h0mEDw

Well, by thorough I simply meant not skipping any part. And those horrible parts of scriptures from religions originating from middle east (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) really cannot be sensibly interpreted in any metaphoric way unless by skipping it. A common way to do it is by saying "this is very specific code that was only relevant in societies back then; we're wise to not follow it now". But that's just skipping with extra steps.

Edit: just to make sure it's clear - I'm very happy when such skipping happens. A quote from Captive Mind by Czeslaw Milosz:

> When someone is honestly 55% right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God. But what’s to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100% right? Whoever say he’s 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.

> By “an old Jew of Galicia”.

True, but the only way to make it more sensible is to be less thorough. I.e. not implement certain rules that are stated explicitly in the books. Like modern Christians and Jews that do not kill adulterers, even though Deuteronomy explicitly tells them to do so.

As much as I like GDPR, I have no idea why would this law be any good. Perhaps I'm not seeing something here - can anyone explain how this law is good for society?

Ugh. Thanks for pointing it out.

Why would you want to make it a price to pay? We choose what's legal and what's not, it's not given to us in some great revelation. Do you think people's lives would be better without privacy, or with privacy?

I see little benefit in developing an alternative system of payment to the dollar, some form of intellectual nudity, implications of which I don't fully understand. The dollar is fine, charge me and leave me alone.

Yeah I meant that there's another layer to the symbolic representation of "sqrt(2)" than just the tree of operation, so that you can ask sensible questions about the value of the number. For instance a generator of decimal representation or a function like "given N return a fraction q/p that's within 1/2^N of the value".

And floats are really a whole other beast than fractions or naturals or real numbers. As I wrote earlier - the "+" operator isn't associative. Python snippet:

    def before():
        x = 0.0
        x += 1.0
        for i in xrange(1000):
            x += 1e-17
        return x

    def after():
        x = 0.0
        for i in xrange(1000):
            x += 1e-17
        x += 1.0
        return x


    print before() == 1.0
    print after() == 1.0

Will print:

   True
   False

US needs (something like) GDPR. 2% to 4% of revenue is a good starting point for a penalty. In the absence of a penalty why would anyone running a Telco company not take the extra cash from selling data.

Yup, it is possible. That was just a hand wavy example to show where the issue is. Symbolic real numbers need not be represented as small programs/objects generating a sequence of digits. But all of those implementations/representations will fail to compare some numbers.

Edit: for instance, you could imagine a representation (think object of a virtual class in c++) that gives you a fraction and a 1/2^n bound for error, where you can query the number for whatever n you see fit. Still, in some cases it's undecidable to determine which number is greater.

You have a point, but the problem is that there's no way to not spew data out in public spaces. I'd have to cut off all of the following:

  - my mobile phone
  - my landline phone
  - all credit cards and bank accounts
  - all hosted email solutions
  - all other hosted ways of communication (social media, messaging apps)
  - all ways of transport unless I own the devices (and even some cars you could own have telemetry these days...)

Basically only talk face to face, ride old cars and use cash or Monero. It's unrealistic.

Thanks, I'll look out for that. @tapland and @jgibson also mention that mobile networks often outsource running the infra.

In any case - I agree with you that this seems like a shitty legal pseudo-loophole. At the very least the company you sign mobile contract with needs to share your phone number with those infra subsidies. But then according to GDPR: "15. 1. The data subject shall have the right to (...) access to the personal data and the following information: (...) (c) the recipients or categories of recipient to whom the personal data have been or will be disclosed". Following this rule one should be able to reach the bottom of the data processing chain.