comfypotato
If the behavior was blatantly unethical, which I don’t think it is, it would be illegal everywhere. Just because my opinion is different than the popular opinion doesn’t make it anti-vax. Grow up and open your mind.
The Cambridge Analytica scandal was prosecuted under the current privacy situation. My ire with the level-0 comment was in it stating that the current situation doesn’t work. Also downloading random apps off Facebook is hardly behavior that a privacy conscious person would take. Not to mention that the use of the data, unless I’m missing something, did no more than make people uncomfortable.
The closest thing this entire thread has given as evidence of overfishing is that a journalist was killed for meddling in government affairs, which has nothing to do with overfishing.
As I stated in another comment, yes, it’s ideological differences on which we differ.
I was attracted to the industry effectively to verify authentication through device fingerprinting. Others, en masse, are drawn because they don’t like the current privacy situation. Can you imagine someone being attracted to marine biology that didn’t like fish?
It’s perfectly reasonable to say that, yes, I disagree with the majority of the field. In this instance, “I don’t like fish.”
My point is that the internet is already an extremely private place. I started this in reply to someone proposing privacy evangelism in the wake of ignorant sheeple, and that’s stupid and insulting.
Kashoggi was a journalist investigating government corruption. The context of reasonable internet privacy is completely irrelevant.
What does Tor have to do with stalking? Since when has someone’s internet browsing been affected by a stalker?
That being said, it’s perfectly reasonable not to see eye to eye regarding privacy, which is effectively what I said that started this entire thread. I personally don’t think that online privacy is the front on which discussions about abortion legislation should take place. Even Google, manufacturing Chromium, takes privacy into account to a reasonable extent [0], and I personally feel that it is enough.
[0] For example, if your machine has more than 16Gb of RAM, Chromium only reports 16 because there’s no browser application that needs to know you have more than 16, and it would instantly make your device fingerprint unique.
Also, if you haven’t already, you could train a model on your moderation. It’s world class and could benefit folks generally.
I’m trying to say that the current privacy situation is good enough. The status quo can’t be abused such that money can be made.
In don’t appreciate the personal attacks on my character. It’s really a testament to my point, though. The internet is private enough that you feel comfortable commenting fighting words from behind a keyboard. Hypocrites the lot of you.
It’s perfectly reasonable to say that I have no moral commitment to improving the online privacy situation in light of your given example. State actors in Saudi Arabia are so far removed from a typical citizen that they’re completely irrelevant to the discussion.
And anyway: I meant the civilized and developed first world generally. The world is otherwise full of human rights atrocities.
You just strengthened my point. There’s no reason to care about online privacy. There’s no money in being a creep about it, so people mind their own business. The data collection is all about money.
You suggest I “look into it further” as if I didn’t just say I was a privacy researcher.
That being said, my views aren’t your problem. I’m asking for help understanding an alternative look on things and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t immature.
You’ve done nothing to back up your stance. By all means, feel free to provide a breakdown of your argument in the context of my point regarding deceit. I’m genuinely interested. The discrimination aspect of the discussion could use some research and, ultimately, is only a sideshow to the concept of dishonesty in business (and can be disregarded). As far as the logic of the “deceit” portion, there is a leap of faith in extending the deceit of basic haggling/negotiation to hiding one’s identity. As I said before, if we differ in this belief, there’s no reconciling. Otherwise, my logic is rock solid.
To clarify my point with anecdote: I recently negotiated the purchase of a car; at no point did I practice deceit. I simply stated the price I was looking for and then negotiated to lower the price by pitting sellers against each other. Regarding deceit, I’m referring to what is more along the lines of “haggling” — an attempt is made to get a better deal on a purchase/sale than the bottom line of what you are willing to offer. This haggling would be present in Disney’s purchase of the land where there are no other current buyers for the seller to pit against Disney.
Unless I’m wrong and SF is actually cheaper to rent always.
Even considering all this, it’s often only a small difference. And renting gives you a different and sometimes advantageous quality of life.
You confirmed that you’re dishonest by omission in your example. The fact that a counteroffer exists shows that it’s not implied you were forthwith with the price/value. Making/receiving a counteroffer implies that there was deceit, it’s just culturally acceptable deceit. If negotiations were completely honest, there would never be a counteroffer. Some Native American tribes were known for this sort of negotiation where the bottom line is stated and then accepted or rejected. They were often offended, by the implied dishonesty, by European’s counteroffers.
Extended to this situation, hiding an identity because it affects the business decisions of the other party is no different. (And I won’t continue the discussion if you want to defend your assertion that Disney is morally wrong here for being dishonest by omission.)
You’re basically arguing for discrimination to be legal.
Obviously it would be much cheaper at scale, and like you said, it doesn’t have to be cutting edge. But still, the compute for an interaction with Siri is a fraction of a penny.
There are mountains of controlled evidence that exercise is extremely good for you.
This could just as easily be a graph exploring the effects of the pandemic. I doubt Germany’s last tick would be in that direction were it not for the pandemic, for example.
You’ve only realized that life is optimized for survival and reproduction. While that’s not wrong, there’s no intrinsic meaning in this.
Ultimately, meaning and purpose are what you make them. The beginning of spacetime being equal to zero at the Big Bang is the quintessential example of a concept beyond conception. This concept similarly falls into that category.
Can’t help but express sadness that it’s taken this long for serious adoption simply because there’s little money to be made in an unpatentable plant.
There are countless well written resources for every aspect of a good education available for free online. They are often not as easy to find as their well-advertised modern equivalents.
Saying there aren’t good free textbooks is like saying there aren’t good free classics on Project Gutenberg. It’s ignorant.
I’m not 100% following the discussion, though. Most software work can be done with vi and nothing else. Working with your hands, on the other hand, requires snap-ring-plier specific tools.
There’s something to be said for satellites making true immersion in “natural beauty” impossible. Making that out to be negative is a matter of perspective. Frankly, I think it’s selfish to wish to hinder the massive gains in utility for humanity satellites bring.