cultureswitch

No need for a cookie banner if you don't collect data without consent. Every modern browser supports APIs that answer that question without pestering the user with a cookie banner.

To be fair, anyone who genuinely likes React is probably insane?

Plenty of great projects are developed by people working at Meta. Doesn't change the fact that the company as a whole should be split in at least 6 parts, and at least two thirds of these parts should be regulated to death. And when it comes to activities that do not improve anyone's life such as advertisement and data collection, I do mean literally regulated into bankruptcy.

What makes you think the regulators didn't predict the outcome?

Of course the business which depend on harvesting data will do anything they can to continue harvesting data. The regulation just makes that require consent. This is good.

If businesses are intent to keep on harvesting data by using dark patterns to obtain "consent", these businesses should either die or change. This is good.

Let's see, how many times did I get robo-called in the last decade? Zero :)

Sometimes the regulations are heavy-handed and ill-conceived. Most of the time, they are influenced by one lobby or another. For example, car emissions limits scale with _weight_ of all things, which completely defeats the point and actually makes today's car market worse for the environment than it used to be, _because of_ emissions regulations. However, it is undeniable that that the average European is better off in terms of privacy.

It is entirely unreasonable to prevent a general purpose model to be distributed for the largely frivolous reason that maybe some copyrighted works could be approximated using it. We don´t make metallurgy illegal because it's possible to make guns with metal.

When a model that has this capability is being distributed, copyright infringement is not happening. It is happening when a person _uses_ the model to reproduce a copyrighted work without the appropriate license. This is not meaningfully different to the distinction between my ISP selling me internet access and me using said internet access to download copyrighted material. If the copyright holders want to pursue people who are actually doing copyright infringement, they should have to sue the people who are actually doing copyright infringement and they shouldn't have broad power to shut down anything and everything that could be construed as maybe being capable of helping copyright infringement.

Copyright protections aren't valuable enough to society to destroy everything else in society just to make enforcing copyright easier. In fact, considering how it is actually enforced today, it's not hard to argue that the impact of copyright on modern society is a net negative.

You don't need cookie banners if you don't use invasive telemetry.

A website that sticks to being a website does not need cookie banners.

The article did in fact not make an attempt to demonstrate the claim in its title.

Imagine getting fired because you wanted to respect the DMCA of all things. I'd be curious for details, though you probably shouldn't tell.

In my experience long time contractors will absolutely "quiet quit" if put into the same catch-22 situations that push employees to do this.

The main difference at least in my region is that if you're a contractor then it's much quicker for you to quit and find a better job so the incentive to stay isn't as strong. In other words, tech workers who become contractors here usually are better contributors and have an easier time finding good offers.

It's getting sort of ridiculous how much each party is stuck in an electoral strategy where they have to pretend to be on one side of an issue which is objectively against the interests of the people they pretend to be representing.

Dems have to appear to be pro-immigration for reasons (honestly I don't know why this is like this, historically). They are genuinely less xenophobic than the Reps, so they respect the rights of recent immigrants much better. But when it comes to preventing more poor workers coming in, they are just as tough as the Reps. And I believe that's because ultimately they are slightly less captured by capital and therefore more amenable to balance the economy in favor of workers.

Reps on the other hand have to appear xenophobic once again for reasons that aren't super clear to me, but when it comes to actually preventing immigration, they always manage to torpedo their own proposals. And arguably that's because if they passed effective anti-immigration laws, that would negatively affect the interests of capital, the very obvious reason they're in politics for (and Trump is certainly no different).

Maybe now we can resolve this apparent paradox and simply accept that the Democrats are first and foremost the party of the educated, metropolitan and utterly disinterested in matters of material conditions. Whereas the Republicans are the party of people who are bitter towards the first group. Which leads to the conclusion that exceptionally few people in the US are voting according to their own economic interests.

I wonder what's the theory of harm behind such law. Employers competing over talent is... illegal? Explains a lot actually.

Reminds me of this technically true but still bizarre finding about electric bikes being ultimately more energy-efficient than human-powered bikes.

Everyone is ethically responsible for their own actions. As a software developer I don't work for ad companies. Why would a lawyer accept any client regardless of ethical concerns unless said lawyer is a scumbag?

Genius idea, though in the grand scheme of things this is probably bad.

Stanford doesn't need your money