I wonder how much of this is truly smart as in planned/intentional behaviour. Couldn’t it just evolve? Suppose you hang around something that you want to eat . And you make a lot of noise. So now predators show up. none of this was planned, but now you have a fitness advantage.
Side note: one tell for AI speak is not understanding what’s important. This boasts that it adapts to mobile screens, which is hardly unusual for a modern website and probably not a central feature of the software.
Look if everyone agrees the outcome of the law has been incredibly annoying, then that is ultimately down to the law and/or its enforcement. The point of the law is to provide incentives to self-interested actors for good behaviour. I see a lot of complacency in these threads, combined with a lot of frankly absurd posturing, like if anybody is against the GDPR, they must’ve been brainwashed by Elon Musk. No! People dislike it because they dislike its practical effects, and frankly the EU should take responsibility for that and try to fix it.
> People dislike it because they dislike its practical effects, and frankly the EU should take responsibility for that and try to fix it.
What’s to fix?
A business needs a legitimate reason to process personal data, people need to be sufficiently informed about how their data will be processed. These are not impossible obstacles. Anyone who claims otherwise is acting in bad faith because they know that people would not agree to what the business wants to do with their data.
Why is it that so many years later, so many companies are still not compliant? That seems like a major problem to fix.
You are replying to a comment complaining about the annoyance for users that the law has created. When will that be fixed?
Why is it that all of the enforcement effort been so unevenly directed specifically at non-European companies?
This subthread started with the statement "True but it also reflects that the EU has indeed destroyed most goodwill towards it in the last decade regarding most things digital."
I think maybe you don't understand that the level of goodwill destroyed really is on par with the level of goodwill towards American that Trump has destroyed. Yes, it is really that bad. Yes, it is something that needs to be fixed.
> Why is it that all of the enforcement effort been so unevenly directed specifically at non-European companies?
Do you have any evidence of that?
> You are replying to a comment complaining about the annoyance for users that the law has created. When will that be fixed?
The law isn’t about fixing an annoyance to users. If you’re annoyed by bad UX, tell your boss to cut that shit out because they’re probably part of the problem too.
What I struggle to understand is you’d rather have your privacy right absolutely derailed just so you have a couple things less to click. Wild.
Don't be silly, the legislation doesn't state that websites have to show cookie popups. It's rather where the term malicious compliance enters the picture, a compliance incentivized by the financial interests of the biggest advertising businesses the world has ever seen.
Let’s accept for the sake of argument that all the cookie banners are malicious compliance. Fine. Then they should change the law to stop the malicious compliance! Regulation has an outcome nobody likes. Are you gonna wait for every company to stop being “malicious”? Or are you gonna fix the law?
To be fair, I don't remember people complaining about cookies. The question is fairly simple, etc. Meanwhile ads? They try to steal the attention. So yeah, lots of friends complain about internet ads, not so many about cookies. I'm EU based.
My friends / co worker are computer and non computer people, hobbys, cultural background. Maybe your friend group is highly selected. Which country are you from?
I’m seeing a lot of naive optimism about this decision.
The risk S&P takes by doing this is that they will still be forced to buy SpaceX, but a year after everybody else. Given that there is a massive amount of capital that you know will have to buy this stock in 12 months, that itself provides speculative reasons to buy it now.
The indices are in an unenviable position: a race to the bottom. The S&P 500 may be setting up its index funds simply to be the last buyer in a Ponzi scheme.
There is no guarantee that the market will find the “true value“ of SpaceX in the 12 month interval. Markets are frothy and speculative already, and they now have a built in exit liquidity provider.
The only decision they are making is to maintain their existing rules. Which is what a slow-moving, conservative financial instrument should do.
S&P may very well end up buying SpaceX, but it will be through the standard mechanism they have been using for decades. Not in a last second bum-rush deal that NASDAQ made to grant special favors.
One year from IPO, the insider lock-up periods will have expired, so insiders who want to get out will have had an opportunity to dump their shares in a risk-based approach without a guaranteed payout from index funds.
Unfortunately, repeating the word “conservative” does not stop you from becoming the last buyer of overpriced stock, which others are buying exactly so they can unload onto you.
I asked it to prove the theoretical result in a (published, prize-winning - though not really for the theory) academic paper of mine. The proofs hadn’t been that hard objectively, but they’d taken at least a week. I fed it the model. It got the correct basic results in about 5 minutes.
reply