Despite the downvotes, this is at least partially correct. If unions were ubiquitous in the tech sector, companies would have been a lot more stingy with the hiring during ZIRP or boom eras. Or they would have been more creative with the hiring form - contractors, temporary staff, etc. None of these companies would risk locking in so many employees knowing that they'll be very expensive or impossible to fire.
I don't know about how a union would affect the standard salary being offered. I'd say that it could be higher for those essential enough to be "core staff", those that the company hires permanently knowing they'll be hard to get rid of and who drive the company forward because they're motivated with additional means.
So a union might drive the salaries and employment conditions up for the "core" team, while driving them down for the "temps". I've been through this as a unionized tech worker in both categories, and this is how it played out.
> An IP address is not "personally identifiable data".
GDPR says it is [1][2].
> We are almost 10 years into the GDPR, and we still have these gross misunderstandings
Because people would rather smugly and confidently post about their gross misunderstandings. If only there was some place to read about this and learn. I’ll give you the money shot to save 10 more years:
> Fortunately, the GDPR provides several examples in Recital 30 that include:
> Internet protocol (IP) addresses;
From Recital 30:
> Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses
When an IP address is linked to any other data, then it counts as PII. By itself, it's not.
So, sure, if you stick the user's IP address on a cookie from a third-party service, you are sharing PII. But this is absolutely not the same as saying "you need to claim legimate interest to serve anything, because you will need their IP address".
IPs are PII even before you inevitably link them to something in your logs. If you can make a case that you absolutely don’t store them anywhere, they’re just transiently handled by your network card, maybe you get away with it but only because someone else along the stream covers this for you (your hosting provider, your ISP, etc.)
Source: I have been cursed to work on too many Data Protection Impact Assessments, and Records of Processing Activities together with actual lawyers.
Basically we are in agreement: IP addresses, by themselves, are not PII, only when they are linked to other information (a cookie, a request log) then it consitutes processing.
So, apologies if I was not precise on my comment, but I still stand by the idea: you don't need to a consent screen that says "we collect your IP address", if that's all you do.
Not really, no. I don’t think I can make it more clear than I, or the law, already did: IPs are PII no matter what. Period. It’s literally spelled out in the law.
The misconception is that you need explicit consent for any kind of processing of PII. That is not the case. The law gives you alternatives to consent, if you can justify them. Some will confuse this with “must mean IPs aren’t PII”, which is not the case.
An IP address linked with the website being accessed is already PII.
When serving content, you're by necessity linking it to a website that's being accessed.
For example, if grindr.com had a display in their offices that showed the IP address of the request that's currently being handled, that's not saving or publishing or linking the data, but it's still obvious PII.
I think that's comparing to 3 years of GeForce Now at ~22EUR/month for the Ultimate plan, for a total of ~800 EUR. For someone using in 3h/week then you might as well go for the free plan and pay nothing. But renting has while owning can only have financial cost, renting has a hidden cost on top of that. It leads to "atrophy" of the ownership right and once you lose that option you'll never get it back. That will have incalculable costs.
I have computers that are ~20 years or even more and still work fine. My main computer which I just replaced is ~14 years old (with some components even older than that), was used every single day, and is now a perfectly functioning server. I have stacks of SFFs and minipcs from eBay going back to 2008 but most from 2012-2015, which have been running virtually uninterrupted for a decade, and still working fine. I have several laptops from different OEMs, business and consumer lines, that are as old as 2008 and have been used regularly for at least 10 years, all still fine.
I understand what you're saying but saying it isn't enough. There's nothing to support your claim.
> Flights from sfo to Frankfurt bolt upright sound unpleasant
Same flight with someone's seat resting on your knees is downright painful.
> when my wife was pregnant
Imagine if she was a bit taller and someone reclined the seat all the way over her.
> The recline button is there for your use
You're right, like any shared resource, "space" is there for you to use. It doesn't mean you have to use it, you could try to be aware of your surroundings and assess whether your small comfort should come at the cost of someone else's extreme discomfort. And if you use the button others are also free, and probably correct, to call you a dick. Like a guy who empties the bowl of complimentary candy someone offers to all customers.
You shouldn't need physical blocks or laws to define your own common sense and decency.
I'm 185cm and I couldn't imagine having to endure a long haul flight without reclining.
I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. Almost everyone reclines on long flights. It's normal. It's expected. If it makes you uncomfortable that's a you problem, everyone else seems fine with it. If it makes you physically uncomfortable, pay for extra leg room. Don't make your problem the problem of another passenger.
> I never get these discussions. It's only ever online that I see complaints. everyone else seems fine with it
That's a skewed conclusion you're drawing. Are you really surprised that people aren't willing to risk escalating the situation on a plane, arguing with what's likely the very inconsiderate person in front of them? Most people have an aversion to conflict. It doesn't mean "they're fine with it". You probably don’t advertise in real life how much you lean back and not care who’s behind you out of fear that people will change your opinion of you. Real life is a harsh mistress.
I've bumped into people and they said "sorry", do you think they wanted me to bump into them, liked it, and actually believed it was their mistake? No, I just tower at close to 2m so they didn't want to escalate the situation.
P.S. I always look at who sits behind me, if they're "space constrained" or not, and almost always ask if I can recline. Sometimes I don't bother, clearly the person will suffer. Sometimes they said "I'd rather not, thank you". Many times they said "fine". I used to fly a lot and my experience was very clearly not that "everyone is fine". I was never fine even if I didn't start arguing. So how would you have known?
I've literally never been on a 5+ hour flight where anyone in the row in front of me didn't recline at some point.
I've discussed this with various people IRL. No one, including taller people than me, ever complained about people being inconsiderate for reclining. Every tall person complains about leg room.
The vast majority of people do not think it's inconsiderate to recline. They think it's normal and that the function is there for a reason.
I actually think it's inconsiderate to complain to the person in front if they want to recline. The only time that is acceptable is when meals are served.
Anecdotal, but I'm 193cm, take a few 12+ hour flights per year, and have no problem not reclining. For what it's worth, I feel like I've experienced people on my shorter, domestic flights reclining their seats more often than on my longer, international flights.
You're tall so you can't sit upright? :P Do you need to lean backwards when you work too? I think you are wrong and a lot of people are not fine with it. I don't need a closeup view of someone's bald spot while trying to eat shitty airplane food.
Mainly because they were introduced when the seats were set farther apart. Now companies squeeze more rows and keep the same seats.
But also because with any shared resource there's an expectation of decency involved. Some people just betray that expectation. They're the ones with the mentality that "they shouldn't have served alcohol if they didn't want me to get insufferably drunk", "they shouldn't have put the candy out if they didn't want me to take all of it", "why is the swing there in the park if not for my kids to use them continuously to the disappointment of other kids".
When your wife was pregnant someone probably let her go ahead in a queue, have her some priority for something, etc. That was a person with common sense and decency, not asking "why do queues exist", who doesn't do something only if there's a law about it.
I’m several inches over 6’ and if I don’t get a fire exit seat I’m highly likely to get seated behind someone who will call me “extremely rude” for wrangling uncomfortably and bumping their seat uncontrollably when they inevitably decide that extra 6 degrees of recline is worth more than my knee cartilage.
People generally didn’t even offer her a seat on the metro. And letting other people decide whether you should be permitted to use the functionality the airline has given you is dysfunctional people pleasing.
Your "dysfunctional people pleasing" is someone else's "not being a total dick". As I said, there's no law against it. It's all about character and education (or lack thereof). Some people even think they must brag about it because why else would they have a mouth and keyboard.
I still see ashtrays on older plans, trains, and boats. Sometimes older stuff is left there because it's not financially advantageous to replace it. You can use the recline button to your liking, but it can be inconsiderate to do it. Traveler discretion is advised.
A question you can always ask yourself is "should I do it just because I can do it?". It will stop you from being needlessly inconsiderate many times, and maybe even make you a better person.
> This "random output machine" is already in large use in medicine
By doctors. It's like handling dangerous chemicals. If you know what you're doing you get some good results, otherwise you just melt your face off.
> Should I trust the young doctor fresh out of the Uni
You trust the process that got the doctor there. The knowledge they absorbed, the checks they passed. The doctor doesn't operate in a vacuum, there's a structure in place to validate critical decisions. Anyway you won't blindly trust one young doctor, if it's important you get a second opinion from another qualified doctor.
In the fields I know a lot about, LLMs fail spectacularly so, so often. Having that experience and knowing how badly they fail, I have no reason to trust them in any critical field where I cannot personally verify the output. A medical AI could enhance a trained doctor, or give false confidence to an inexperienced one, but on its own it's just dangerous.
But the article isn't saying it's surprising that you gain weight when you stop the treatment, the surprise is how fast you regain it compared to other treatments.
The conclusion isn't at all obvious so there's no "duh" moment. Why would you gain back the weight that much faster if you lost it with this pill vs. that pill?
They don't develop this equilibrium "instinctively" (something exclusively inside them) but they do "naturally" (helped by the environment). Now the reindeer weren't really in their natural environment, they were put in very constrained, special conditions, with little flexibility, little time to adapt, and no ability to shape that environment. The environment forced them to adapt and lower the numbers, and eventually wiped them out with what was also probably a fluke. They were still 50% more individuals than when they arrived but no viable reproduction path ahead.
This was an extreme example. Put humans on this type of island and you'll probably end up with them dying out just the same, despite our tendence to radically change the environment to survive. After all that's why the reindeer were there, so humans can survive absent a constant lifeline from civilization.
Humans, and viruses to a degree, are much better at shaping their environment and adapting faster to what's thrown at them to compensate. The instinct is to change whatever possible of the surroundings to survive and thrive.
I don't know about how a union would affect the standard salary being offered. I'd say that it could be higher for those essential enough to be "core staff", those that the company hires permanently knowing they'll be hard to get rid of and who drive the company forward because they're motivated with additional means.
So a union might drive the salaries and employment conditions up for the "core" team, while driving them down for the "temps". I've been through this as a unionized tech worker in both categories, and this is how it played out.
reply