I lived in Vancouver for many years, and it’s an outlier in terms of ease of bike lane installation. The city is quite new, and as it grew in the 50s and 60s the roads were designed for a future with more cars than there are now in the city. That means that there’s super wide boulevards and streets everywhere. Cities that were designed for horses and carts barely have room for cars as it is, so there’s almost no room for anything else next to them.
MBAs do love their neural nets. As a data scientist you have to figure out what game you’re playing: is it the accuracy game or the marketing game? Back when I was a data scientist, I got far better results from “traditional” models than NN, and I was able to run off dozens of models some weeks to get a lot of exposure across the org. Combined with defensible accuracy, this was a winning combination for me. Sometimes you just have to give people what they want, and sometimes that’s cool modeling and a big compute spend rather than good results.
Amusingly my voluntary subscription was just under the cut-off amount and I cancelled it as soon as this came in. I bought a subscription to The Economist instead.
Did they really already get rid of all the laws EU enforced upon them before they left? One would think it'd take a decade at least, but I guess things can move fast when the government really wants to.
The way regulation works in the EU is typically EU comes up with regulation for countries to implement, then they implement the laws via their national system, then everything is handled "locally". So just leaving the EU doesn't mean that all of those things just stop being active, you need to go through the process of removing the local laws before.
Well, I think Meta was the first to give it a try, and given that they had to revise it to not be like that (these changes incoming in January it seems https://www.euractiv.com/news/meta-to-tweak-its-pay-or-conse...), it seems to not be much of a gray area anymore, otherwise Facebook would continue offering that choice to users.
> The social media giant was fined €200 million in April for breaching the bloc’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) over the binary choice it gives EU users to either pay to access ad-free versions of the platforms or agree to being tracked and profiled for Meta’s ads.
> In a press statement, the Commission said the revised offer would give users an “effective choice” between consenting to their personal data being used to show them fully personalised ads or handing over less personal data and seeing “more limited personalised advertising”.
Seems like there will be a more nuanced choice available in January, than "pay us or we'll track you"
I know it happens in other countries, but can you actually get away with this in a civilized and non-authoritarian country today? Eventually you're gonna have to do/say something about it, if people keep opening up new cases about it.
Who's going to open a case and where? Is there any point in complaining to a local authority in an EU country about an UK web site? Esp since the guardian probably has zero business presence on the continent...
If you're a UK citizen, and you see UK law being broken you report that to your local authorities. I'm not sure where other EU countries come into the context?
In the context of this thread where I'm hypothesising that it's either legal or not enforced in the UK. An EU citizen may have grounds to complain if it's illegal in their jurisdiction, but to who?
Which is strange, because why wouldn't the UK enforce UK law? There is no such thing as "EU-wide laws" as I previously explained, so again I'm not sure why other EU citizens are being pulled into context here, it literally doesn't matter.
If no one is enforcing UK law, then obviously that's bad, but on another level. I'm not sure what point you're trying to do here. For example, if a company today breaks GDPR and I want to report them, then I'm gonna be engaging with my local agencies for that, regardless of where the company is based, assuming I'm in a EU country. There is no "EU bureau" you report to, since the company is breaking your local laws, you report them to your local authorities.
As far as I can tell by the context, you don't quite grok how EU regulations are actually implemented in reality, which is why you keep bring up other EU citizens, but it really doesn't matter. When GDPR came into effect, it's because the countries themselves have written and implemented local laws in their countries that align with GDPR, there isn't one "GDPR-law" that is enforced by an EU entity across the entire union.
> An EU citizen may have grounds to complain if it's illegal in their jurisdiction, but to who?
If I'm in Italy, and a German company is breaking some Italian law, then I'm reporting them to the Italian authorities.
I can’t figure out why you’re being simultaneously argumentative and dismissive. But you’re being argumentative and dismissive while talking about a totally different subject than the person you’re replying to.
EU citizens would have reason to be concerned about this. It’s not clear how an EU citizen would deal with this nor is it clear this would even be prohibited since there have been some recent rulings that muddy this. Nor is it even clear there would be a UK response since certain kinds of analytics are fine under UK GDPR.
You’ve taken something very interesting and open to interpretation and reduced it down to circular arguments. That’s boring.
I guess if I disagree it seems argumentative, not sure how to disagree without others believing it's argumentative, it kind of is by definition. It isn't my intention. Regardless.
> > > Hmm the guardian has gone "accept tracking or subscribe".
> > I didn’t know you were allowed to do that with cookies.
> UK site. Not in the EU any more.
This is the initial context for me in this conversation. As I understand things, whether UK is in the EU or not, they can still have laws active in the country that were introduced while the UK was in the EU.
Then someone said:
> ... or no one bothers to enforce them any more?
Which I guess is where I lose track a bit of what the actual subject is. We're talking about UK laws, that they may or may not still have as active in the UK, but at that point I already suspect that they're talking about some "EU-wide laws" or similar instead, which for me muddy the waters.
> Who's going to open a case and where?
Then this appears, which has obvious answers; if you're a UK citizen and someone broke UK law, you report to UK authorities. If you're from $EU_COUNTRY, then you report it in $EU_COUNTRY.
If you're in $EU_COUNTRY and UK company breaks your national laws, same applies as for any non-EU country, you report it in $EU_COUNTRY.
Going back to the initial question, can The Guardian ask "let us track you, or pay to visit this website"? For entities covered by the DMA, the answer is clear: No (so Meta cannot do this, which is why they're changing it). Otherwise, the answer isn't so clear, yet.
Now I don't know what I'm being dismissive about, I feel like I did my best following how the subject seemingly changed across comments, but I can acknowledge I lost track of the initial questions, for that I apologize. I guess I loose track of the discussion as the questions seems to get less specific, rather than more specific.
That's non-compliant with GDPR. When shown to EU readers, they cannot block access based on accepting a privacy policy. Only essential cookies that really are needed for it to function are required.
I’ve started a few projects with SQL over the years, and it makes for a much slower development cycle. Instead of solving business problems, you’re spending too much time focusing on query optimization, and any iteration that touches the db requires all the mapping logic to be painstakingly reconstructed. For me writing queries in SQL is for later optimization. But then again, I’m pretty strict about abstracting even the ORM stuff away into a data access layer, so maybe people run into problems trying to thread ORM models all the way through to their frontend code or whatever crazy things people get up to.
I’m sure you’d know that this was winter. If you line 2 sticks up with sunrise, and keep adjusting them every morning, eventually you’ll see that the sun stops rising further south and starts moving north again. You don’t need complex mathematics to work it out.
Are duopolies like iOS & Android much better? I used to trust the mail (in various European countries or the US for example). I don't have a good feeling about either Apple or Google. Especially not as a European, knowing that according to US law I have no rights.
I think the question is whether a competitor can become established. Can you run a mail delivery service if you only have local coverage? I don’t know. In the past, maybe you could use the national postal service to fill in the gaps as you scale up a delivery network, but I can’t see the established monopoly giving bulk discounts to a potential competitor. Trucks, vans, sorting facilities and workforces are very expensive to set up, and once they’re set up you can basically optimize them month by month etc. A new competitor has to speculatively spend an awful lot of money before they can deploy anything in any optimal way.
Parcel delivery is clearly not a natural monopoly; there are several carriers, including some that only have a limited footprint. I don't see why you couldn't expand from parcels to letters; although economics would probably be tough.
It's not a monopoly. While FedEx, UPS, DHL, and the likes are not obliged by law to deliver mail, they will certainly do it if the price is good. Even Uber does it.
Lysander Spooner tried offering letter services cheaper than the postal service in the US, and by most measures was better and cheaper at it. As it turns out as soon as you can do it cheaper, they just did what government does and used their monopoly on violence to put him in a tiny cage.
n 1844, hearing from citizens from every party and under pressure to reform the postal system, Washington lawmakers and the Postmaster General had no intention of sitting still for any of "that Spooner's shenanigans." Suits against Spooner and his cohorts began. Railroad heads were given full warning that contracts for government mails would be removed and fines imposed unless space and passage were refused to private letter carriers. It was "round one" for the government when an agent of Spooner's company in Baltimore was found guilty and fined for transporting letters in a railroad car over a post road of the United States. Spooner himself was arrested in New York on March 7 on three charges by special agents of the Post Office. Another of his agents, Calvin Case, was held to bail for $100 around March 23 for carrying letters on the train.
It always puzzled me that big corps don’t have their own infrastructure. Surely there’s a point where hiring a team to manage it properly becomes economical at a certain point, and they take a lot of security risks out of a third party’s hands.
reply