probably_wrong

> they just assume that you'll fill every gigabyte with pirated music.

Yes, but... isn't their assumption mostly correct? Spotify and Co have changed the equation in the sense that one doesn't have files anymore but when those laws came out they targeted MP3 players and DVDs who were, indeed, full of pirated media.

I don't like the result for other reasons, but the assumption seemed always relatively accurate.

But that's precisely the point of the article: that after "countrywide student protests" this group has managed to unseat "13 years of populist authoritarian rule by Aleksandar Vučić".

I'm not saying they will succeed, but they have been explicitly voted to fight the corruption you speak of.

We do have a transportation worker's bill of rights. The vehicles may not tire but the drivers do, and therefore all truck drivers are entitled to mandatory rests. And self-driving cars (current ones, at least) have a similar issue: because the driver must be prepared to take the wheel at all times there's a whole bunch of "increased output" that they're not allowed to take advantage of, with a risk of serious jail time if they do.

IMO the key is risk: right now no one is taking responsibility of the AI errors (IMO by design), but the second we codify who's legally responsible for them we'll see calls for slowing down coming from those groups.

There's a limit, though. Not only are there mandatory breaks for truck drivers, but also a maximum number of working hours my boss is allowed to demand from me. And even within those limits my boss is not allowed to dispense cocaine during tight deadlines.

We do have limits for how much work a human is allowed to do and, based on the experience of Amazon workers, they are due for some tightening already. I'm not seeing a clear case for AI but I wouldn't discount it entirely either.

I wouldn't go that far. I recognize that I came out in full swing mostly because job search is still a touchy topic (so many ghostings...), but where else are we to discuss our bad ideas if not here? If anything, the OP brought it up here instead of implementing it in their pipeline. ~~BMW~~ Some companies didn't even think that far.

As someone who was job searching in the recent past I can tell you: these type of "alternative" interviews are perceived by job seekers as the circus master making their monkeys dance and, therefore, horribly demoralizing. Asking your candidate to do something completely unrelated to their job just because you think it reveals something about them comes off as flexing your power over someone who's trying to get their basic needs met in a sea of ghostings and AI rejections.

It has nothing to do with applicants discarding games as silly, BTW. Instead, I suggest you re-read your comment replacing online gaming with dancing and see if you'd be excited about such an interview. If your candidate is good enough to have choices they'll go to the one who respects them and their time.

I have an Epson XP-2205. It has clogged up and, unless I figure out how to unclog it, I will soon no longer have an Epson XP-2205. I use it under Linux, where support is underwhelming. The scanner works in one account but not on another (same computer).

On that front things look the same they always did.

Based on the earlier definition of "Fair use" I think it only means that the developer promises not to overload the geodata servers with too many requests and that the publishers reserve a right to rate-limit them if they don't behave.

While not in Germany, my dad got a surprise letter from a government agency to explain why he had built a pool in the backyard without getting the proper government approval (which he hadn't built). After some calls it was explained that the agency routinely uses Google Maps to look for surfaces that fit a pattern, and a new sun protection he installed looked like a pool from above.

While mostly harmless and cleared up in the end, this is the very definition of mass surveillance: a government agency looking into people's backyards without judge approval and without oversight. On that principle I have to agree with the ruling.

I disagree with the idea that it was "actually correct". I suspect there is a cultural miscommunication regarding the word "Catholic" (as another commenter suggests). And because I disagree I would love to engage with their criticism, but I can't because the entire counter-argument was "no".

The original comment may be short but it's also thought-provoking. The reply, on the other hand, is not (per the FAQ) "a good critical comment [that] teaches us something".

I have down voted that comment because HN is not Reddit and that comment is nothing but a cheap shot with no substance. If the commenter had explained why they feel that way then the comment would have been just fine.

I appreciate that the authors didn't go too far into speculation territory, but this being the internet I'll do it anyway.

The survey only explores whether people feel like they became the person they want to be, but it would be great to know many of them actually act in a way consistent with their ideal self. Perhaps it's not that older people feel more comfortable in who they became but rather that, after 50+ years of working at it, they have finally nailed their target and there's not much left to do.

If I understand your question correctly, it's actually the opposite:

> some firms charge a flat retainer fee, while those that specialize in helping companies negotiate a ransom payment tend to charge a percentage of the total ransom amount paid.

Having a good relation with the ransomware group means that the group can ask for more knowing that the negotiation firm won't object too much and that the ransomware firm stands to gain more. Other than the victim, everybody wins.