reroute1

Of course people would. There's many contexts where women just don't fit in with men, like most athletics which have different leagues and groups for different genders. And more over even in a space where it's not gender specific, like DnD, some may just prefer the company of men regardless of the given activity. Just as women do...

Basic concepts != random vague theories

That's true, but there are other tradeoffs with living in the suburbs. I don't have a car and get along fine in the city with public transportation, plus the benefits of the city for a single young professional outweigh the suburbs in my personal opinion. Again it is highly priced, but it's also high in demand and for me it's worth it.

Same here, I have an apt which is 30 min commute from downtown chicago and pay highly for it. But to me it's worth it over having a very long commute or finding a different job. Opportunities outside of the city are much more limited.

They are highly priced for a reason... because of the demand of people wanting to live there, so no it's not really that simple.

OK, but isn't this largely semantics? Saying Apple doesn't care about customers may technically be true, but that is taking it quite literally. The statement can also be meant to imply the people in Apple care, of course no one would speculate that a non human corporate entity would care.

I also largely agree that the Apple meme of privacy being trotted out lately doesn't quite jive with this news, but at the same time surely there are people who care about it at Apple, and maybe as a whole they even prioritize it more than others.

But I also don't know how much I really disagree with the FBI's position. In general I have seen this kind of access to be used in the right situations (IE collecting communications of criminals). I understand this can be a slippery slope, but should we trade that for leaving clear evidence against criminals unturned in the name of "privacy"?

Isn't google already the front door to everyone's website? Are the amp URLS really crazy? If you have a .com address is that roughly the URL in search results?

Your link is being shared from Google's search results and their application, so you might not like it but they have every right to control how it's displayed. Is it difficult to accept traffic from an AMP link? Are there technical downsides besides being called a name you don't want?

Just saying IMO Google isn't ruining the internet. Of course every decision being scrutinized they can't have a perfect record. They have a search engine that due to it's popularity is the target of all kinds of stats gaming and optimizing, While at the same time trying to grow a profitable product. So it's not like there are simple solutions or easy quips like Google Ruined the Internet. It sounds like a lazy argument.

I don't think they can bring criminal charges just for opening an account. But if they continue to do business after supplying false information that might be some kind of fraud.

But they could also just enforce stricter rules around reviewing and approving sellers. While not having the threat of legal action it is something they have much more control around.

To be fair didn't internet marketers ruin things first by cramming keywords in URLS and page titles to game search engines?

I guess it depends on the user. I can't really put myself in the mindset of someone else, but I am pretty sure I would never accidentally click an ad and not realize it. Maybe others who don't pay attention to this kind of thing might be affected though.

Yes I see the same, it's really easy to tell what is an ad and what isn't...

Not exactly. Some people may not understand and also not care and I'm sure there are many many people who that fits. When you're talking about surveillance level vs. someone hacking your iPhone that's not really a comparison. Of course people don't want their private messages stolen, but that's not really the case with most surveillance. Not that I'm in favor of it necessarily but there are merits.

Surveillance and privacy aren't the same thing but this is the FBI and people are bringing up snowden. In general I think you're right privacy is just expected for personal messages, but at some point when it's just data I don't think most people care, and may in fact support some level of surveillance.

How do you know? Have you been to the future and confirmed that my history has not lived on? You might think it improbable, but you have no way of knowing that.

Yes security certs are valuable in some cases, my manager has a CISSP and attributes his current job role to it. I think it also helps people looking for a first job to make up for a lack of experience. It's just a part of the overall consideration though, just having a cert itself won't guarantee you anything. And it shouldn't there is a lot more to being a productive team member.

That's not enforcing the same requirements on Chinese companies. That's one possible effect, but certainly not enforcing the same requirements.

That's exactly what I was thinking! Blood vessels and capillaries. Cool project.

> No, it would be enforcing the same requirements on chinese companies as the US enforces on their own

How are they going to do that?

> If they don't then fine them just as much, to have access to the US market.

That's not the issue, the Chinese tech companies would have more freedom and support for the international market. Access to the US is just one part of that and there are already obstacles to that market. The main point is that the US companies would be hamstringed in a way that China companies would not.

Also not being a legal scholar, the distinction being that a felony is a much more serious crime and lands people in jail for long periods of time. Which is why I think this could be an over reaction when a data leak may possibly be a mistake or ignorance. I understand that the nature of the data may be sensitive, but I don't think it makes sense to ham handedly punish people for something they aren't directly responsible for. Like someone being hypothetically hurt by someone else because of a data leak they may not even have known about.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that because some data got leaked that it should be a felony.

Eh, maybe it's irresponsible but I don't think that it needs to be a felony or that those people shouldn't be in business. People just shouldn't expect every shady website to have perfect data practices.

No it doesn't It discusses humans naturally squatting to pick things up and how over time we have started to sit down, it has nothing to do with exercise. I know what body weight squats are and theyre not what the article is about.

This article has nothing to do with bodyweight squats or olympic lifts...

Exactly what?

> By asking this question, you deny yourself access to its answer.

... No it doesn't?

> It would be easy to build an app that alarms when the battery becomes disconnected (i.e. someone walks away with your stuff).

Wait what? How does this work?

Are you seriously asking me about metrics? You're entire post is a bunch of anecdotes. I'm not basing my response off of any real data and neither are you.

> The empathy and connection has been built successfully, and no amount of ex post facto chastisement about "hey you were just dehumanized and disrespected" tends to register.

This doesn't even make sense. You call it chastisement but then put dehumanized and disprespected in quotes. Why? Are you disagreeing that it's dehumanizing? Or that it actually is dehumanizing and disrespectful, but that doesn't matter at this point?

I can tell you personally that

1. If it's the case that you disagree in it being dehumanizing. Fine, that is your opinion. I disagree and think it is dehumanizing and if someone said that to me after sex I would be pissed and lose interest. How about myself for a reference no data needed. This isn't just about Women on tinder.

2. If it's the case that you agree it's dehumanizing, but because empathy and connection have been built it doesn't matter. Again it's your opinion that it doesn't matter after a connection has been built and I disagree strongly. If you think I'm the only human who disagrees ok... I don't know what the numbers are, and I even stated in another post that there's nothing wrong an approach like this, but some people will clearly see it differently

I agree if someone goes about this approach and is respectful of everyone along the way it's not necessarily dehumanizing and there's nothing wrong with it, but regardless it may feel dehumanizing to the person to find out about since that's more about recognizing and optimizing patterns, and less about their individual uniqueness.

For most people it's not really that extreme and to some extent this has to be allowed for. That's the tricky part especially with sex, you want someone who is good at it, but that typically comes with experience. That may make some people uncomfortable. Find a good balance and just call it what it is, young people living life. But it's also a good warning to not "over optimize" and spend all your time going down that route because then some people would rightfully question that kind of behavior. I know I don't want a partner with thousands of sexcapades.

Right, it is emergent among a group of human beings who may or may not be aware of the actions they are taking as is the case with global warming. Although nowadays more and more people are aware of what causes global warming and how they contribute.

That also doesn't mean that some people aren't trying to keep the status quo or rig a system. Just that if a system is unfair, that could be something that was not necessarily designed or intended, but happened anyway.

Where is your systemic approach and optimization in this example? You haven't given any information on the approach other than find pleasure points. That's not using systems and optimization, so no it's not dehumanizing.

If on the other hand you carefully studied adult films, read the kama sutra, and practiced this at every opportunity you might have a systemic approach. And if your partner learned about this I don't think anyone could be called silly for feeling dehumanized by it. This is basically the approach that most people take to some extent, but that doesn't mean you want to advertise how you looked at a huge population and deduced effective methods of sexual pleasure. Of course some men or women may have no problem with this approach, but that is highly dependent on the individual and many people would feel dehumanized by it or uncomfortable with it. Sex is actually a good example because there are often strong personal feelings, even love associated with it.

Again it might be counter-intuitive, like how else are people supposed to figure these things out? But at the same time that fact can be very dehumanizing and seem disrespectful to disclose your "process" if it involved a lot of systematic optimization. Not very lovey dovey.

That's a terrible example and yes many people would be offended by that and not "laught it off", that is highly dependent on the individual and situation. Just because you made a connection doesn't mean you can't destroy it just as easily, by say pointing out the shallow nature of your connection.