Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

pupuweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 317 posts

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#121

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

themitigating wrote: post #82
daenz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

I think this counter argument is used when people are against something without offering a reason. For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). The person makes this argument against the idea of raising taxes, however they aren't explaining why it shouldn't be done Since they don't offer an explanation the assumption is they are either already rich or think they'…

> For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are).

Top 1% earns 21% or income, pays ~40% of taxes (has ~34% of wealth): https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/1-chart-how-much-t...

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#122

Post by reilly3000 »

daenz wrote: post #68
jmyeet wrote: post #32

The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. The demonization of unions is one of the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It’s gone so far s people who will die on the hill of Jeff Bezos paying slightly more taxes because everyone seems…

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

That’s a really good point. It highlights the hegemony of self-interest in contemporary culture. Collectivism has become frail, immobile, even dubious. We are demographics. We demonize one another. We struggle for causes that affect us and ours, and despise people for joining popular social movements. Fatigue turns out to be the limiting factor for compassion, and boy are we tired.

I don’t expect I would become a billionaire (…anymore). I imagine that I would be a benevolent one, but fear the gravity pull of such wealth would collapse any good intentions. Capital demands such rigor. I would think that if some some policy or popular uprising made wealth distribution flatter, the billionaires of the world could exhale. The burden to care becomes much lighter when borne by many hands.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#123

Post by kelseyfrog »

mysterydip wrote: post #106
kelseyfrog wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Because there is a group who struggles to reconcile what looks like a contradiction - another group who appears to advocate for policies which harm themselves. The quote and its derivatives attempt to explain this apparent contradiction.

The answer is that such policies are more nuanced than just help or harm. Some people weigh effects differently than other people, leading them to believe that for their specific situation, one outweighs the other.

Completely agree. There are also people who would give everything and anything to be ideologically consistent - worse off on every metric, but right with themselves and the way they see the world. It can be very difficult to relate to them due to that very experiential chasm.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#124

Post by wordnerd2022 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #91
daenz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

> Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Because there is a group who struggles to reconcile what looks like a contradiction - another group who appears to advocate for policies which harm themselves. The quote and its derivatives attempt to explain this apparent contradiction.

I think it’s pretty paternalistic to think that you’re a better judge of what is good or bad for someone than that person themselves. There are plenty of people who are anti union because they’ve rationally concluded they would be worse off.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#125

Post by fartcannon »

totetsu wrote: post #24

I'm already not wanting to have personal conversations on teams. My tech savvy colleagues and the ones who can be convinced are on signal, where we talk about job offers and relationships. A few others do Instagram, and get to see my art photography. And occasionally I'll bump into someone when we're both in the office and be able to say whatever not looked over by AI. There's a real chilling effect on getting to kno…

Signal and WhatsApp aren't 100% trust worthy though. Why not pick something you can host yourself?

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#126

Post by technothrasher »

themitigating wrote: post #82
daenz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

I think this counter argument is used when people are against something without offering a reason. For example I often hear "The riches 1% pay 80% of the taxes" (or whatever the correct values are). The person makes this argument against the idea of raising taxes, however they aren't explaining why it shouldn't be done Since they don't offer an explanation the assumption is they are either already rich or think they'…

Even regardless of their motives, this statement is begging the question. The only way it is relevant is if that percentage (it's actually ~40%, if we're talking federal income taxes) is enough for them to be paying. So the argument is that they already are paying enough because they're paying enough. It's circular and therefor meaningless.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#128

Post by fartcannon »

copperx wrote: post #109
elromulous wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Older office didn't have the god awful ribbon.

In my view, the ribbon was an incredible UX innovation; I just resent Microsoft for patenting it. A ribbon could improve so much software. Don't forget that cascading menus are an antipattern. What's not to like? Common functions are one click away, and others are two clicks away. Are you saying lengthy drop-down menus were better? I don't see how.

Well I used to read a list of options horizontally, then click one and read a list of options vertically. Now, with the ribbon, I must observe a grid of different sized and shaped objects. That's harder to parse, in my opinion.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#129

Post by ceeplusplus »

barrysteve wrote: post #62
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't want you shooting the shit with company communications mediums because that has limited upside and much less limited potential downside. Remember the famous "will the atom bomb test ignite the atmosphere" gentleman's bet those scientists had? Nobody actually thought it would but they discussed it semi-seriously. Today discussing some fanciful bad outcome like that (be it the mundane failure to deliver a pr…

The conversations will happen elsewhere and so will the relationships. Management is locking themselves out from the team leaders and suddenly those off site 'adult kerfuffles' are exactly the conversation you needed to hear to prevent exodus.

> The conversations will happen elsewhere

That's entirely intentional. You really don't want internal evidence of something that's going to be construed 10 years down the line as cancel-worthy, or worse, something that politicians/regulators are going to take out of context to attack you with.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#130

Post by AlexeyBrin »

jll29 wrote: post #69
jmyeet wrote: post #32

The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. The demonization of unions is one of the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It’s gone so far s people who will die on the hill of Jeff Bezos paying slightly more taxes because everyone seems…

Emacs would never spy on you like that, would it?

Emacs is open source and you can modify it, so even if it would spy on you, you can in theory remove the offending code yourself or wait for someone else to do it and publish the patch. Good luck doing that with Office 365.
Post reply on HN