161–170 of 409 posts
It's been truly shit to own Facebook stock the last year.. Let's end this now and get back to writing the growth story. Please.
To recap: a law was put in place 5 years ago that said if you get consent you can basically use data in any way, with some very vague and general language about how consent can be gathered and what it means.
Meanwhile, Facebook has invested billions of dollars in building and developing a platform according to their fair reading of that law.
Then, some random guy says he doesn't think Facebook's interpretation is right, a court agrees, and all of those billions of dollars have gone to waste.
So absurdly inefficient. No regulator has had the idea of just going to Facebook, having a real conversation about what they're doing, then talked about it with ethics professionals and researchers and tried to draft a forward-looking law that will make the whole system better? No; we prefer to thrive by ignoring problems for a long time then smashing them with a hammer.
No one's who's done business selling to consumers is cheering about this. What exactly is gained for the society when a business has to show bike ads to basketball enthusiasts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had to check the retina remark as my Sony Z5 premium came in mind with the 800+ppi but even before that in 2013 I had z Sony Z1 with 440ppi and I'm pretty sure other manufacturers had high dpi screens since 2010 eg. sharp's ISO3 . So "miles ahead" is not true plus I believe iphones had other manufacturing tricks that helped in the "retina" marketing hype, I believe touch/display elements been closer together etc. N…
Why are you comparing phones from 2015 and 2013 to Apple marketing from 2010? The competition absolutely did catch up eventually. And if the Sharp ISO3 is the best example you can come up with from 2010, then I disagree with your claim entirely. A single, low volume halo device is not comparable to a mainstream device that sold in the millions. The 2010 Galaxy S had a 233 PPI display compared to the 326 PPI that Appl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a reminder, this is just the tip of the iceberg : The US has since 2001 built a techno-legal spying system that the Stasi would have been proud of (relying a lot on US companies, especially the GAFAMs), and worse, (ab)used it on non-US people, specifically people located in EUrope (especially as revealed by the Snowden scandal in 2013). Since this violates the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, in 2015 the Court of…
Quoted post unavailable.
It's also 100% on topic. You not liking the discussion doesn't change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you comparing phones from 2015 and 2013 to Apple marketing from 2010? The competition absolutely did catch up eventually. And if the Sharp ISO3 is the best example you can come up with from 2010, then I disagree with your claim entirely. A single, low volume halo device is not comparable to a mainstream device that sold in the millions. The 2010 Galaxy S had a 233 PPI display compared to the 326 PPI that Appl…
I compare apples to oranges. At the time apple came up with this marketing term, other manufacturers started increasing the display size of the devices making them more usable for their users. When apple decided to do that 2-3 years later, the high dpi offering started making sense but it had already convinced you of the "retina milea ahead" technology kn a 3.5 inch device So, yes new tech is extremely cool, doesn’t…
This is a crazy way of making laws, IMO. To recap: a law was put in place 5 years ago that said if you get consent you can basically use data in any way, with some very vague and general language about how consent can be gathered and what it means. Meanwhile, Facebook has invested billions of dollars in building and developing a platform according to their fair reading of that law. Then, some random guy says he doesn…
No one's who's done business selling to consumers is cheering about this. What exactly is gained for the society when a business has to show bike ads to basketball enthusiasts?
I am not exactly breaking the news: If companies make less money through ads, they have to make it "some other way" (which so far has resolved in "making the user pay directly"). A lot of people have been suggesting that it's not their business to figure that part out; privacy is paramount and above all else. That's fine up to the point where zealousness effectively worsens the life of others, and maybe even more than that, our collective lives.
(To me, one example of that might be restricted access to a lot of important news outlets. I know that it is currently pretty hip to attack the NYT anyway, and I can see a lot of good reasoning behind the critique, but if that then resolved to people getting information from random internet personalities on Twitter or IG, we seem to have significantly worsened a bad situation)
The HN community is for the most part probably not negatively impacted by having to pay for more stuff and actually might net gain through stronger privacy rules. However I expect the privileged to also think for others, in the terms of the others' problems (i.e. if struggle was poverty and you tried to work through that, would privacy really be more important to you than having unpaid for access to Google?)
I know this is terribly biased topic on HN, but alas: Pennies for your thoughts.