skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
you NEVER want your body to convert protein to glucose. it's your body's last resort of energy and is very destructive.
a simple solution: use privacy badger instead. or even just the optional social & tracking blocklists in ublock.
Light Hero vs Super Cars Vertical Stunts
Does the GDPR actually draw that line somewhere above the filesystem, but below the database?
So would it be economical to extract heroin from the sea water?

Assume highest street prices.
12 People Share Dirty Business Tactics That Everyone Should Know About
The thing is that due to the synchronization, users post could be synchronized to another site which they are not registered to.

Thus, a mechanism must be setup to allow users to manage their content on other sites. The mechanism that I currently planed was to use email verification (if (User's email === poster's email): They're the owner of the post), which requires all sync sites knows the email address (as an universal identifier) of the content owner.

To me, that means I need to share user's email with other sync parties which may not under my control. Because of that, I think it's sanctimonious to tell user that their email is under protection, I rather letting user be very aware about their email will be publicly displayed.

Another reason to publicly display users email is because I don't want to implement private message features (Which require to save private information), so if user's can know each other's email, they could just make content with their emails.
You know...it's funny but..i've had this theory about Friends(and other sitcoms) for a long time.
High-pressure tactics based on demanding settlements due to the ruinous cost of litigation, threats of even more ruinous statutory damages, and all the other tricks detailed here have been used by media conglomerates against individuals.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Your procedure sounds like the work of a private investigator. Not everything creepy needs to be illegal.
If you are driving a Tesla and it is on "autopilot" and it gets into an accident, it is summarily your fault for trusting it. How many accidents have to happen before the public realizes this "autopilot" feature has caused fatalities for those that trusted its ability be an actucal "autopilot"
Vimeo tends to really annoys me by forcing me to go to their website if I want to see the video in high def.

This tends to make me make sure to just leave the website afterwards.
Teddy Ruxpin holds an outsized place in my heart.
Government can come in your house in the middle of the night, guns drawn, and take you away.

Corporations can't.
Okay, I think I finally understand your argument.

You’re saying that Recital 43’s citation of “performance of a contract” refers to merely the performance of the provider — the good or service handed off by the provider to the customer. (It’s the sandwich in our example from earlier.) It does NOT also include whatever good the user provides to the service provider as their side of the contract.

So if a service provider says “You need to give me data in order for me to serve you targeted ads, and this is payment for the free service,” the user could not “freely consent” to providing that data, because it is a condition that is not necessary to provide the free service.

Okay, now another question: If the data given by the sandwich eater to get his free sandwich isn’t “freely given consent,” does that matter? Consent was never the legal basis under which the data was handed over in the first place; it was contractual fulfillment, which is a valid legal basis for processing personal data.

What am I missing?

Edit: I do remember the citation you gave earlier from ICO saying that contractual obligation is not a legal basis in the case where it has nothing to do with the performance of services on the part of the provider. I reviewed their site again, looking for a citation for why this is, but they don’t say. I assume they’re pulling that from recital 43, but again — that would seem to me to be a misreading of 43. That only means that the user didn’t freely consent to give that data. But that doesn’t matter because their data is not being processed under the legal basis of consent.
This reminds me of a article on HN from earlier -- this sounds like the core competency of management consulting:

https://www.cbinsights.com/research/disrupting-management-co...

One of companies mentioned, Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG), literally sells the time of vetted experts.
You do not need Apility to accomplish this.

Here is a example of blocking all EU country codes without using any external API's.

https://gist.github.com/icodeforlove/9d22e44d0f227cb2740fd3d...
PCI is well defined. It's a lot of process, but nobody is confused on what the process is.
Just speaking personally, I probably watch at least an hour of YouTube video daily, but I'm feeling less inclined to spend time on YouTube lately, due to all the ads and creator community hijinks. I've even considered hosting my own videos at sites like IA from now on. So while the big numbers look good, I'm personally more concerned about YouTube's future.
Out of curiosity, what kind of "nonmalicious but unwelcomed" scraping?
> if a preexisting startup doesn't care for the market, its probably because it's too small to be worth it.

It's not just that. It's that there is no money in cloning unsuccessful startups. Nobody wants to copy you until you're a success, but by then it's too late. By then the first mover has the momentum and resources.

This doesn't change that. By the time a startup becomes successful it will have the resources to pay compliance costs and enter the other market.

The problem is that having to exclude EU users until you're big enough to afford compliance will cause more ventures to die on the vine, before they ever become successful enough for anyone to want to copy them.

It also puts the local EU startups at an obvious disadvantage, because they have to pay the compliance costs up front instead of only after proving themselves in the US market.
I read it as part of my business degree. It's a great book, and a fascinating story: "Sam Walton: Made In America" by Sam Walton and John Huey.
The gist seems, if you are sticking your fingers into your ears hard enough and shouting loud enough, it should count, maybe, in at least most European nations.

But remember, strictest interpretation wins.
I initially feared that PG meant Paul Graham did this.
It is interesting to see how quickly this post lost visibility.
R.O.B. from Nintendo is missing.
No, we have known about drugs in the environment. For many years. In parts of India, it's a bloody nightmare.
> which makes the cost per attack $0.003. on the other hand, the PoW is much lower.

If your attacker isn't even paying for the resources they use, such as from botnets or borrowed, then your attack value has gone out of the window. If the indivdual attack is free to the attacker, then you're left with time. PoW guarantees a time value. If a single PoW is too cheap, then ask for more values.
the big name brands (ResMed and Phillips Respironics) both make "portable" CPAPs that are quite small and portable, but neither makes an 'officially supported' battery solution (even though ResMed has officially supported battery solutions for their larger units)

There are third party battery solutions available, but they are all rather larger than the CPAP units themselves, and come with laptop-sized powerbricks.

I have the ResMed AirMini... and I like it quite a lot. I've had phones that were bigger. (i mean, they were Nokia Communicators... but still) - I use it whenever I sleep in a bed that is not my own. (ResMed says you shouldn't use it as your primary unit. I dunno if that is just "buy more stuff from us" or if there is a real reason, but it's reporting is way worse than the AirSense 10, and sometimes I like the humidifier, and frankly, I'm willing to pay money for a backup) I would like a battery, but between the size and the fact that I haven't slept away from a power outlet for a while, I haven't bothered to buy one.

Is this typical? I don't know. I know a fair number of people who use CPAPs (seriously, if you are overweight, you should probably get it checked out. It's one of the problems modern medical science can actually solve pretty reliably. Makes a big difference.) I'm the only one I know who has a portable cpap. Everyone else I know just carries an extra bag when traveling.
I'm mostly amused by the whole thing.

Any investor that thought this wan't going to be a mess is deserving what they get. A lot of 'disruptive' startups are based on using VC and investor money to create a monopoly in some space. I think a hidden advantage of a monopoly in these deals is it'd not possible to actually rationalize the price of a monopoly's stock or bonds. Basically Soft Ponzi Scheme where the product is really just stocks.

Tesla isn't going to grab a monopoly share of the auto market. So the usual rules apply. That's what's ugly here.
I tend not to think of fonts that come with the operating system as "premium" :)

(Avenir + Avenir Next have been bundled in various Apple operating systems, and are the default font choices in a few of Keynote's built-in themes)
Why? I’m curious what makes you feel they’re faking the view count?
Google the article title.
The business culture defined in this post is really freaky, to say the least. You can't point me to one other industry where you can start selling shit w/o "knowing what you're doing". Or if you can't sell your things you lure people in with free stuff and sneakily fuck them up w/o no laws to work around which protect them.

Simply and brutally put: if you are incompetent and/or malevolent in your business practices and for that reason your business faces existencial threat from a piece of regulation that codifies the ideal setting for the industry, your business better dies ASAP.

I want that just like you can't have a random person design cars, architect buildings or teach our kids, similarly a random person cannot code up a commercial/government web site where they were "learning as I went along"; and an enterprise that can't afford to consult a lawyer can not get their hands on people's private data that they'd rather not change throughout their lives. Entrepreneurs to the hell, the amount of irresponsibility some people posting here want conceded to them is mind-boggling. I really hope that the upcoming decade will bring some sanity to this wild-west of an industry where who don't know what they are fucking doing can't just go out and handle stuff that they should not be allowed to even observe with a telescope from miles and miles away.
He won't get penalized. He has no operations in the EU. GDPR does not extend outside of the EU.
It's because of the entry into force today of the GDPR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
Yesterday, a sweeping new EU privacy regulation called the GDPR (General Data Privacy Regulation) came into effect, imposing a whole bunch of new data-privacy requirements on companies which do business with EU citizens.

Since almost all large cloud services are international, many have simply done a blanket update to their privacy policies and terms of service to comply with the law for all of their customers, regardless of nationality. That's why you've been receiving emails lately.

For the most part, not much will change with your day-to-day interactions with these websites, but if they didn't provide it before, you can probably now submit a request for all the data they have on you and submit a request to have your information completely deleted. There's a whole bunch of other rights, too - in fact, you can read the full text of the law here: https://gdpr-info.eu/
My understanding (I could be wrong - IANAL and I haven't read the 80 pages) is that GDPR takes a somewhat countervailing view. SSN data breaches would be treated the same way as, say, whether someone likes the Beatles. The problem with GDPR from my perspective is its Draconianism.

This is by the way the same problem with the various restaurant analogies. It makes some sense for the health department to inspect large restaurants. It would make no sense for them to subject neighborhood cookouts to the same degree of scrutiny.

GDPR seems to be based not on actual harm that could occur based on invasive, sketchy or otherwise bad data storage practices; instead, it seems based on a subjective idea that people have "fundamental rights" to various forms of state-mediated protection in relation to technology. Rights are unequivocal and almost entirely uncompromising.
> So do you argue that businesses that do business over the internet should be subject to the laws where the business is legally based?

Well, duh, businesses are subject to local laws! That is not an argument, but a fact. Don't take my word, ask your friendly lawyer.

What is your alternative? That online businesses are subject to the union of all the laws of all the countries whose citizens can reach them?! That's ridiculous. Do EU businesses follow Iranian regulations?
Your geographic knowledge is poor, and you should feel bad. There are a bunch of European countries now blocked that aren't in the EU.

(Some of the more famous blocked websites are similarly misinformed, e.g. the chicago tribune tries to tell me I'm in the EU and blocks me.)
Jesus. This is just great. I had very little sympathy when I read he bought a 500k home and I definitely have none now.
Every law will be interpreted according to its spirit, it won't be used like a hammer on anything... It's like HN suddenly discovers how a legal system works..
Ask HN: Doesn't GDPR mean more paywalls for EU users?
Totally agree with this. After having to go through how we do things "here" at a few different jobs, it's just not worth it. It's not worth it when I have to learn someone else's stupid idiosyncrasies, and it's not worth it when I "get" to enforce my own.

I'm willing to let go of the things I'm used to in favor of having something completely uncontroversial. I've been in the business not as long as you, but long enough to count the time lost on this stuff.

We do get attached to style and personalization. I think I was a lot more attached when I was younger at this. Perhaps my formatting was more important when my code itself was less personal or less elegant or something. Or maybe the tasks were simply things that weren't all that interesting but just needed to be done. So my way of leaving my mark was to make the formatting just absolutely perfect. Perhaps it was a way of asserting some agency in junior positions where the architecture was predetermined, the problem was well-defined, and the solution was already known when the ticket was assigned. Just get in there and write the code.

I think--and I may be wrong about this--that as I've gotten older and into roles that are more autonomous, where I get to architect entire components of core company business or start from scratch or do other things that assert my personality and agency in code, I care a hell of a lot less about formatting. Mine, yours, someone else's, I don't fucking care, just forget about it and move on.

I also suspect that caring a lot about code formatting is one of the few ways that juniors can signal that they are really engaged in their work and get a little attention. You can't argue about an application's design or anything actually important, so you push a little on what you can, which is somewhat reasonable, and probably a signal of poor management, really.

Anyway, I digress. Bottom line is that I care less and less as I get older and have other things to worry about. I'm starting to view people who are really picky about personal conventions of code formatting as people who either don't or can't contribute anything more interesting to a conversation.
And to add to this, very young children specifically want attention from their parents. It's good to give it to them. Whatever you are doing can probably wait 10 to 15 years for them to no longer want to monopolize your time.
> An 8 or (omg!) 9.0 earthquake. There are few buildings that would survive, some hospitals and data centers that are built to very high standards.

San Francisco already had a dozen or so steel skyscrapers by the time of the 1906 earthquake. They all survived the earthquake well, though some succumbed to fire.

The earthquake damage was inconsiderable. Every
building on both side of Market Street stood against
the earthquake. The modern steel-frame buildings
were unhurt, and that style of structure stands vindicated.
The city has to rise from the ashes of
conflagration, and not from the ruins of an earthquake.
(California State Board of Trade, 1906).

(From https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/aisc/awards/tr-higgins/pas...)

I work in one of those pre-1906 buildings--a 10-story steel skyscraper that was one of the very first on the West coast. Whenever there's a small earthquake the whole building jumps, like a truck hitting a bump in the road. While disconcerting, from everything I've read[2] these buildings are quite safe. They were built to be earthquake resistant (though obviously the science and engineering was nascent back them), but more importantly they were built with riveted steel framing. Riveted connections have proven to be extremely resilient and in combination with other (perhaps accidental) behaviors of the materials and framing techniques they perform remarkably well.

Seismic safety isn't necessarily difficult and certainly isn't anything new. But because labor is expensive (it's why nobody rivets anymore and bolted connections aren't more common) seismic engineering in our era is dominated by high-tech solutions and designs that work with cheaper building methods and cheaper materials. Old tech isn't per se unsafe, and some old tech is better than modern tech, it's just not cost effective.

[2] From literature about the 1906 earthquake and other major earthquakes, various seismic studies (see paper, above), and random stuff like articles discussing the strength of riveted hulls in ship building. Caveat: I'm not an architectural engineer or anything of the sort.
Yes but we aren't really sure are we? Like if the ip address gets stored in some open source logging software, it seems like you need to track it down and delete it on request. Or do you? No one seems to know.
Keeping a backup from a year ago when three backups from yesterday are available, is.
Better to make it deterministic, eg. display a fake success page whenever sha1('salt'+login+password) has two leading zeros.

That way you can easily control the fake success rate, and you make sure that if the attacker realises they are being tricked, they can't just retry successful logins to double check, since they get the same result every time.
This works surprisingly well for a class of unsophisticated attackers. nginx, among others, will happily spoon-feed very large numbers of concurrent clients at 1 byte / second.
I disagree strongly. "...cascade delete is only easy if you’re a very experienced programmer or who knows what he’s [sic] doing." No it's not. Nothing could be easier than foreign key constraints & cascade deletes in a relational database. It's literally "built in."

If you're a garage-startup, you're unlikely to be slapped with fines under GDPR. Let's be honest- if you're a garage startup you're lucky to be noticed by anyone, much less European regulators. The argument expressed here is sleight of hand: complaining about the supposed impact on "the little guy" when the regulations themselves are designed to target Facebook & Google (among others) specifically.

The regulations are not that complex, they just require a new standard of respect for users, one that we should have always had as an industry. The fact that we had to wait for regulators to force this on us is our shame, no one else's.
Is it still the case that one realistically needs to write their layout in flexbox as a fallback? Last I checked grid support was about 87% globally. I learned grid at one point but then just ignored it on the basis that if I had to write everything in flexbox already, why do both? Would love to know if this is a false assumption.
When should you hire a lawyer for your startup?
Reminds me off the day all those property by plane photographers got dropped like a rock by google-maps.
My brother worked with a cartography company - and it must have quite shocked the boss, that somebody could release sattelite imagery - " for free".
Paulo Torrens is crying.
I don't know if this is true or not but what do you base this opinion on?
Splitting core business functionality and siloing data handling to a contractor are apples and oranges.

And I'd point out that the latest Facebook media privacy outrage was caused by a smaller (1 person?) third party company.

GarethsFirstApp isn't so innocent when it's providing Facebook with data they can no longer collect themselves (given a hypothetical "You're small, so we'll let you get away with it" GDPR).
Because he is a professional and has a drone-flying license?
That’s the issue with GDPR, it’s that the regulatory burden for Facebook is the same as it is for a small company.

At $dayjob we are at hundreds of thousands of dollars in staff time and legal fees (mostly updating and reviewing existing contracts). We don’t do anything shady with user data, and already have a robust data security program
due to our industry.

A family member’s small business which packages meats for the grocery is similarly burdened to the tune of hundreds of thousands.

That’s a huge waste repeated millions of times over around the world. They could have just targeted this at the big web companies and Adtech firms with some simple qualifiers. This law isn’t really much good for consumers, but it’s very good for lawyers.
Why speculate when there's data[1].

City Violent Crime/100k Property Crime/100k
Los Angeles 16 60
San Francisco 90 711
DC 79 672
Chicago 33 108
NYC 7 18
Houston 42 193
Seattle 88 808
Portland 77 850

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
> So I think you're entirely wrong to say that something that is part of a causal chain cannot be called free.

Yes you can call it free since you have defined free to mean acting according to your motivations, just like I predicted in my original comment. But since your behavior is caused by your motivations, and your motivations have it's own causes, and so on, I really don't see what you actually win (except the language game) by describing the process as free. It's about as free as the last cogwheel in a machine.

> I'm sorry I'm not directly addressing your point about changing the past, but that's because I'm still rather confused by how it relates to free will.

Suppose your will is a function of your brain, and suppose that your brain is a function of gene expression and environmental stimuli. Suppose you are unable to choose your genes, and suppose that you are unable to alter the history of environmental stimuli. It follows that the causes of your will are outside your control. If you don't control your will, then your will is not free.
Opioids are really easy to detect. You'll also find hormones from birth control and most likely a whole bunch of other drugs.
Dharma Protocol v1 Is Live on Mainnet – The Dharma Protocol Blog
> I'm not totally sure what's the best legislation to have helped that while having the minimum side effects.

Legislators don't have the luxury of saying "I'm not totally sure what's the best legislation" to fix this issue; they are forced to propose an actual fix. If you don't have a better alternative on hand, I'd urge you to consider that which legislators have arrived upon after months or years of consideration.
They might reach the point where one starts to feel litigious, if one pays for the service and there is anything remotely approaching an SLA.
Be careful if you are a paid service and use shadowbans.
Number of parts?

Whether it is hard or not, have you seen instances of it being done? On Amazon or elsewhere?
Attrs – The python library everyone needs (2016)