If you want to play around now and with little preparation, there's no beating proto-boards. No toying around with designing the PCB, no waiting for the order. They're also great to practice your soldering skills.
Sometimes you just want a sandwich, not to bake bread
"The victim did it to themselves" is a famously bulletproof defense. I don't know why people don't try it more often.
This is the typical tall tale that used to travel in every neighborhood as a warning, especially to scare kids from doing some things. Kids eat up these stories. Probably doesn't work that much in the age of phones and "pics (shorts?) or it never happened".
Unfortunately, we’ve reached the era where pics and shorts are very much no longer proof. In a few minutes you could generate video of that exact scenario.
> When centralized systems attempt to institutionalize "fairness" as a primary directive, the resulting information-calculation problems and rent-seeking often lead to catastrophic externalities.
Sounds like you’re focusing on Eastern society examples and some are a stretch. If you believe “institutionalized fairness” is unequivocally wrong, what do you think of the more Western “DEI”? It’s a standout example of “equity”.
Is your opinion that DEI results in the same kind of bad outcome? Do you think that Western societies can pull off “institutionalized fairness” better than Eastern ones? Are you drawing a biased picture by highlighting the failures without putting them in the larger context along with any possible successes?
DEI is fine. The problem isn’t the goal of treating people well; it’s the structural error of trying to institutionalize "fairness" as a top-down directive.
Whether it’s an AI or a government, centralized systems are remarkably bad at optimizing for vague moral proxies because they lack the local feedback loops required to avoid catastrophe.
Western history is littered with these feedback failures. The British government’s commitment to an ideological "fairness" in market non-interference during the Irish Potato Famine led to 1 million deaths. Their wartime resource distribution in the 1943 Bengal Famine killed 3 million more. Even the American eugenics movement was framed as a "fair" optimization of the population; it sterilized 64,000 citizens and provided the foundational model for the Nazi T4 program.
In the context of IP, claiming it’s "fair" to deny a creator compensation for their labor is just a way to subsidize an abstraction at the expense of individual incentive. When you replace objective market signals with a bureaucrat’s (or an algorithm’s) definition of equity, you don't get a more just system- you just get a system that has stopped solving for reality.
The stated goal is always to treat people well. The unstated goal, if there is one, is hard to determine.
So you cherry picked some bad outcomes which just happen to be from the same part of the world, didn’t provide context for your reader to understand if that outcome is the rule or the exception, when asked about other things that fit under your wide brush “argument” your comeback was a weak “except that, it doesn’t count” (half of Americans voted for the guy who stomped on DEI so your “treating well” argument isn’t shared by a democratic majority for better or worse). This on a fresh account screams hidden agenda.
And n the wider topic of fairness, it’s hard to formally define what fair or unfair are. But you know it when you see it. The way copyright law works today is a prime example of unfair to “everyone else”.
The point is if the liability is always exclusively with the human driver then any system in that car is at best a "driver assist". Claims that "it drives itself" or "it's autonomous" are just varying degrees of lying. I call it a partial lie rather than a partial truth because the result more often than not is that the customer is tricked into thinking the system is more capable than it is, and because that outcome is more dangerous than the opposite.
Any car has varying degrees of autonomy, even the ones with no assists (it will safely self-drive you all the way to the accident site, as they say). But the car is either driven by the human with the system's help, or is driven by the system with or without the human's help.
A car can't have 2 drivers. The only real one is the one the law holds responsible.
It's a public company making money off of some claims. Not being transparent about the data supporting those claims is already a huge red flag and failure on their part regardless of what the data says.
You're generous with your words to the point they sound like apologism. Musk has been promising fully autonomous driving "within 1-3 years" since 2013. And he's been charging customers money for that promise for just as long. Timelines keep slipping for more than half of the company's existence now, that's not a slipup anymore.
Tesla has never been transparent with the data on which they base their claims of safety and performance of the system. They tout some nice looking numbers but when anyone like the NHTSA requests the real data they refuse to provide it.
When NHTSA shows you numbers, they're lying. If I tell you I have evidence Tesla is lying you'll tell me to show it or STFU. When Tesla does the same after so many people died, you go all soft and claim everyone else is lying. That's very one sided behavior, more about feelings than facts.
> But this is more your feelings than actually factual.
The article is about "NHTSA crash data, combined with Tesla’s new disclosure of robotaxi mileage". Sounds factual enough. If Tesla is sitting on a trove of data that proves otherwise but refuse to publish it that's on them. If anyone is about the feels and not the facts here, it's you.
> they're making Stargaze's data available to other satellite operators free of charge
With so many Starlink satellites odds are that one false move on anyone's part ends up in an incident involving them. Sharing this data makes the field safer for everyone, and Starlink gets to steer clear of any bad news titles.
Despite the downvotes, this is at least partially correct. If unions were ubiquitous in the tech sector, companies would have been a lot more stingy with the hiring during ZIRP or boom eras. Or they would have been more creative with the hiring form - contractors, temporary staff, etc. None of these companies would risk locking in so many employees knowing that they'll be very expensive or impossible to fire.
I don't know about how a union would affect the standard salary being offered. I'd say that it could be higher for those essential enough to be "core staff", those that the company hires permanently knowing they'll be hard to get rid of and who drive the company forward because they're motivated with additional means.
So a union might drive the salaries and employment conditions up for the "core" team, while driving them down for the "temps". I've been through this as a unionized tech worker in both categories, and this is how it played out.
> An IP address is not "personally identifiable data".
GDPR says it is [1][2].
> We are almost 10 years into the GDPR, and we still have these gross misunderstandings
Because people would rather smugly and confidently post about their gross misunderstandings. If only there was some place to read about this and learn. I’ll give you the money shot to save 10 more years:
> Fortunately, the GDPR provides several examples in Recital 30 that include:
> Internet protocol (IP) addresses;
From Recital 30:
> Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses
When an IP address is linked to any other data, then it counts as PII. By itself, it's not.
So, sure, if you stick the user's IP address on a cookie from a third-party service, you are sharing PII. But this is absolutely not the same as saying "you need to claim legimate interest to serve anything, because you will need their IP address".
IPs are PII even before you inevitably link them to something in your logs. If you can make a case that you absolutely don’t store them anywhere, they’re just transiently handled by your network card, maybe you get away with it but only because someone else along the stream covers this for you (your hosting provider, your ISP, etc.)
Source: I have been cursed to work on too many Data Protection Impact Assessments, and Records of Processing Activities together with actual lawyers.
Basically we are in agreement: IP addresses, by themselves, are not PII, only when they are linked to other information (a cookie, a request log) then it consitutes processing.
So, apologies if I was not precise on my comment, but I still stand by the idea: you don't need to a consent screen that says "we collect your IP address", if that's all you do.
Not really, no. I don’t think I can make it more clear than I, or the law, already did: IPs are PII no matter what. Period. It’s literally spelled out in the law.
The misconception is that you need explicit consent for any kind of processing of PII. That is not the case. The law gives you alternatives to consent, if you can justify them. Some will confuse this with “must mean IPs aren’t PII”, which is not the case.
An IP address linked with the website being accessed is already PII.
When serving content, you're by necessity linking it to a website that's being accessed.
For example, if grindr.com had a display in their offices that showed the IP address of the request that's currently being handled, that's not saving or publishing or linking the data, but it's still obvious PII.
Sometimes you just want a sandwich, not to bake bread
reply