Look if everyone agrees the outcome of the law has been incredibly annoying, then that is ultimately down to the law and/or its enforcement. The point of the law is to provide incentives to self-interested actors for good behaviour. I see a lot of complacency in these threads, combined with a lot of frankly absurd posturing, like if anybody is against the GDPR, they must’ve been brainwashed by Elon Musk. No! People dislike it because they dislike its practical effects, and frankly the EU should take responsibility for that and try to fix it.
> People dislike it because they dislike its practical effects, and frankly the EU should take responsibility for that and try to fix it.
What’s to fix?
A business needs a legitimate reason to process personal data, people need to be sufficiently informed about how their data will be processed. These are not impossible obstacles. Anyone who claims otherwise is acting in bad faith because they know that people would not agree to what the business wants to do with their data.
Why is it that so many years later, so many companies are still not compliant? That seems like a major problem to fix.
You are replying to a comment complaining about the annoyance for users that the law has created. When will that be fixed?
Why is it that all of the enforcement effort been so unevenly directed specifically at non-European companies?
This subthread started with the statement "True but it also reflects that the EU has indeed destroyed most goodwill towards it in the last decade regarding most things digital."
I think maybe you don't understand that the level of goodwill destroyed really is on par with the level of goodwill towards American that Trump has destroyed. Yes, it is really that bad. Yes, it is something that needs to be fixed.
> Why is it that all of the enforcement effort been so unevenly directed specifically at non-European companies?
Do you have any evidence of that?
> You are replying to a comment complaining about the annoyance for users that the law has created. When will that be fixed?
The law isn’t about fixing an annoyance to users. If you’re annoyed by bad UX, tell your boss to cut that shit out because they’re probably part of the problem too.
What I struggle to understand is you’d rather have your privacy right absolutely derailed just so you have a couple things less to click. Wild.
Don't be silly, the legislation doesn't state that websites have to show cookie popups. It's rather where the term malicious compliance enters the picture, a compliance incentivized by the financial interests of the biggest advertising businesses the world has ever seen.
Let’s accept for the sake of argument that all the cookie banners are malicious compliance. Fine. Then they should change the law to stop the malicious compliance! Regulation has an outcome nobody likes. Are you gonna wait for every company to stop being “malicious”? Or are you gonna fix the law?
To be fair, I don't remember people complaining about cookies. The question is fairly simple, etc. Meanwhile ads? They try to steal the attention. So yeah, lots of friends complain about internet ads, not so many about cookies. I'm EU based.
My friends / co worker are computer and non computer people, hobbys, cultural background. Maybe your friend group is highly selected. Which country are you from?
I’m seeing a lot of naive optimism about this decision.
The risk S&P takes by doing this is that they will still be forced to buy SpaceX, but a year after everybody else. Given that there is a massive amount of capital that you know will have to buy this stock in 12 months, that itself provides speculative reasons to buy it now.
The indices are in an unenviable position: a race to the bottom. The S&P 500 may be setting up its index funds simply to be the last buyer in a Ponzi scheme.
There is no guarantee that the market will find the “true value“ of SpaceX in the 12 month interval. Markets are frothy and speculative already, and they now have a built in exit liquidity provider.
The only decision they are making is to maintain their existing rules. Which is what a slow-moving, conservative financial instrument should do.
S&P may very well end up buying SpaceX, but it will be through the standard mechanism they have been using for decades. Not in a last second bum-rush deal that NASDAQ made to grant special favors.
One year from IPO, the insider lock-up periods will have expired, so insiders who want to get out will have had an opportunity to dump their shares in a risk-based approach without a guaranteed payout from index funds.
Unfortunately, repeating the word “conservative” does not stop you from becoming the last buyer of overpriced stock, which others are buying exactly so they can unload onto you.
I asked it to prove the theoretical result in a (published, prize-winning - though not really for the theory) academic paper of mine. The proofs hadn’t been that hard objectively, but they’d taken at least a week. I fed it the model. It got the correct basic results in about 5 minutes.
I think there's huge value to learning Latin, but that's because it was the core language of European civilization for millennia more than because it's a gateway to English.
Ancient Greek is a very difficult language. It takes a solid decade of work to learn, and the payoff is you get to read a few - admittedly brilliant - authors. I would not automatically prefer that to being able to talk to everyone in the Spanish-speaking world - or to learning la belle langue. Also, I don't think Greek was ever learnt by the majority of pupils.
In a 1940 Massachusetts public school, my blue collar grandfather was required to take Latin, immersive French, and was graded on handwriting. Latin plus a foreign language like Mandarin, Hindi, or Spanish should be the table stakes minimum standard. English composition, creative writing, and reading classics should also be nonnegotiable essential requirements too.
I have a book that says it's intended as a science book focusing on biology for around elementary aged students, it's from the 1890s and the material is something I'd expect high schoolers to start learning not 4th graders!
I think these sorts of things are very commonly misleading. The Romanian school system I grew up in for example nominally had way more advanced subjects even in middle school, not to mention high school, than what is commonly taught in much of Europe and the USA. For example, we did a solid two-three months of basic group theory in the 10th grade (sophomore year?) - learning about monoids, groups, rings, fields, proving isomorphisms between various structures etc. These were even part of the Bacalaureat, our equivalent of the SAT. A foreign language (almost universally English) is part of the national curriculum in Romania starting from the first year of primary school. When I went through school, we also used to have a set of canonical literary works that we were expected to read and be able to provide literary criticism on during the national exams at the end of middle school without access to the text; for example, the exam you'd take at the end of 8th grade would ask students to write a ~700 word essay on the main character of a particular Romanian novel; or on the themes of a piece of poetry the exam named, but did not reproduce.
However, the number of students who actually ever understand any of this is typically only a small fraction. In particular for the Romanian language exams, despite the theoretically high level of literary knowledge that it tested for, the actual rate of functional illiteracy between students who passed this exam was >20-30%. A huge swath of students either cheated, or simply memorized entire essays by heart, without even understanding what they meant. Of course, some of us actually did learn all of this from an early age - but this was far less typical than looking at the curriculum, exams, and even exam results would have suggested.
This is true, this book was also written when the idea of high school education was extremely new (let alone public high school education). With what you're saying it was likely a book for advance students and even though it uses terms I associated with younger people they likely meant teenagers.
I haven’t gotten to Bleak House, yet, but find I have to read Dickens with certain level of focus, and there are often so many characters that I had to reread to memorize them and picture them in my mind, for instance the party of friends we meet in The Pickwick Papers or the diverse set of people and locations in the first few chapters of A Tale of Two Cities - it’s the use of in media res maybe contributing to my off balance (and this was a book I already read once a long time ago).
"Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city. Fog on the Essex marshes, fog on the Kentish heights. Fog creeping into the cabooses of collier-brigs; fog lying out on the yards and hovering in the rigging of great ships; fog drooping on the gunwales of barges and small boats. Fog in the eyes and throats of ancient Greenwich pensioners, wheezing by the firesides of their wards; fog in the stem and bowl of the afternoon pipe of the wrathful skipper, down in his close cabin; fog cruelly pinching the toes and fingers of his shivering little ’prentice boy on deck. Chance people on the bridges peeping over the parapets into a nether sky of fog, with fog all round them, as if they were up in a balloon and hanging in the misty clouds."
I'm guessing parent-poster is saying the "is" should be "are", on the basis that the word "components" is plural.
That said, I didn't perceive a problem either, and my self-diagnosis is that "none of the X" feels like it could be evoking a singular item that failed to be found.
Yep, I think the singular is ok, as it could be just one. Seems like it could be both.
Cambridge says...
> In formal styles, we use none of with a singular verb when it is the subject. However, in informal speaking, people often use plural verbs...
Collins says:
> Since none has the meanings “not one” and “not any,” some insist that it always be treated as a singular and be followed by a singular verb: The rescue party searched for survivors, but none was found. However, none has been used with both singular and plural verbs since the 9th century. When the sense is “not any persons or things” (as in the example above), the plural is more common: … none were found. Only when none is clearly intended to mean “not one” or “not any” is it followed by a singular verb: Of all my articles, none has received more acclaim than my latest one.
But it was "none of -these- X" which (to me, at least) is a secondary signal for plurality indicating that "are" is (doubly) preferable to "is".
(I don't find "none of these components is ..." to be egregiously wrong but it definitely gives a brain hiccup where the "... are ..." variant is much smoother.)
reply