relics443

Great story and all, but this piece is obviously written as an attack on Trump for things he didn't do, and failures that never happened to him.

When will the media get that this doesn't work?

So now the EU is in charge of how I decide to build my app, and is trying to dictate what suppliers I can use?

What if I decide that crash reporting is an essential service (it is), and the EU's lawyers decide that it's not? Who is going to pay my legal fees, and potential fine? I should be on the hook because some schmuck uses a service that I provide for free (which essentially means I'm paying for it with my time), and is upset that I may not be handling his data in the way that the EU says I should be? The sane solution would be to allow me to tell this individual that he cannot use the app if he doesn't consent. But here comes the EU telling me that I must allow him to use the app.

So the rest of the world should get annoyed with the opening dialog, so that the EU doesn't have to get blocked? Sounds like this could be solved by a proper solution, which the GDPR is not.

I'm beginning to highly doubt that anyone defending the GDPR has ever had any responsibilities that included:

1. Running a tech company

2. Funnels, conversions, and retentions

3. Writing software

Either that or they just want to watch the world burn.

Did you read any further? If I can't prevent them from using the app, then I have to solve an impossible problem. Namely providing a fallback for core services that the app is built on.

Don't worry. The GDPR does a bang up job of devaluing itself.

Yes. Besides for the administration costs incurred (which is probably the real killer), the list of death points are:

1. Adding a dialog as the first step in an onboarding funnel that's already difficult to get users through

2. Handling non-consent. WTF! So if the user doesn't give consent to something that 99% of the population doesn't understand, I'm not allowed to prevent them from using the app. And so my engineering team needs to waste critical hours figuring out things like how to deal with crashes, or maybe how in the fuck we're supposed to fallback to not using services that we're built on (e.g. Firebase)!

3. Dealing with the fallout of #1 in the form of bad reviews that are the kiss of death to startups

Unfortunately those competitors will crash and burn when their users get pissed off at the opening dialog.

Oh the law. Good one.

The same law that fined me $1,800 because a posted notice fell off my door in a blizzard? The same law that allowed the judge to uphold the fine by saying "I don't believe you". Bureaucracy sucks, and the second it gets its tentacles on you, no amount of cheek clenching is gonna delay the inevitable.

I think you mean "can't see a reason not to honestly, ONLY if it's valid". And even that's morally ambiguous.

I've heard conflicting reports about that as well.

I don't see what leaking personal information has to do with collecting crash data, or using Google's infrastructure to store my data. Why should I have to be on the hook for what is most definitely much safer than trying to safeguard the data myself?

Like I said, all it will accomplish is discouraging projects like mine that aim to provide utility to some people. One of my released hobby apps is no great commercial success (I don't show ads or collect revenue), but it's one of the top rated apps in its category on the Play Store, and I have about 20k DAU.

If the GDPR ever came after me for it, I'd just take the app down. Bam, 20k people a day affected because of over regulation.

Also, I wouldn't equate personalized ads with the life and death regulations involved in the auto industry.

My point is, I have no clue what's collecting data in an improper way, and I'm not going to hire a lawyer for a hobby app.

The amount of conflicting information about whether I do or don't need consent based on what services I use is just stupid. And I wouldn't even be showing ads.

Part of the apps function is related to location, do I need consent? Maybe.

It will use Firebase, do I need consent? Maybe.

It will collect crash data so I can debug the stupid thing, do I need consent? Maybe.

Etc...

I'm still struggling with the fact that the EU can compel me to add what will be a funnel shattering dialog to my onboarding.

I've shelved a bunch of side projects that I was excited to work on because I have no interest in dealing with any of this ambiguous law. Implementing it would most likely cause a large percentage of users to uninstall my app, because who wants to be greeted with a scary sounding dialog as their first experience in an app. I know many folks here are privacy oriented, but unless this tiny slice of the population is willing to fund my app, I have 0 interest in pandering to them vs the majority of users that would get scared away by it.

I know that there's an almost 0% chance of any repercussion for not being compliant in a tiny app that'll probably never get anywhere, but I'm just so sickened by this whole thing that I don't want to deal with any of it.

Curious about the Yahoo Store debacle that was mentioned a few times.

Slightly off topic, but towards the end, he mentions that:

"Though they experienced homophobia and struggled financially..."

This particular case aside, why is all negativity towards homosexuality grouped into homophobia? Is anyone who opposes homosexuality afraid of it (in a literal translation)?

The dictionary.com definition of the suffix phobia is:

"a combining form meaning “fear,” occurring in loanwords from Greek ( hydrophobia); on this model, used in the names of mental disorders that have the general sense “dread of, aversion toward” that specified by the initial element:"

What about folks approaching from a standpoint that has neither a dread of, nor an aversion towards homosexuals? Why are they called homophobic?

Who established the fact that Conscientiousness negatively correlates with intelligence?

YMMV but it improves my experience because I get to use all these great products and features Google has, without lifting a finger, and in most cases without paying a penny. All I have to do is ignore the ads on my screen (which my brain seems to already do).

Have you considered that there are people out there with values that differ from yours? It's not wildly impossible, regardless of what the screaming minority would have you believe.

Maybe they don't have a problem with working on such projects, because they agree with their end goal?

I discovered the feature by mistake, and I thought it was cool. I usually browse Wikipedia on my phone, so I don't know if I'd still think it was cool if there are constant false positives on it.

This is typical of new languages. A good showcase of dogfooding.

I'm comfortable with most advanced git stuff. I don't touch submodules.

I'm deferring to the reasons why it's a law.

"Things like murder are criminalized because they involve the infringement upon the rights of others against their will."

Correct, that's why murder is criminalized, and not the reason why prostitution is criminalized.

I think the question you mean to ask is why criminalize anything, and IMO that's out of the scope of this forum.

But once you receive the answer to your real question, the reason why prostitution is criminal, while yoga pants are not should be self evident.

I wouldn't be so quick to say it doesn't harm anyone else.

It's not so far fetched to imagine a married family man acting on an impulse to hire a prostitute. It's a situation where if one wasn't so easily available, he wouldn't have done it.

Not such a stretch of the imagination to imagine this person getting found out by family. Bam! Instant harm to multiple innocent people.

1. Static typing without having to deal with TS

2 (main reason). Our codebase has turned into a disaster, and we realized that none of our node developers are senior despite what their resume says; our interview process was more geared towards hiring anyone than hiring well. We tried finding a more senior node engineer, but we couldn't given our time constraints, so I'm taking some of our actual senior engineers from our mobile team, and the consensus was that we wanted to work with Kotlin.

While this is a very sad story, it doesn't change the fact that prostitution is illegal. Even if it helped save her life, it's still illegal.

Until it is made legal (not happening in the US), there is no argument that should work in favor of making it easier.

There are reasons prostitution is illegal. There are reasons to make it as difficult as possible for someone to find a prostitute. There are enough stories of people who tear apart their lives and families because it was too easy to find a prostitute (implication is that they wouldn't have used a prostitute if they couldn't find one easily and quickly).

It's sad that she suffers from bi-polar, but this is not a utilitarian society. Backpage helping her doesn't justify the fact that it directly led to a proliferation of illegal activity.

Almost every one that has an Android app :/

We're also moving ahead with our plan to replace node with the jvm for our backend.

I haven't used Facebook in a while, so maybe things have changed, but don't they show you a permissions page where you agree to give the developer access to your information?