not saying it's useless. Those calculations and/or simulations are very useful to limit the types of objects it could be.
[1] https://www.voanews.com/a/icc-may-investigate-possible-war-c...
That's not true. I have a game that was pulled by the publisher (legal issues, don't know the details). But everyone who bought it can still download it and play it. Pulling it in this case just means no one can buy it anymore.
It was actually shocking to me when I found out that stuff I bought on other online stores wasn't available anymore for whatever reason. For this reason I still buy stuff on steam but I don't have enough trust to buy anything in another store.
Russia said they wouldn't invade Ukraine because:
-Russia is holding military exercises, you're being paranoid
-Nobody invades a european country on a wednesday (ok, that's true. They did it on a tuesday)
-Russia is pulling back troops.
-Russia will pull back troops as soon as the military exercises are done. So (previous) sunday. (or not!)
-Russia isn't invading Ukraine, we're just sending peacekeeping forces into the region that we declared independent of Ukraine.
etc... These aren't negotiation tactics to resolve future NATO membership concerns. These are stall tactics to position their military.
What Russia did strengthens the resolve of Ukraine to seek an alliance with NATO although they wouldn't qualify for membership. The more likely reason is that Russia hopes to undermine NATO. By taking Ukraine and putting themselves at the border of NATO countries, they can test if there's going to be a 2 tiered NATO. Countries for which the alliance is willing to invoke art. 5, and countries they are willing to abandon to avoid a world war.
When did HN became a support page for multi-billion companies? It's not that they can't afford to pay people to provide support. Or is this a sort of hidden agreement where if you make more than a billion, you can fire all of your support staff and hope the HN community fixes things for you for free.
In the past, we distributed the moderation but now it seems everything, including moderation, needs to be done by a single entity. There are attempts to automate things but they aren't working.
The best docs I could find in a short amount of time, are those from anti-grain[1] where the author describes it as a "second alpha channel.
[1] http://agg.sourceforge.net/antigrain.com/doc/basic_renderers...
I wonder how many ads we need to watch before google implements something even remotely similar to user support? How many billions are enough before we get support?
I know I'm overreacting but I'm getting tired of these articles. We all know that google is messed up (to put it lightly). Some people here don't think that's the case and that's fine. Other people, including me, don't find it surprising at all.
Post something about google killing cute kittens.
I wouldn't be surprised but I would be interested in that story.
If the police are allowed to lie about evidence then this undermines the suspects chances for a fair trial (false confession). If the defense can show at a trial that the police lied during the interrogation, this would impact the chance for a conviction. At least this is how it works in the EU. In the US, I have the impression the judges don't take this into account.