prego_xo

I wouldn't argue that they're all super bad and dangerous, but it's the presentation that matters. When dubious products are put next to decades-old tried-and-true FDA-approved products, it gives the customer the illusion that they're of similar quality and thus effect. Some homeopathic drugs work on some, but not for others, and to frame it as though they're as trustworthy as their neighbor could be dangerous.

What I do for pretty much any book that I intend to learn from is treat it like a lecture; as though I'm going to be quizzed on it afterwards. I have always had issues committing things to long-term memory, but the same methods we use to remember things from lectures work for books too. I typically write out a summary (in a dedicated document on my laptop) of each chapter I read, after i finish reading it, in the most concise manner possible. A few sentences about the narrative, and bullet points about what I want to remember from the chapter. This way, I can return to my notes when I want to remember a book and what it's about and get a solid gist about what's important. Not only does this help refresh my memory, but writing those summaries makes it twice as likely for me to remember the parts in question. Christ knows how hard this was when I read the Old Testament.

> Physics is an empirical science with a rather neutral language to communicate its content. Arguments (much more 'findings') can be translated to this language and be understood on their own.

I agree, but it should be taken into account that much of philosophy is based on science (namely psychology/sociology) and a lot of ideas are discarded if they're missing some morsel of empirical evidence.

I'm not saying we should use those kinds of old practices as a basis for our modern ones, but rather that it's more healthy for new and developing [scientists/artists/philosophers/etc] to study the history and learn about the steps it took to get to our modern understanding. We can't expect to advance further without knowing the foundation on which our understanding is built. Learning about what it took to advance in the past is how we create a mindset that lets us advance now; we can't begin to think critically without knowing our wrongs and our rights in tandem.

Should we not study old scientists because they had no idea about the concepts we have found recently? Should we no longer study old politics because their climate was different? Should old tactics be disregarded because they used different, weaker weapons than us? Should old art be discarded because they used older theories and didn't understand perspective like we do?

No.

This is probably the clearest explanation of exactly what users can do to (non-mentarily) support an open-source project that I have seen to date.

I'm seeing a lot of people trying to rationalize and excuse this behavior from Google, but man is it a hard sell on me.

My mother recently remarked in a unique conversation that we have had a box of Golden Grahams cereal for a year and should find a recipe to use it up. She opened her phone to search, and lo and behold, the top recommendation after only two letters, R and e, was "Golden Grahams recipes". Not only had that never been a topic of conversation or search beforehand, nor did she have Google open on her phone, but you may have noticed that "Golden Grahams recipes" doesn't even start with R or e. This sparked a long conversation about how privacy really is something worth fighting for.

My only guess is that Google has the ability to listen in because we use Android phones.

It's e2e encrypted, just they have the keys and use them :)

Yeah, that's definitely the case and I see where the hassle is, but to restate my point, those costs are simply a part of overhead and not the business of users. Unless the users are given an opt-out first and foremost, they're owed ownership over their personal data.

Very fair point, and I understand the necessity of data collection in some cases. I do feel like that's a cost that's incurred voluntarily, though, and shouldn't fall on the shoulders of users/customers. Some people might not want data to be collected to begin with, so the cost ends up being your company's fault and not theirs.

DoS is an understandable concern, but charging for a service is probably one of the least sensible ways to prevent it. To me, it just looks like the most profitable and impeding hurdle that companies can set up to prevent users who want to access their own data. I would be frustrated if any application made me pay even a small fine because they suspect a DoS attack. For example, entering my credit card info because I've searched a phrase too much just isn't efficient.

> (B) any time beyond the initial 2 times described in subparagraph (A), may allow the individual to exercise such right for a reasonable fee for each request.

Paying any sum of money to receive a copy of or request to delete my private data is unreasonable in nature.

Slight misrepresentation of the story towards the end. The "shoe computer" is a real thing, called Sockfish based off of the open source chess algorithm Stockfish. It works by analyzing the moves being played, running them through a simulation, and vibrating through haptics in the user's shoe in a sort of Morse code to describe the best move; all on a Raspberri Pi Zero. It has been made and tested to be a little janky but overall effective. The ending detail about Niemann's chess.com ban is framed in a way that makes it seem like this game is what got him banned, which isn't the case. He was banned years prior for cheating, before he had a reputation and people knew who he was.

Fun fact: Good grades during high school is directly positively correlated with future success and occurrence of fights. Good luck convincing teenagers to get good grades.