billjings

It is, in the sense that companies like Meta operate assuming that 230 gives them carte blanche to act as they please.

But:

"Plaintiffs characterize Meta’s duty as one of product design—that Meta should not have built Facebook in a way that boosted incitements to violence. Still, the alleged defects relate to Facebook’s core design as a publishing platform, particularly how Facebook promoted or downplayed third-party posts using algorithms. Under our case law, matching users with content is publishing conduct, even when the user has not requested the content."

At issue the question of who, if anyone, is responsible for the speech issues at play when Meta chooses to show me X rather than Y of the near infinite pool of content at its disposal.

Some are indeed looking to completely get rid of 230, but if you ask me, assuming that Meta has 230 protections for all editorial decisions it makes should be considered overbroad. I'm no lawyer, but as a citizen it seems to me that it puts Meta's influence beyond legal accountability in a way that no individual is. And that seems totally unfair.

Frankly, when you look around and everyone around you is focused first and foremost on getting rich, that's a good indication that the rich veins have already been mined.

Wealth is built on creating something of value. There is gamesmanship played to acquire that value once it is created, but without the thing itself they are all just picking each others' pockets.

Facebook did exactly this with a VPN acquisition. They didn't break into customer data; they just mined it for usage patterns.

So as a pure speculation on Goog's motives, it doesn't sound farfetched enough to call ridiculous. Competitive data is valuable, particularly if you want to strangle the youth in their cradles (or acquire them).

Target as in, target for recruitment into the group.

The targets for their victims seem chosen...as retaliation to defend their understanding of their own interests.

They also are the largest employer of doctors in the United States.

They've essentially constructed their own single-payer health care provider, but instead of being paid for by tax dollars it's a publicly traded company whose primary goal is to increase shareholder value.

The real philosophy is in the budget.

As described, it is a fair ways away from what RealPage is doing. Specifically:

* RealPage sells raising rents, not just market info.

* RealPage pressures clients into taking their higher rents.

* RealPage also pressure clients to refuse to rent at lower rates for their own narrow economic interest - in other words, they actively seek to circumvent competitive pressure to keep rents high. (edit: to clarify, I mean they discourage lowering rent to attract a renter)

Pave does sound like it gives businesses a leg up over employees in wage negotiations, but until it e.g. starts promising clients that they will be able to pay lower salaries, the critical element of coordination won't be in the mix. Pave gives you the data, but you can still choose to pay above market to attract talent.

I have a good friend who's a Lyft driver. According to him, all drivers are rated on cleanliness by passengers; if you're dinged for a weird smell, there are lasting financial consequences (even if it was for reasons outside of your control, e.g. using a Lyft provided rental while repairing from a traffic accident).

We'll see how Waymo handles it! It will definitely be Waymo's problem to solve, though.

> I used to work at FB and they have a team that tries to catch employees selling access like this.

For folks who aren't familiar with FB, maxrmk is absolutely right. But some more color would probably help:

When one of the privacy teams discovers a violation of this kind, the employee is generally called into a meeting with HR and fired the very next day.

A friend of mine did this inadvertently - just trying to help a real personal friend with an account issue, and inadvertently accessed a system in a way he didn't realized was a privacy violation. Months later, he was investigating data for a project, which triggered an audit. They walked him out the door the next day after finding it.

So: yeah. This is not a very good business idea.

But circular references don't leak in Java. You have to have a GC root (e.g. a static, or something in your runtime) somewhere pointing at the thing to actually leak it.

There is one case where a "circular" reference can appear to cause a leak that I know of: WeakHashMap. But that's because the keys, which are indeed cleaned up at some point once the associated value is GC'd, are themselves strongly retained references.

They're designed so that, if necessary, they can be operated by a single employee. That's why they're so tightly cramped around the grill: so that someone can cook and still keep an eye on a table.

This is also what makes it really easy to get attached to your local Waffle House: the staff make the place what it is.

Chet is going to be missed a lot in our community. His talks with Romain Guy were inspirational to me: whenever I saw them it was clear that they could each hold the stage on their own, but that having the both of them got more out of both of them, both technically and in entertainment value.

I hope he does well in comedy, but I will miss his example: that you can bring even unusual talents and interests into work life and make something worthwhile of it

It's a low traffic 4 way stop sign intersection. Low speed, probably a 25mph speed limit?

If you're cycling, this kind of intersection is only dangerous if you fail to yield/stop appropriately to auto traffic. Which seems like might be what happened here, from the description.

Of course they are different things. But the choice to define "range" as the highest possible number is misleading: people ask the range so that they can know how many stops are required at a highway speed trip.

Using surface street numbers for that is....unhelpful, at best. It certainly doesn't help the Windows computer hoi polloi feel as if they have gotten what they paid for.