skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> the EU doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences of laws it passes when it comes to technology.

So, the companies that implement these cookie banners are entirely without blame, right?

So what is your solution?

Reminder: GDPR is general data protection regulation. It doesn't deal with cookies at all. It deals with tracking, collecting and keeping of user data. Doesn't matter if it's on the internet, in you phone app, or in an ofline business.

Reminder: if your solution is "this should've been built into the browser", then: 1) GDPR doesn't deal with specific tech (because tech changes), 2) when governments mandates specific solutions they are called overreaching overbearing tyrants and 3) why hasn't the world's largest advertising company incidentally owning the world's most popular browser implemented a technical solution for tracking and cookie banners in the browser even though it's been 8 years already?

> But guess which had a more deleterious effect on Facebook ad revenue and tracking - Apples ATT or the GDPR?

In the long run most likely GDPR (and that's why Facebook is fighting EU in courts, and only fights Apple in newspaper ads), because Apple's "ask apps to not track" doesn't work. This was literally top article on HN just yesterday: "Everyone knows your location: tracking myself down through in-app ads" https://timsh.org/tracking-myself-down-through-in-app-ads/

So what is your solution to that?
> Article 59 seems relevant, other two on a quick skim don't seem to relate to the subject.

Your original take: "Should have been: AI that attempts to predict people committing crimes"

Article 42. literally:

--- start quote ---

In line with the presumption of innocence, natural persons in the Union should always be judged on their actual behaviour. Natural persons should never be judged on AI-predicted behaviour based solely on their profiling, personality traits or characteristics, such as nationality, place of birth, place of residence, number of children, level of debt or type of car, without a reasonable suspicion of that person being involved in a criminal activity based on objective verifiable facts and without human assessment thereof.

Therefore, risk assessments carried out with regard to natural persons in order to assess the likelihood of their offending or to predict the occurrence of an actual or potential criminal offence based solely on profiling them or on assessing their personality traits and characteristics should be prohibited.

In any case, that prohibition does not refer to or touch upon risk analytics that are not based on the profiling of individuals or on the personality traits and characteristics of individuals, such as AI systems using risk analytics to assess the likelihood of financial fraud by undertakings on the basis of suspicious transactions or risk analytic tools to predict the likelihood of the localisation of narcotics or illicit goods by customs authorities, for example on the basis of known trafficking routes.

--- end quote ---

> Seems like it allows pretty easily for national states to add in laws that allow them to skirt around

Key missed point: "subject to the same cumulative conditions as referred to in paragraph 1."

Where paragraph 1 is "In the AI regulatory sandbox, personal data lawfully collected for other purposes may be processed solely for the purpose of developing, training and testing certain AI systems in the sandbox when all of the following conditions are met: ... list of conditions ..."

-----

In before "but governments can do whatever they want". Yes, they can, and they will. Does it mean we need to stop any and all legislation and regulation because "government will do what government will do"?

I think the EU has done better following its own rules than most other countries (not that it's perfect in any way).

It might be too little too late to stop the flood though: https://www.foxnews.com/us/tech-company-boasts-its-ai-can-pr...
Is it really shifting the goal posts if we have evidence it really happens?
Don't the police live and work in the same society? Their cars don't run with the lights on all the time.
Maybe the difference here, is that those young people seems to already be corrupted and doing illegal stuff
They had a problem that needed solving. Now a "bad cop" came in to solve it. They can just sit pretty and keep their "good cop" image.
Every national government tracks people, including the USA, so Americans get the worst of both worlds.
You can't get a revolution, but it appears you have managed to get a coup.
Just voter ID finally and lets forget this blame game.
Franz Ferdinands death would be higher on that list i reckon.
It makes them more corruptible. They will perform corrupt acts while believing it the right thing to do. They're too naive to know better.

They won't do graft. They will follow orders. Even and especially when the orders are corrupt.
Teenagers wearing t shirts or skateboarding is conformism.

The middle aged reflecting on their teenage "nonconformist" activities is just more conformism.
url says "Press release" https://openeurollm.eu/launch-press-release. They delivered what they promised.
US institutions aka. bureaucracy isn't without its own issues. I believe that's why people voted in a rather unusual person like Trump whose main feature is being outside the establishment.

It is the US institutions who have happily engaged in endless foreign wars over past several decades. They have also enacted low corporate taxation resulting in high stock prices but even larger wealth gap where few winners take all the profits.
> Because no other place thinks that their citizens are too dumb to make informed choices.

In case of Facebook (or tracking generally) you had no chance to make an informed choice. You are just tracked, and your data is sold to hundreds of "partners" with no possibility to say "no"

> Just like right now, HN knows my email address and my comment history and where I access this site from.

And that is fine. You'd know that if you spent about one afternoon reading through GDPR, a regulation that has been around for 8 years.
> The Jones Act was supposed to help American shipbuilding

Yes

And this is what happens. Naive protectionism 101
Putting shit like that in an unrelated bill can be translated as a 'horseman bill' and would have been censored so fast in my country it isn't even funny. What does your supreme court do exactly?
Tangential, but, I remember reading about a recent technology that was supposed to allow building much smaller particle accelerators... does anyone have any idea what the status/applicability of that is?
You’re right - I should have specified more explicitly. I am not referring to the game dev that is developing game features or content - I am specifically talking about the “security engineering” organizations within game developer companies. NetEase hired security engineers to specifically do security related tasks (see NetEase AntiCheat @ https://dun.163.com/locale/en?force=true).
NetEase Games doesn’t have an excuse for not conducting a security review on a massive game like Marvel Rivals - and this isn’t some corner case, this is part of the core architecture.

And this is not a story unique to NetEase. I have multiple other examples that I’ll probably talk about in the future.
1. the message being sent is "you did good enough"

the dems are fighting to give as few boons as possible to the people and as much to their donors and we tell them when the line was crossed.

2. we're not getting another batch lol
looking at this from the other side of the world, it feels like americans are so insecure, as if they are constantly frightened
RISC-V is open source.

Stop being so squareand embrace the future maaaaann.
And hopefully teach them how to not run into each other
Paper: Theory of Mind (2005)
Start-ups deliver something much more complicated/different than these research projects.

If the whole research project at the end actually delivers a somewhat coherent prototype, it's seen as a huge success.

Most start-ups start with a proof-of-concept prototype to transform it into an economically viable product.

So, comparing these success rates does not make sense. Multiple research groups can deliver rough prototypes at the end and celebrate their "huge success". In most fields, there can be only a few economically surviving startups...
I agree with ArtemZ — I get the rule but it's a shame because it prevents calling out companies posting the same job over and over, who don't have basic decency to respond, let alone give feedback, to applicants.
I think it would be great for the federal government to be more efficient and less corrupt. For example, let's talk about USAID. It would be great if DOGE could make USAID more efficient, to accomplish the most possible good with the money allocated by Congress.

So far, that's not what DOGE appears to be doing. Rather than "rooting out corruption and inefficiency", DOGE appears to be cutting government spending that Musk disagrees with.

And that's unconstitutional! The executive branch doesn't have the constitutional authority to unilaterally cut a program established by Congress. If Congress allocated $X billion for foreign aid to country Y, the executive branch must disburse that aid.

Furthermore, speaking of corruption: Both Trump and Musk have major conflicts of interest. Prior to Trump, presidents were expected to divest business interests and put their assets in a blind trust; but Trump refused to do so. And SpaceX is a major federal contractor; if the head of a major federal contractor is _also_ the biggest supporter of the incoming president, the conflict of interest is obvious.

As you said, anyone who has an issue with rooting out corruption isn't in the right. So surely you're alarmed by these conflicts of interest, right? Don't you agree that Musk should either fully divest from SpaceX, or step away from politics?
Take a look at r/conservative. They're claiming they got wins with the dismantling, the site tear downs, the "folds" in negotiation. They really think they're winning.
Nah, being unable to pause just means they get way more minutes of viewing when people put down their phone to do something. It just sits there and plays, earning that sweet sweet ad money.
Sorry, you know, I have work to do, so I can't spend an hour and write a blog post for you here.

Plus, I'm not here to convince anybody. I'm just sharing my own experience. It's up to you to dig further if you're so interested in this thing.

Have a nice day.
The other side of this coin is that there is an incentive for decision makers to use computers, precisely to not be held accountable. This is captured pretty well by this quote by Neil Postman in Technopoly:

>[B]ureaucrats can be expected to embrace a technology that helps to create the illusion that decisions are not under their control. Because of its seeming intelligence and impartiality, a computer has an almost magical tendency to direct attention away from the people in charge of bureaucratic functions and toward itself, as if the computer were the true source of authority. A bureaucrat armed with a computer is the unacknowledged legislator of our age, and a terrible burden to bear. We cannot dismiss the possibility that, if Adolf Eichmann had been able to say that it was not he but a battery of computers that directed the Jews to the appropriate crematoria, he might never have been asked to answer for his actions.

How does one counteract that self-serving incentive? Doesn't seem like we've found a good way considering we seem to be spearheading straight into techno-feudalism.
Sorry, I was referring to the EU, not Canada. Should have added that.

But if I understand the requirements correctly, it was never about every country reaching 2%, only a majority. Has that not been reached?
Growing up I had always assumed this poem was endorsed by national leadership at the time, or had some other important reason for being associated with the Statue of Liberty.

If you look into the history of the poem, it’s actually a bit odd. There was some fundraising exhibition to raise money for the statue’s pedestal. The poem was submitted as part of the exhibition. After the exhibition, the poem had no cultural significance. Then, a full two decades later, a friend of the poem’s author successfully lobbied to have the poem added to the pedestal as an engraving.

Then, being on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, the poem was picked up as significant by history books and the media, I suppose, and rebroadcasted ad infinitum, especially into the ears of pliable young schoolchildren. You may consider if this is why you find the poem to be meaningful or significant.
Imagine if the US misses bond payments and defaults because of bureaucracy problems (not lack of money). It would completely explode the interest rates of any loans they have and completely tank the US government for years.
How much of the support is because they actually agree with the policies being passed versus "their leader showing strength"?
if you’re not a Moscow bot I am in disbelief of you. do you not see where this road leads? this is not politics. this is a nightmare.
There is arguably no non-political angle to this. I’m not sure how you’d describe what appears to be happening without it seeming biased.

From here in Canada it looks a lot like the fascist takeovers I’ve read about since middle school. The playbook is bizarrely tight to Hitler, Mussolini, hints of Stalin, etc. I didn’t expect this in my lifetime. Or rather, I imaged I’d see it coming sooner.
> You could chuck an endless supply of PhD students at every constituent domain for generations and still feel like you've scarcely scratched the surface of the many things there are to question.

Sounds like a much better use of tax dollars than some other uses!
What a great first line <3
Arm is Softbank.

And Softbank is all in on Team USA.
I think you're underestimating the damage he's done and will do. semi-permanent changes:

- complete radicalisation of an entire congressional party against functional democracy

- complete politicisation of the entire federal government

- normalisation of just straight up lying to the Senate in confirmation hearings (RFK on everything, Patel on q anon)

- normalisation of just straight up lying during campaigns (no idea what Project 2025 is!)

- making it clear to every single ally of the US that the US cannot be trusted to not be a complete cock

- normalisation of pardoning thousands of criminals who did crimes on TV in your favour

- normalisation of Congress and the top level courts being completely and utterly unwilling to lift a finger to stop autocratic exercise of powers by the president

maybe the next president won't be a sociopath, but the above will still be true and maybe the one after will be.
It used to be very libertarian (big on free speech, etc) but has since shifted substantially liberal, including much warmer attitudes towards the use of violence.

So partly orthogonal to the main left-right axis.
this is too simplistic, please read up on previous performances of elmo. in a democratic system you should have auditable changes to government systems. this does not seem to be that:

```
“You could do anything with these privileges,” says one source with knowledge of the system, who adds that they cannot conceive of a reason that anyone would need them for purposes of simply hunting down fraudulent payments or analyzing disbursement flow.
```

as a citizen this should concern you.
I believe that's how https://github.com/gojue/ecapture works. I don't know the details, but it seems to work!
Anyone have any guesses as to why "Both are quite bad. I expect better from Wired." would be flagged?

Sometimes HN really confuses me.
> demand trivial operational competency

I've been moderately on board with DOGE's mission as an advisory group. Hell, even with Musk as SGE. But this is batshit fucking crazy. We put entire countries on grey lists because some oligarch's lacky even has read access to their national payments systems. And those governments at least give the lackey a role.

This 25-year old is now a top intelligence target for every agency on the planet. He will probably remain so for the rest of his life. He wasn't elected. The man he is loyal to--who hired him and pays his salary--was never elected. He's so unknown that the first page of search results pulls up unrelated water polo players. Yet he's somehow in a position of, practically speaking, more power than the Federal Reserve?
Then that person should have the right to refuse, ask for appropriate compensation or insurance. It's often argued here that the C-suite earns their high compensation by taking on those risks. So let the CFO fatfinger those unchecked transfers if he wishes.

But if rollbacks are possible and cheap then we need all that much accountability. People want accountability when there's no rollback possible, e.g. when decisions leads to deaths or life-years wasted.
=) you're conflating meanings, perhaps due to some of my handwaving. There's a difference between a medium of exchange that loses value, and a medium of exchange that LOSES value. People don't want the latter. That potato is too hot. You want something that loses a measured, controlled, amount of value over time. How much? About 3% per year seems to be a good number that people more educated than me tout around.

I'm also not sure that's a circular reasoning as I provide the reasons why you want a medium of exchange that loses value...

Hmmm... sure, I suppose you can look at it that way. In an inflationary-esque economy, you worry about saving your wealth, so you create instruments to do so: fractional reserve banking, mutual funds, etc. This is a problem with many solutions. On the other hand, in a deflationary-esque economy, you worry about spending your wealth, and perhaps more importantly, getting everyone around you to spend it as well. That problem has less solutions.

I said you struggle, you don't hold on forever, you struggle letting go. As in you eventually do let go, but not as quickly as if it had been depreciating. It functions as a brake on consumption, not a full stop. It slows things down. Slow is not good. Things start to go down when things slow.
Live by the witch hunt, die by the witch hunt.
A leader who is democratically elected, and then violates or exploits loopholes in the law to give themselves powers that they are not supposed to have, is engaging in a self-coup.

The US Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to determine how the federal government’s money is spent.

Elon Musk’s team within the Executive Office of the President have reportedly gained full admin access to the payment system of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service at the Department of the Treasury, which is responsible for the majority of the federal government’s payments, and are using that access to prevent certain payments from being made. Among other things, they are also attempting to close down the US Agency for International Development, which was established and funded as an independent agency by an act of Congress.
Rather, it's exactly like approximately everything anyone here owns, because almost every physical good available to buy locally arrives from China in a container, in more-less the fashion described in the article.
Thank you for your explanation, and the reason why I removed the last sentence is that I thought it was thoroughly unhelpful.

I'm not intending to bait. Really I find the arguments against deflation insufficient. I get the picture that some inflation is good to keep the system running smoothly, however, the description of why inflation is desirable is lacking when explaining why deflation is necessarily bad, all things considered. I don't see a first principles argument against deflation, neither do I see a thorough comparative analysis between deflationary and inflationary economies. The only example given is Japan, which, as I said before, doesn't seem to have fared too badly. Moreover, the list of countries that have had problems with runaway inflation is very long. Inflation is a well established economic malaise. In fact, it is almost a maxim that all states are destined to at some point or another, debase their currency.

I think one has to weigh the economic arguments, whatever they may be, against the fact that humanity has never had sound money that can't be debased, and that isn't at the whims of some elite, however well intentioned and wise they may be -- which more often than not, they aren't.

Cryptocurrencies will continue being developed, the flaws will be solved, and the wrinkles ironed. We will have something that may work as sound money. And I say we let it compete fairly against fiat money, put our theories to the test, and see what kind of money if preferred by the people. If it turns out that sound money is finally achieved, I'm sure it'll be a momentous time in human history, and could very well become a new human right: the right to own and use sound money.
Makes sense, I also imagine the incentives were different. These young grads had no incentive to lie while local gov officials had plenty.

The only one would be for the grads to take bribes from the local gov officials, but if the central government sent enough grads it would be too many to bribe.
It all depends on how persistent the new american system is.

During the WW2 german occupation of France, there were some french people who opted to enthusiastically work to support the german side, and they certainly benefitted short term from the goodwill earned

At the end of the occupation, a lot of them were shot or hanged by the resistance
Huh. Including England/Scotland/Wales but not Northern Ireland feels extremely arbitrary, to the point that I wouldn't be surprised if it ran afoul of some kind of discrimination law in the UK.
That problem is also ever-present for China. States like China never look like they are about to collapse until they do.
Wasn't he also in the USA illegally because he was in violation of his student visa?
Humans didn't have the technology to build a decentralized currency for 3000 years. That tech was invented only 17 years back

3000 years from now what would be the store of value would be the question to ask.
I think they’re describing what the evidence presents, unfortunately
> And furthermore I think our economic system which encourages young people to take on debt in order to have niceties such as housing and transportation is massively exploitative and unsustainable.

Deflation will kill that. Your loan will cost more over time instead of less. The assumption with inflation is loans will follow it. With deflation and loans not following then people who bought into the system might be well off but those who are not yet in are worse. Same thing with inflation and loans not following as is happening now.
What the actual fuck.
Simplifying government paperwork = government overreach. Got it.
as someone who disagrees with this, what can i realistically do short of sacrificing bullets and blood
This article:

> Amazon's innovative "Just-Walk-Out" technology has also removed the need for consumers to bring a physical credit or debit card all together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashierless_store :

> Inadequacies in Amazon's automatic tracking required over a thousand employees in India to label videos to allocate purchases to shoppers.[8] As a result, the company in 2024 announced it would remove its "Just Walk Out" technology from its Amazon Fresh stores.[8]

Remember Australia, your payment apps all require Google or Apple's permission.

When the US invades Greenland, the first clue will be that iOS, Android, Azure, and AWS shut down for Denmark.

But hey, who am I fooling - Mastercard and Visa will be turned off too.
...did you mean https://thebcms.com/?