From 12/4/2018, 3:22:26 AM till now, @metacritic12 has achieved 281 Karma Points with the contribution count of 77.
Recent @metacritic12 Activity
Thanks that's useful. From the post:
> The GDPR requires non-EU entities handling EU data to appoint a representative in the EU
What if the non-EU entity fails to establish an EU representative?
> [Anticipating my comment] Basically, their method of non-EU enforcement seems to be "we'll figure it out".
Oh OK, that's what I thought.
Honest question: unless you're top 100 market cap companies in the world, what's actually the practical consequence of not following GDPR as a non-European company?
What's the most they can do in theory -- like issue a court order for a fine? (Practically are they doing this for >top 100 companies?)
And suppose a fine is issued, what's the enforcement? Do US courts or US banks actually enforce these orders? Are there historical cases of this?
In theory maybe they can apply to their local (European) ISP to block your site. Have they done this historically?
I'm asking because to a degree, some laws about the Internet feel like international law. That is, there's no good enforcement of it because the state (the monopolist on violence) doesn't generally care about these laws.
The European state can obviously enforce GDPR, but if you're outside the practical reach of the European state, what real incentive does that company have to care (beyond standard "moral" reasons).
Good point. Essentially no human can perform an actual floating point operation in a second.
This might expose the error of the article though. Depending on what you measure by, computers have already beaten humans. But by other measures (now increasingly human biased, like having a cultural conversation), computers are still way behind.
Lots of takes on why Terra collapsed this week. What I found most interesting in this article is that a market maker is making the point that LUNA slippage causes arbitrage to fail. Terra should have addressed was LUNA slippage by putting in a LUNA bid, instead of all their crazy antics like supporting UST.
The Collapse of Terra from the POV of a Market Maker
4 points • 1 comments
I mean if you're Edward Snowden, you get to make one enemy. Yeah he could keep on playing hero and make more and more enemies until he is in jail, but aren't there people in the FSB or something better poised to play that role? Edward Snowden would just be a martyr for its own sake in this case.
Absolutely! I think there's a group of people who get sucked into the narrative of X being the world's largest problem, and then get really exasperated when people are working on anything other than X. They see inattention to X as almost an affront.
Substitute for X "climate change", "AI risk", "Nuclear risk", "Energy depletion". And interestingly the X's are mutually exclusive. So climate change maximalists and AI risk maximalists can be mutually exasperated at each other.
BTW, this is not to say one of the narratives is not true. But they can't all be the unique #1 problem.
Is that true though? There's the idea of the 10x programmer, and from looking at academia, such thing as a 10x researcher as well.
In biology, the median 100th-ranked university professor is making incredibly incremental contributions (like applying a well known technique to the 300th gene). The average top university professor is making groundbreaking achievements.
I almost view it as the opposite -- if you gave the Watson and Crick lab (back in its heyday) $100, much more real impactful science would result compared to giving 100 me-too scientists $1.
Autocar here starts by complaining that the "intelligent speed assistance" has been maligned as "speed limiters". But upon reading the article further, that's exactly what it is.
When a neutral party says "speed limiter" to me, I immediately think of the actual technology here.
When the article started out with "intelligent speed assistance", I thought this might be a cool feature that let my car go faster safely. At most, I thought the tech might be something that does increase safety by warning about sharp turns, but at least could give the car ability to handle faster speeds.
But on reading the article, it seems like there's nothing intelligent about it other than it's ability to read road signs and force you to slow down.
"Intelligent speed assistance" is indeed the Orwellian term. If the article wasn't written with such earnestness I would have thought it to be a parody.
> There is limited OH in the atmosphere. As a result, more methane “uses up” the OH.
> So, why not produce a bunch of OH? Because OH has a half life of less than a second. Hmm.
These two statements seem to contradict? If the chemokinetics of OH generation is less than a second, then how can it be used up in the atmosphere?
Assuming the <1 second kinetic is correct, there must be a dynamic equilibrium producing it in the atmosphere to begin with. In such a case OH is not truly being used up in any real sense. It's whatever that generates OH is being used up, and that can be artificially boosted.
GP comment seems false to me. Being well within both groups, I've never heard of this from any 1st or 2nd degree contacts.
Do you speak from running references at all in the past, or mostly from the viewpoint of a job applicant that is upset at the lack of fairness?
From overseeing multiple hires before, I have to say the technique works. Does it follow due process? No. But does it empirically have high correlation? Definitely yes.
Good applicants correlate highly with have a number of qualified referees (direct managers are best) that will give raving reviews, and so they can pick the ones best at answering. Giving flakey referees is itself a signal.
Should a hiring manager reach out to you -- sure they should. Is the damage already done if they do? Informationally, unfortunately yes.
There's no magical cutoff at 3-6 months, but the game theory is that the longer the relationship, the more of a repeated game there is, and the less socially destructive things you'll likely do.
If I'm going to live with a neighbor for ten years, in addition to purely friendly reasons, I'm going to say hi to her and get to know her. Whereas at a hotel I'm overnighting at, if I'm not in a chatty mood, I don't see the reason to oblige a neighbor's request for a 20 minute chat.
Corollary: any great technology, the first 10 years they came out, were totally unnecessary. Internet in the 70s? Totally unnecessary for practical uses in the 70s and 80s. Cars invented in the 1880s? Also unnecessary.
The pilot was randomized.
Shareholders of Twitter might even band together for a class-action lawsuit against the board if they reject the offer and then TWTR falls in price.
TSA screening in trains make much less sense than in planes. First, planes have a history of hijackings -- trains much less so. Second, TSA got implemented on planes after a very salient failure: 9/11. What's the equivalent for trains? Finally, whatever threat vector could compromise a train could do so in so many different situations: buses, commuter rail, large crowds, etc. Is TSA going to cover those next?
It's so ridiculous that I can't help but think cynically of it: either TSA is doing the bureaucratic thing of expanding as much as it can, or some really good airplane lobbyist finally got their payday.
Definitely not altruistic. The Pixel phone was always a defensive position, not Google's profit center.
From the position of Apple, the Google Pixel was always a poison in the profit pool so that the monopoly would be held in a different part of the value chain (the Search versus the Hardware). In this regard, Apple's loss is the consumers' gain.
By making the Pixel really repairable and parts exchangeable, the Pixel can be shown as a shining beacon of right-to-repair. Techies will applaud how great it is, and have an object to contrast the iPhone with.
However, if the iPhone is forced to go the same path via right-to-repair laws (or due to consumer sentiment), their profits will be a lot lower. People won't need to replace iPhones as much. They couldn't price discriminate using different size SSD drives as much, etc.
And that's the whole game to Google -- again to reduce the hardware part of the profit chain, and to increase the search part of the profit chain. It's basic MBA stuff / Michael Porter's 5 Forces.
Is it just me or does this article does not mention the housing market at all? The second part of the title should be deleted.
Incorrect -- the US treasury did not spend nearly this much (as a percent of GDP) until recently: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
site design / logo © 2022 Box Piper