|
Reminder: if you need any sort of frequent interaction for your self-driving car to work, you can't use those things to go drive themselves and pick them up.
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Reminder: if you need any sort of frequent interaction for your self-driving car to work, you can't use those things to go drive themselves and pick them up. this whole thing about fleets of cars on demand also makes very little sense when you think through the implications for parking and congestion
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Autonomous Segways are the future.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:really the question in my mind is which point comes first in time: a credible manufacturer releases an autonomous driving system that works more often than it fails, or a critical mass of the consuming public is turned off from the technology because of too many visible failures from noncredible manufacturers and system developers that poison the well I, for one, would buy a self driving car that's 2-3x more likely to kill me be driving into a wall just for the convenience. Driving sucks.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 23:09
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:Driving sucks. agreed, but my solution (not a good solution for everyone) was to move intown to minimize my driving and shorten the distance i have to travel. imo this is a better solution than relying on new technology to minimize the inconvenience of consumption
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Ruffian Price posted:
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:a) Drunk driver presses butan to putter to roadside and call for a tow/driver service. Insurance remains happy, no DUI has occured, sky does not fall. Except you're all of a sudden putting drivers (who might otherwise have taken a taxi, Uber, or had a friend pick them up) in a lovely situation where their car is on some random-rear end street because the self-driving mode failed. You're normalizing the use of self-driving cars as a DD, and expecting the drunk driver to make the rational, yet inconvenient and potentially expensive, decision in awful circumstances.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:A sudden snowstorm appears. C) Driver pushes butan to putter to roadside, can't afford to lose liscence or call a taxi, decides to risk sleeping until they're sober, freezes to death.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Is this even legal under the GDPR? The user isn't being asked for permission separately from providing the service. A lot of sites just force you to either consent or stop using them. Doesn't seem like any of it would be legal.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Is this even legal under the GDPR? The user isn't being asked for permission separately from providing the service. The option to use the service without tracking is right there, you just have to pay for it. This is what a lot of people were hoping for with GDPR.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 12:55
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:This is what a lot of people were hoping for with GDPR. A lot of people were hoping for ads that didn't track the user. Making you pay to not be tracked is awkward cause it makes it harder to know where to draw the line. What if that paid suscription cost €90 a month? Would that still be a reasonable alternative to sharing your data? What about €900?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
Elman posted:A lot of people were hoping for ads that didn't track the user. And now they can have them. Now they just have to pay their fair share. We'll see how many people are willing to pay for privacy.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:08
|
|
|
That would be a fair concern if WaPo had a monopoly on news. The service isn't essential and you can just walk away if you don't like their set conditions - which they were now forced to reveal. Hell, it's legal to sell loaves of bread for €900 as long as there are other options readily available.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:10
|
|
|
The point is GDPR says consent should be uncoerced, freely given and particularized. That's why Facebook and Google are getting sued right now, they force you to either provide blanket consent or stop using their service. We'll have to wait and see the court's ruling, but it's not as clear cut as you claim it is (even if I think this particular example is fine).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
Elman posted:A lot of people were hoping for ads that didn't track the user. quote:Making you pay to not be tracked is awkward cause it makes it harder to know where to draw the line. What if that paid suscription cost €90 a month? Would that still be a reasonable alternative to sharing your data? What about €900?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:lol those are going to be like those houses with old rear end broken intercoms that never worked except maybe to shriek loudly into all rooms if someone pressed a button. I forget why I climbed down that rathole, but it turns out that a lot of houses with '90s-era "smart" features -- mostly room-to-room music and intercoms IIRC -- are completely screwed because you can't get replacement parts. Smart Shades are going to be totally functional when we all switch to 803.12++ or whatever, to say nothing of Amazon's going "Tech support? For a five-year-old system? Surely you jest."
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Yes, but both things can be true. Privacy is not something they could afford at any time since internet service became available to the public. Nor can anyone else afford it. [
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Privacy is not something they could afford at any time since internet service became available to the public. Nor can anyone else afford it. Right, but a bunch of people will stop caring about the issue when they can buy their own privacy even if others can't. Privacy should be improved for everyone, not just those that can afford it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:agreed, but my solution (not a good solution for everyone) was to move intown to minimize my driving and shorten the distance i have to travel. imo this is a better solution than relying on new technology to minimize the inconvenience of consumption The amount of money being wasted by companies like Lyft, Uber, Tesla, etc. instead of just investing in public transportation is loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Is this even legal under the GDPR? The user isn't being asked for permission separately from providing the service.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:I think technically it doesn't comply, but frankly I think the problem here is the GDPR, not the website. It essentially implies that you must give away your content/service for free, which is not a realistic expectation for any business. there exist ad models that don't require personal information. Or subscription models that cost the same in Europe and the rest of the world. If your business requires targeted ads and monetizing private user data to remain financially solvent, then go bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
NoDamage posted:It essentially implies that you must give away your content/service for free, which is not a realistic expectation for any business. That's not true at all. The only way it could be close to like that is if the business model was to give it away for free to non-EU customers in exchange for their data. If you charge non-EU customers for a service, you can keep charging your EU customers for that same service. It isn't requiring you to give anything away for free.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Istvun posted:there exist ad models that don't require personal information. Or subscription models that cost the same in Europe and the rest of the world. Sure, that ad model like that exists. It just doesn't pay enough to cover the costs of operating a site. So people opting out of it have to pay the difference.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Xae posted:Sure, that ad model like that exists. It just doesn't pay enough to cover the costs of operating a site. Or everyone could pay for it or the site could just die. Those are perfectly acceptable options.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Istvun posted:Or everyone could pay for it or the site could just die. Those are perfectly acceptable options. Not everyone wants to opt out though.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Xae posted:Not everyone wants to opt out though. Ok. But the GDPR says that declining to opt in can't carry a burden on the user, which is necessary to give the law any meaning. And it's the law now so business models need to shift to follow it just like they do all sorts of other changes to laws.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Istvun posted:Ok. But the GDPR says that declining to opt in can't carry a burden on the user, which is necessary to give the law any meaning. And it's the law now so business models need to shift to follow it just like they do all sorts of other changes to laws. But if you aren't paying, you aren't a user. There is no requirement that companies operate at a loss. They simply aren't offering a service to people in they pay up.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Xae posted:But if you aren't paying, you aren't a user. That's not how the definition of user works and you know it.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's not how the definition of user works and you know it. That is the definition of a user. Someone who is using your product. If you aren't able to use the product because of paywall in front of it you aren't a user. Like what the hell did you think was going to happen with the GDPR? That companies would just operate at a loss or force everyone to pay up because the EU passed a law?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Xae posted:But if you aren't paying, you aren't a user. If you're under a subscription model, that could be the case. But for the example of the washington post, if you're reading for free you're a user they're trying to convert to a paying user, and if you're paying you're definitely a user. That doesn't jibe with the need to pay $30 extra to get wapo to follow EU law.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Xae posted:That is the definition of a user. Someone who is using your product. If you aren't able to use the product because of paywall in front of it you aren't a user. Yes regulations sometimes require businesses to change their operating models. It seems like you're trying to make a moral issue out of this when companies have no inherent rights to operate in different ways. Especially when it comes to tracking users and selling off their information.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Istvun posted:Yes regulations sometimes require businesses to change their operating models. It seems like you're trying to make a moral issue out of this when companies have no inherent rights to operate in different ways. Especially when it comes to tracking users and selling off their information. You're completely dodging the issue and using the dumbest possible argument to do it. They did adjust their business model. EU now requires a subscription. The problem is you thought heavy handed regulation was going to be free. It isn't. The rest of the world is not going to be forced to subsidize EU's choices.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Xae posted:The only way this holds is by saying the EU has an inherent right to force its ways on the rest of the world. Actually it does if you want to do business in the EU
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Speaking of inventing buses to throw things under: The activists, blocking buses at the intersection of 24th and Valencia streets, set off smoke bombs and carried signs that read “Techsploitation Is Toxic,” and “Sweep Tech Not Tents,” in reference to the city’s recent efforts to clear homeless encampments.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Xae posted:The only way this holds is by saying the EU has an right to force its ways on the rest of the world. Globalization is a sword that cuts both ways, neoliberal.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
duz posted:Speaking of inventing buses to throw things under:  they found a use for the scooters at least
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
They could have solved so much of the community relations issues if they’d have not started by breaking the law and illegally using public bus stops without paying for it and just made a public commuter bus that they subsidized and free for their employees. Just like employers have done before all over the country.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Xae posted:The only way this holds is by saying the EU has an right to force its ways on the rest of the world. you seem awfully mad about objectively good regulation
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Istvun posted:there exist ad models that don't require personal information. Or subscription models that cost the same in Europe and the rest of the world. Trabisnikof posted:That's not true at all. The only way it could be close to like that is if the business model was to give it away for free to non-EU customers in exchange for their data. Does giving the option to pay a subscription to avoid targeted ads meet the GDPR requirements? If consent must be freely given without penalty for refusal, wouldn't charging a fee in lieu of consent be considered a penalty? NoDamage fucked around with this message at 21:40 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
NoDamage posted:Those ad models don't make any money and are therefore a non-starter. There can be order of magnitude or two between the rate for targeted and untargeted ads.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 21:33
|
|