291–300 of 409 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't believe this is the top comment...
I unfortunately expected just that. Protection of personal data is not something many in this bubble like to see since it threatens their products business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a distinction without difference as far as the market is concerned. Your question was just flamebait. If other manufacturers saw how important this would be, and if Apple had zero involvement with the display development as you claim, then those other manufacturers should have bought exclusivity first. Instead, I’m sure Apple was involved in the design and development. It’s not a coincidence that the display jus…
> Either way, nothing useful can come from this topic diversion. Then why do you keep commenting on it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Meanwhile, Facebook has invested billions of dollars in building and developing a platform according to their fair reading of that law. So often in the last 20 years I’ve seen companies (and particularly US tech companies, but it’s not exclusive to them) deliberately read more charitable interpretation of the law, knowing they'll make millions over and above any fines they might receive. It’s so common place that t…
It's definitely hard to say that big corporations are victims , but I know that I personally find lots of bog standard legalese hard to interpret. Granted, lawyers have a lot more experience there, and more employed gives lots more perspective. At the end of the day, they are still human, and laws and regulations are still written by humans, meaning that it can often be hard to suss out intent from the letter of the…
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…
>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 when you say a crazy way of making laws, you mean the way that laws basically get made? >No regulator has had the idea of just going to Facebook, pretty sure there was all sorts of conversations with Facebook and others over at least 5 years where it was quite cl…
It seems reasonable to survey or research bank robbers with intention of making their further attempts as miserable as possible and as unattractive as possible.
In the same way I expect that any good privacy related regulation will be analysing and researching what FB/Google/etc is doing and designing policy to outlaw their undesirable data gathering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds fairly accurate to me. This is what killed the US-EU Privacy Shield program, twice. That was the government's attempt at creating a way for US companies like Facebook to legally process data of EU citizens under GDPR. It's been struck down by the EU courts, due to our federal government's spy powers and the CLOUD Act, that invalidate any claims US companies make about protecting personal data in their posse…
I was referring to comparing the US intel operation to the Stasi.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hyperbole requires intent and exaggeration, can you point out either? I'm not seeing it. It's also 100% on topic. You not liking the discussion doesn't change that.
You believe the US intel operation is comparable to the Stasi?
The comparison is a little unfair to the stasi, they did not have modern computers. .
But only US could place a microphone in every household and make people pay for it. Stasi wouldn't think of this.
If you are convinced it's incomparable, present some metric we can measure where US sysyem looses.
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…
I'm impressed both by your outrage at requiring free, informed consent for tracking and personalized ads as well as this change resulting in "all of those billions [going to waste]". To me it means one of two possibilities: 1. Facebook is incompetent, not only did it spend billions developing lackluster practices that don't fit the spirit of the GDPR but that money also instantly disappears because they are apparentl…
Its very existence depends on it. Facebook is a company that builds shadow profiles of people who never joined the social network, never agreed to the terms of service and not even once consented to anything.
Facebook should just start charging users that don't consent to tracking for targeted advertising. Etc. Problem solved, and we, the shareholders, will hopefully be happy too. 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.
I'm not totally sure that's allowed under GDPR. I know you can't say "consent to data collection or you can't use the website" [1]. So I doubt "consent to data collection OR PAY or you can't use the website" is acceptable. [1] unless the data is needed for the website to work
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely hard to say that big corporations are victims , but I know that I personally find lots of bog standard legalese hard to interpret. Granted, lawyers have a lot more experience there, and more employed gives lots more perspective. At the end of the day, they are still human, and laws and regulations are still written by humans, meaning that it can often be hard to suss out intent from the letter of the…
> standard legalese hard to interpret Indeed. We should know what the law is, without first hiring a team of lawyers. There's a trend to make laws that are harder and harder for ordinary people to understand. Partly that's a result of having to cut out exceptions and loopholes for lobbyists and donors; but I suspect it's largely because lawmakers are increasingly trained, practising lawyers. If the language you speak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? 3D movies are still around, though sadly "real" 3D is pretty rare (remove the "Filmed in 2D" from the list, and of course the Digital 3D animations have different constraints : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005%E2%80%9... . But it's kind of weird that you would say this, with 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere now (if not in hom…
> I think you mean 2010s, with the release of Avatar in 2009 ? I in fact don't. The wave starts earlier. > 3D now being an option in cinemas everywhere It's an option that not many people pick. Even before the pandemic, 3D ticket sales were declining: https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=... And it has rebounded less well than 2D: https://www.statista.com/statistics/259987/global-box-office...…
Anyway, yeah, arguably even color wasn't "transformational" (sound probably was ?)
But then 3D films and TVs are pretty much offtopic anyway - unlike VR/AR compared to 2D (or even 3D) monitors, they don't radically change the mode of interaction compared to 2D films and TV... (not to say that VR/AR will be successful)