The real world don't care about feelings.Feelings are extremely subjective making these kind of statements quite vague.
As a person with alexithymia, this is so confusing, I have no idea what "feels good" is supposed to mean. I know it's not bad, but that's a big spectrum of meaning. Good doesn't mean great or brilliant either. Just confusing.
Physical reality is barely changed by peoples' emotions (small shifts in their biochemistry).
Physical reality is very often changed significantly by the choices people make, which are rooted in their emotions.
So, while the universe as such may not care about emotions, they still matter as long as you're interacting with humans (including oneself).
FWIW, I'd not heard of alexithymia before, and I now am thinking I may have had it most of my life.
I've gotten much better at recognizing emotions in myself and others over the past two years through a combination of prayer, therapy, introspection (a skeptic might argue my prayer was just an obscured form of introspection), and reading (Non-violent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg helped me immensely).
I've seen the world become much more comprehensible as this has changed - other humans are a big part of the world, given how dependent we all are on civilization for survival and thriving, and as hinted above, I now understand my own actions and choices much better too. Not being able to recognize my emotions didn't mean I had none.
FWIW, "feel" and "good" as used in this article is not about emotions; it's more of a shortcut that means "Do I trust that this is doing what I expect it to regarding (safety | stability | understandability)?"
Sounds similar to here in NL. Ubder drivers need to be licensed taxi drivers with all the appropriate permits and insurances.
There are taxi companies, but people are free to get a taxi permit and be a taxi driver without a boss. These guys use Uber now, and it seems to be working good.
The rating of drivers and customers seems to be well received, especially from my conversations with drivers. Also you have history in the Uber app, so if something happens, you forgot something, you know which car and which driver, or the driver knows which customer. This is almost impossible in a regular taxi unless you take time to bother to write down the driver details and the taxi car number.
There is still some issues with drivers not getting appropriately compensated for trips, and there's been a lot of attention to drivers not getting the extra cut of the surge pricing, Uber takes it all. Obviously not fair, but in the bigger picture of things it is good.
The cookie wall won't let me continue without agreeing to cookies. I can reject them in the Cookie Policy, but that too is protected behind the cookie wall.
Obviously, this doesn't comply with the GDPR, and makes the site unreadable for some.
This article loads just fine without needed any cookies, just curl it (via a US server) and load it. If that works, why do they need to set any cookies? Some sites need session cookies to maintain login details from request to request, that's fine. Some sites may offer the option to use cookies to save your login from one visit to the next, that's also fine, ask if they want that.
Most sites don't need to set any cookies though, so why bother asking permission.
"This site costs money, accept our cookies while we sell your personal information for a fraction of what it's worth or you can't see it. We value your personal data at 6 cents, as that's what the 300 companies we sell it to will pay us."
Do people still really believe that cases like this are the result of ignorance? It's been years since GDPR was made into law, seems to me the only explanations are severe negligence or malevolence.
Maybe some people just decided to don’t give a shit about GDPR...hard to blame them. They law (while well intended) is totally out of proportion and puts the internet in danger.
It’s insanly stupid and backwards...just like the new copyright laws the EU is working on.
Europeans are shooting themselves right back into the dark ages...and I probably wouldn’t care if they weren’t ruining it for everyone else too.
Your definition of stealing is a weird one. As far as I know (insert here giant US Corp) has always followed local tax laws.
I think Europeans are just being bitches about the fact that they haven’t been able to replicate Silcon Valleys success (with noteable exceptions such as Spotify, Zendesk and others which ultimately also moved their HQs to the US though).
Yes, the US spies on Europeans and everybody else, just as Europeans and the rest of the world spy on the US. It’s what nation states do...they spy on each other. You and I might not like it but it’s whats it is...no need to single out the US.
There you have it. The motivation for this new legislation is to change those facts: correct tax "avoidance" and prevent powerful foreign corporations to spy and steal assets (i.e. news snippets).
It seems the US is very sensitive when nobody buys their cars, but sees absolutely no problem dominating modern comunications. The EU has a problem with that.
And my definition of stealing is a pretty standard one: both Apple and Google have been repeatedly fined using EU law for tax issues, for example.
Users working around major internet sites who can't be bothered to comply with EU law, what's lost is convenience and Rule of Law. Sure I can put ear plugs in when every $carBrand goes past, but what's better is making cars with proper exhaust baffles.
These wall designs are really surprising; I would expect bad designs to come from difficulty of implementing data collection management, not the wall UX. Just imagine you're a user seeing this, do you not feel antagonized?
Since the data collection management would traditionally be stored as a cookie... It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Without tracking, how do you track that consent was revoked?
The cookie law bugs me because it's feels like it's being applied in completely the wrong place. Isn't the browser perfectly capable of restricting third party cookies and presenting the necessary legal warnings?
browsers can restrict third party cookies. But this is opt-out, default is to allow these. The average user is most likely not aware of these settings.
They're not surprising if you assume the ground state for every company that does not fear the teeth that come with this legislation is malice. They're doing the bare minimum they need to so they can pretend to think they have complied if anyone knocks on their door, while still trampling all over everyone's rights.
You don't have to be a customer for GDPR to apply to you, they just have to collect PII from you to be considered the data subject and now the organization need to follow GDPR.
If you collect data from me when I visit your website, even without me buying anything, you have now collected data and you need to comply.
The use of the word "customer" in this context is incorrect.
Is the article available to Europeans somewhere? All I'm getting is a message with this:
> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
On the other hand, I'm wondering how much I want to read an article from a website where they must track me to when I just want to read something...
I'd suggest flagging all articles posted here that prevent EU access. The content writers kinda have a right to deny you access, but we don't need to drive traffic in direction of those that refuse to handle your privacy well.
It's also quite disconcerting to consider the implications of this. Since we 'opt in' to the articles we click on, tracking what individuals read and then building a profile based off of that would be quite informative, and quite invasive.
And then sharing, trading (to expand the profile), and selling it to other companies? Really nasty stuff.
That's exactly why the GDPR is put in place, to give users transparency and force website to ask the users consent before tracking.
You'll see some sites have quite an extensive menu of opting in to various tracking etc. For example Engadget or TechCrunch have a popup asking you to give consent, or not, before using the website. This is how it should be done.
Then there's other websites that shows you all it's tracking and ask you to just accept, there's no option to refuse, which is against GDPR, as implied consent is no longer valid.
And then you'll have websites like latimes that just goes "fuck it, we'll just block 500 million people in EU instead!"
Really goes to show how what they do with the reader's data that they collect is actually shady to the point of illegality in large swathes of the world.
What it really shows is that they have so little EU-originating readers/income that it doesn’t make economical sense spend thousands of dollars on evaluating compliance. And yes, the law is poorly written that even parsing it is a non trivial cost, particularly if you are a risk-averse organization.
It may mean they are doing obscene tracking too, but you are making ideological assumption if that’s your only hypothesis.
Exactly, while I have access to VPN and other means of bypassing the block, I have no intention of supporting such lackadaisical solutions to our privacy.
This is so stupid, they are still infracting on European Citizens that just happen to not be in Europe. For example I can get to the page but I am in Switzerland which is not part of the EU yet smack in the middle of Europe.
The GDPR's scope is EU (or EEA, I can't recall) residents in EU territories, it has no provisions at all for EU citizens who reside outside the territory.
The point is that they're i) blocking people who aren't covered by GDPR. ii) not actually exempting themselves from GDPR because they still have all the data from EU residents from before the blocking.
Blocking EU residents as a GDPR protection is dumb.
I'm in the EU, but since I'm looking at it from a work computer, and I guess our network exits in the US, I can see the article, so they are in breach of GDPR even with their stupid block.
Still, using ip addresses to try to determine where a request is originating from is not a good idea. I'm also not intending to bypass a block, I just happen to be in a network right now that that doesn't have a public ip in the EU, I'm using the internet as intended, the fact that ips sometimes correspond to geography is mostly accidental.
It doesn’t violate GDPR you do not need conscent for this level of profiling.
And again using or not using the internet as intended isn’t the issue here but rather if they intend to provide services to the EU or not a message saying EU users should leave in the same manner as age conscent is verified is technically sufficient to indicate that you do not provide service to EU residents, geoblocking the IP also sufficient even if it’s not perfect.
> Still, using ip addresses to try to determine where a request is originating from is not a good idea
How else should they do it? I concede it is not foolproof nor ideal - but for websites which you've not provided your location to yourself, how is it possible for them to determine whether or not you are in Europe?
You are allowed to use it and even keep it without consent if anything the GDPR wants to separate consent from data processing.
https://eugdprcompliant.com/personal-data/
You can maintain the records of an IP address (as well as other PII) for business needs e.g. security or to enforce other requirements such as geoblocking even without explicit consent of the user it's all about why you and what do you with it which is why legal/lawful grounds exist.
> Whenever a change in any service is merged to master, the CI rebuilds _all_ the services and pushes new Docker images to our Docker registry.
Why are you rebuilding _all_ the services, wouldn't it make sense to just rebuild the ones that have changes? You're now rebuilding perfectly working services without any new changes just because some other service changed, or am I misunderstanding something here?
Because we want to make sure that in the Docker registry we have _all_ services tagged with the latest commit.
For example you might have a Git history like this:
* 89abcde Fix bug in service_b
* 1234567 Initial commit including service_a and service_b
When 89abcde is pushed, the CI rebuilds both service_a and service_b so we can simply "deploy 89abcde" and you always have only one hash for all services, that is also nicely the same hash of the corresponding Git commit.
The trick to avoid rebuilding perfectly working services is to use Docker layer caching so that when you build service_a (that hasn't changed) Docker skips all steps and simply adds the new tag to the _existing_ Docker image. The second build for service_a should take about 1 second.
In our Docker registry we end up with:
service_a:1234567
service_a:89abcde
service_b:1234567
service_b:89abcde
But the two service_a Docker images are _the same image_, with two different tags.
For ease of deployment and to solve the problem of "what version of service_b is compatible with version x of service_a"?
IMHO this makes sense if the microservices are developed by the same team. If we're talking about services developed and managed by different teams... maybe it's not a good idea.
My guess is that it is because of the mono-repo. Since it would take some work to figure out what changed and what to build, they just did it the easy way and re-build everything :-)
As a person with alexithymia, this is so confusing, I have no idea what "feels good" is supposed to mean. I know it's not bad, but that's a big spectrum of meaning. Good doesn't mean great or brilliant either. Just confusing.
Emotional blindness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia