anf

It's not binary: bosses and investors want to know who will obey the rules as you see them for a variety of reasons. They'll fund / promote based on the needs of the projects you will likely face.

With tillerhq.com, you can set up a pretty nice workflow to review your spending daily, weekly, or whatever cadence makes sense to you across all of your accounts, and it's only $79/year! :)

I like Elon, too, but "no qualifications to run a rocket company" is simply delusional. He majored in physics at Penn and econ at Wharton and went to grad school at Stanford studying material science (for two days, just enough to get to signal being smart). I have a harder time imagining what kind of background would be better being CEO of a rocket company.

If he runs Twitter like 4chan, it will surely fail, but I think he has more to his plan than he is willing to share publicly at this time.

I don't think likes are meaningless — they tap into a very primal need for social status and peer approval. It's a stupid game, but like many other stupid games, it's effective!

As someone who left Facebook awhile ago mostly because life got busy, those ads seem to solidify an (alternative?) narrative of why I left rather than urge me to come back.

Is there no laws w.r.t. negligence that can be used to punish negligent actors? If a door manufacturer is negligent in their construction of the door and someone gets robbed as a result, in violation of how they expected their door to work, is there nothing currently in the law that could help them?

Do you send user data anywhere in a way users may not expect? If not there's probably nothing to comply with. It's really the opposite of bureaucratic law — the entire thing is quite readable and reasonable.

Because he's lazy and thinks he'll get away with it. He'll come into compliance after penalties outweigh the costs of changing the way he does business. This is probably the reaction of the vast majority of folks dealing with customer data, and not at all unexpected — they have a business to run, and costs to customer privacy are an externality being rolled into their costs via regulation.

Seems like you can both be right in different circumstances. Humble Bundle got to a nice acquisition married to GCP. Snapchat has successfully unwound. I haven't looked into it in depth but it seems examples on both sides abound.

nvm, the article mentions it. cell phones check in with the tower while they are on, which is a way to track where someone has taken their cell phone. afaik, there's very limited privacy protections around this in the US because they are considered the business records of the cell company.

Yeah, totally with you — don't trust devices you (or your employer) doesn't own. I'm borderline still where I trust my employer's devices with my personal passwords sometimes, but even that seems a bit iffy.

What's a call record? Like a single phone call or an SMS? Pinging the tower doesn't count, does it?

If you can prevent a company from acting unethically and you have the capacity to do so, are you not ethically obligated to try?

(switching sides of argument, I know)

fair point. my thoughts were that spending your time building $10 widgets and getting paid $5 by someone who is negligent with their use of people's passwords is akin to working for a company that pollutes public waters: some of your paycheck is "tainted" by the dangers you put others into, and you are smart enough to understand it. in that sense, quitting seems like a non-act, because you stop acting unethically.

I'm guessing you're referring to someone's ability to actually fix it -- in the case of logs, you can make a pretty simple regex to strip out all kinds of PII, and there really are a lot of arguments (e.g. proactively reducing cost of security audits -- if someone is reviewing your logs to figure out what happened, they might not want to see customer data).