Hey, David! I'm surprised by how many people seem to be confused or irritated by you sharing this. I'm imagining that some people are hearing a demand that they have to read it, and then they're obliged to do as you prefer. And I also see you replying with a cheerful "Thanks!" to comments which I find myself judging as discompassionate. That inspires me. So I just wanted to say that it seems to me like you really value clear communication, collaboration, and trust, and that this document is your attempt at meeting those needs.
Would you say this is an accurate reflection of what you wanted to express sharing it here? Would love to hear it.
I'm sure note confused. The message is clear: the guy says: you'll work my way. 'cos you see, there are probably as many "user" manual as they are persons. Putting yours forward, full of imperative is exactly the opposite of mine.
If you want to work with me, never, ever, use the imperative, just ask gently and unless what you're asking is dangerous for me, I'll most of the time help you.
I had a boss who told me he was looking for the manual to work with me. He was actually looking for user manual, to use me (in his word it was not "use", it was "I'll help you to get the best of yourself")
Thanks. That is an accurate reflection, yes. I learned a lot from the fact that when I shared it in my personal network — with people who know me (some of which have worked with me before) — reactions were much more positive. So yeah, that much for me valuing context awareness :-) I've made some significant changes to the document based on the feedback I got here, and I think it now reflects better what my intentions were, even for people who have little to no context about it.
Well, there is nothing to believe or not believe in this study; it simply points out that most of the books disagree with what's widely accepted in the field[0]. Which do you believe, the widely accepted theory or 29 books?
That's where you make a mistake. Whatever the reason, the Wikipedia articles on the g factor, the intelligence quotient and Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory represent better what is widely accepted in the field than any other source. This somehow also turns out to be true for other academic fields.
Anyway, when source A says explicitly that source B is wrong but source B makes no such claim about source A, you should usually believe source A. But in this case you can know that the study is right by just learning for yourself what does happen to be widely accepted in the field and why it is widely accepted.
> represent better what is widely accepted in the field
How do you know this? Are you a practitioner in the field?
> when source A says explicitly that source B is wrong but source B makes no such claim about source A, you should usually believe source A
Yikes. That is scary: "You are wrong." You'd better respond or else that proves it.
"Newton is wrong." "Darwin is wrong about evolution." "Climate change scientists are all wrong." "Popper is wrong about postpositivism." "The legal system is wrong about the right to cross-examination."
Holy shit can't you read up before complaining without knowing the details? There is the exception that you may use and store data that is necessary for providing the service. Thus, since ip is necessary for talking to a server, you don't need to explicitly ask for consent. However you MUST NOT do anything else with that IP, like logging it for longer than necessary or tracking users across sites (without consent).
Why do you need to log ip? To prevent abuse? That's ok. For how long? That's up do you to decide, but it must be motivated and documented.
What's so hard to understand? How is this not perfectly reasonable already? Why are you entitled to not respect other's personal data?
Because 1) your analogy is off. People forget, a machine does not 2) GDPR is about privacy; tracking people's behaviour, linking things together without explicit consent is not allowed according to GDPR.
1. If I am writing it down, as my analogy suggests, it is not forgotten.
2. I understand what it's about.
If you want to make tracking people and linking things together illegal, great.
However, my argument in response to the OP intended to illustrate that recording information about someones actions, particularly when it's a party who is part of the interaction creating the recording, does not seem to have some preexisting moral expectation or attached to it.
Hence, to me at least, the GDPR's directives are not objectively reasonable or obvious in some way as suggested by the OP.
I also think forbidding certain uses of the data is more reasonable than to regulate its collection and storage. But yes, that's probably riskier and harder to enforce.
It's ok to take a picture of the street out of your front window
It's not ok to take a picture of everyone that walks in front of your house, timestamped and on top of that you search their picture on Facebook (supposing you could do that) and keep all that info forever
> It's not ok to take a picture of everyone that walks in front of your house, timestamped and on top of that you search their picture on Facebook (supposing you could do that) and keep all that info forever
Why not? It's certainly not obvious why this is the case.
I guess that's a fair question. Two reasons come to mind:
1. If the by-passers where to discover what you've done they might feel violated. This is why there are laws against stalking. Thus in this example it would be all about intent.
2. What if your database leaks? Have you considered that event, the probability of it happening, and the impact? How can you minimize the risk? Is it encrypted? How long do you need to store it for? Can it be anonymized? Do you even need to look up name? Is the potential privacy intrusion proportional to the purpose of collecting the data?
To be GDPR-compliant you must have answered all those questions and documented it.
Are you saying that you think you will be able to climb faster than everyone else and when finished (when are you rich enough btw?) be better at making an impact than all the other efforts trying to change the world?
At least be honest. It's not that it's the most efficient way to spend your money; you simply want to be the hero. While letting your spare coins trickle down to those below. And it's ok cause you'll pay back later. Maybe through the next generation even.
I don't have to climb faster than others, but I would like to peak in wealth and influence before I come up with my own ultimate plans. That will likely be around the age of 50 or 60.
We must all do our part to look out for others. I give away whatever I can afford to friends and family who are short on money. I accumulate relatively little compared to my earning potential. But I am also laying the groundwork to help others further down the road.
My influence comes from being born a straight white male to a wealthy family in a wealthy nation. I am educated and practice an in-demand vocation. I command a high wage on the labour market, and this allows me to accumulate capital faster than most people. A factory worker makes less than a third of what I do per hour. So I can make a larger impact than them.
Most people do not earn enough to accumulate any meaningful capital in their lifetime. I am more privileged than most, and of course, less privileged than others.
> But I am also laying the groundwork to help others further down the road.
> I command a high wage
> [I] accumulate capital faster than most people
> A factory worker makes less than a third of what I do
> I can make a larger impact than them
> Most people do not earn enough to accumulate any meaningful capital in their lifetime
You are presenting pretty much every argument i can think of for why it's a problem that wealth generates wealth. That the very fact that you earn more than others is what prevents them from accumulating meaningful capital. Yet i don't see you fighting for wealth redistribution, which is a proven way of making an impact.
If you had said: "i believe i earn more than i deserve", "i have mostly been lucky", "hard working factory workers should earn more", or "free healthcare and education!", i might have believed that you planned to fight for making people who are rich like you at 60 slightly less rich (relatively). But you didn't. So i maintain my position that you should at least be honest.
But it can easily be argued that it's been a zero-sum game, where one actor has been forced to use more targeted ads because others have been more efficient (cheaper) by doing so. It's not like ads spending has increased; unless you're arguing that consumption has increased due to targeted/invasive ads?
It is difficult for me to see how it would be zero sum. Instead it seems very likely to me that the total amount spent by users online is higher with invasive ads than non-invasive ones: if no ad you see is relevant to you then you are less likely to buy anything online at all.
There's an argument I've seen - no idea whether it's correct - that users acclimatise to new advertising technology and eventually regress back to the mean. I suppose this would mean that newer and more invasive ads cause a spike in consumer spending, which drops over time until the next innovation.
I've never seen someone make that argument for better targeting, which is what they're saying cookies enable. You're not going to acclimate to being more interested in the ads you're seeing.
The argument for better targeting is simple: targeting works (whether directly or just through being a novelty), and those who engage in it get ahead of those who don't.
The argument for getting used to ads is mostly psychology/neuroscience.
But a main lesson you could be taking is that you shouldn't trust your own self assessment. If you think you're good at something, don't take your own word for it.
Another main lesson you could be taking is that this paper is flawed and doesn't actually prove anything about self-assessments in general, so don't automatically second-guess anyone's word for it, even your own. Find the link elsewhere in this thread titled "what the Dunning-Kruger effect is and isn’t".
Now i'm looking at ableton live wondering: where's an instrument/vst as simple as that thing? There are endless "instruments" with weird knobs and then there's effects and whatever. Is Live the wrong tool if i just want to create a nice sound and then record something and then put some tracks together?
Omni (Schibsted) | Senior Full Stack Engineer | Stockholm, Sweden | Onsite | Full-Time
Omni is an award winning news app (and website) with the focus on personalization and quick and complete news coverage (aggregating all other news sources).
You will be part of a small and efficient team (4 full stack devs, 1 UX, and 1 designer in Stockholm; 4 Android and iOS devs in Gdansk) who have just begun expanding the app into new markets. We're small enough that you will have a big impact, but there's still plenty of career opportunities within the rest of Schibsted.
We're looking for a senior engineer that is very experienced with javascript and node.js (or so good at other stuff and willing to learn that it doesn't matter). The rest of our stack consists of Postgresql and Elastic Search, virtual-dom, Heroku, Varnish, and AWS (RDS, S3, SNS, SQS).
However, we're constantly experimenting and innovating and no strangers to trying new technology when we get a good opportunity (personally I can't wait to use Elm in production; we just need more devs who knows it!).
We write plenty of tests, do code reviews always, and have the ambition to do pair/mob programming more regularly.
Email me at andreas@omni.se if you're interested.
PS. For The Right Candidate we are willing to help with relocation to one of Schibsted's hubs (Stockholm, Gdansk, or Oslo).
Omni (Schibsted) | Senior Full Stack Engineer | Stockholm, Sweden | Onsite | Full-Time
Omni is an award-winning news app (and website) with the focus on personalization, and quick and complete news coverage (aggregating all other news sources).
You will be part of a small and efficient team (4 full stack devs, 1 UX, and 1 designer in Stockholm; 4 Android and iOS devs in Gdansk) who have just begun expanding the app into new markets. We're small enough that you will have a big impact, but there's still plenty of career opportunities within the rest of Schibsted.
We're looking for a senior engineer that is very experienced with javascript and node.js (or so good at other stuff and willing to learn that it doesn't matter). The rest of our stack consists of Postgresql and Elastic Search, virtual-dom for the web, and Heroku and Kubernetes/AWS for hosting.
However, we're constantly experimenting and innovating and no strangers to trying new technology when we get a good opportunity (personally I can't wait to use Elm in production; we just need more devs who knows it!).
Email me at andreas@omni.se if you're interested.
