semiotagonal

Git uses hashes to identify commits, but does it actually chain them, i.e. include the previous hash as an input to the current hash?

In the US it is almost impossible for a public figure, especially a political figure, to win a libel lawsuit.

In theory, a deliberate, malicious false statement against a public figure would count as libel; but in practice basically everything is allowed. This prevents politicians from intimidating their critics with lawsuits.

EDITED TO ADD: In fact in the US there is pretty much a constant stream of false statements about every politician, and I can't recall any politician ever winning a libel case. Devin Nunes is trying currently, and basically making a fool of himself.

I don't think a smaller number of dumb startups will have much negative impact, considering the huge numbers of highly paid employees the giant "fang companies" have.

There's nothing about GPS that says it should provide continuous information to others about one's location.

Also if you sit near the Android people, let them know I'm going to be irritated if I find that my parents have been tricked into activating location tracking on their phones again! It seems like I have to shut off all the various Google privacy settings every time I visit them. They don't want to be tracked.

Thanks for the response. I'm mostly familiar with Google Docs in the workplace, where it was apparent who was reading what document at a particular moment from a list of users at the upper-right.

Separately, on my personal account, at some point I viewed a publicly shared document from a well-known person, and that ended up in my "shared documents" (or "documents shared with you"?) for ages. I wasn't sure if that sharing was evident in both directions. I've avoided clicking on shared Google Drive documents since then.

If it's not the case that the owner of the doc can audit activity, I stand corrected.

EDITED TO ADD: I suppose the root of my confusion is that it's pretty hard to distinguish the behavior of Google Drive from Google Docs; and once the lack of privacy has been observed anywhere (e.g. using Docs the workplace), it's hard not to assume it's also happening with PDF's shared via Google Drive, simply because you can't know what the other person is seeing.

It's especially hard when there is an asymmetry (e.g. in a non-GSuite environment, I can see some publicly shared document in my "shared with me" list, but I guess the sharer can't see me).

I wish he'd keep it running, then write on lessons learned turning $200K into something much less, should such a loss be manifest.

I think you're missing my point that even if you willingly impose Google surveillance on yourself, Google Drive is still worse than Google Analytics because your personally identifiable activity is visible to the author and/or other readers, not just Google.

I should have made it clear I was assuming that people were authenticated to their Google account. I think most people who use GMail never log out, and might not check the URL and realize they were navigating to a Google doc.