I don't want them to. I'm not giving them that data myself and I don't consent to McDonalds giving them that data either, where that data is something I have to McDonalds. It's about information asymmetry.
Targeted advertising. That can be banner ads, notifications, featured suggestions or anything else. Knowing what your are most likely to accept tells them what they should offer. The goal is always conversions: turning ad impressions into sales.
I store my belongings with a storage company. They rent facilities from a property owner. The storage company goes under while my stuff is still in the storage unit. I go to the property owner and say my stuff was in there. They say, no, that's owned by the storage company. Incorrect - the belongings were owned by me the entire time, the storage company was just holding it for me. I need to prove it was mine, but I don't lose property rights just because it's in someone else's possession.
Likewise if I store data with a cloud provider. Sure, Iron Mountain shouldn't just offer it up without proof, but if I give them notice of a legal case they should be sure to hold on to it, and if I win the case they need to hand it over to me. All I need to do is provide proof that I am the rightful owner of those goods.
> I store my belongings with a storage company. They rent facilities from a property owner. The storage company goes under while my stuff is still in the storage unit. I go to the property owner and say my stuff was in there. They say, no, that's owned by the storage company. Incorrect - the belongings were owned by me the entire time, the storage company was just holding it for me. I need to prove it was mine, but I don't lose property rights just because it's in someone else's possession.
You are a subtenant. The tenant went bust. The case law on this is settled. Depending on state, you either have a period of time to vacate the premises or you can/do become a tenant of the property owner. People have been subleasing rooms/apartments for hundreds of years, so every possible scenario you could imagine in this space has been litigated to death.
That is real estate.
American case law about data stored on computers is that whosoever owns that computer owns all the data on that computer. Which is why US privacy law is far weaker than EU privacy law (where you own the data about yourself). I think pets.com was one of the very few exceptions where the TOS said "we won't sell your data" and the bankruptcy liquidator said "it is an asset, we sure will sell it" and the courts said "no you can't sell it".
In the edge case that it wasn't Nine PBS requesting the Nine PBS data, you've now opened your company to a huge can of worms. Only OSS knows who Nine PBS is in their database, hence why, from a liability standpoint, it makes sense to say it's OSS's problem.
Also your storage company case is actually it's own can of worms, see the Lego drama from a couple months ago about that. It seems obvious, but in the eyes of the law there's more paperwork than you'd think.
I think this will become ever more common as AI improves. We used to joke, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog," but now that is clearly true for AI agents. They can automate every part of the process, from domain and hosting registration, to web content creation, to responses to emails and even phone calls. Entire personas are trivial to create and maintain. This is what many companies are openly trying to do as cost cutting measures, but taken to its extreme you end up with entire companies generating income that are entirely agent driven. So long as the tokens cost less than the revenues they can generate, people will deploy these to passively make money for them, just like the early 2000s when there were entire webpages just present to show ads to unsuspecting visitors.
He explains that the field he is shooting towards is over 5km of empty field. He also started his tests with much lower weight and speed to ensure proper behavior before getting up to full speed.
They know exactly what they are doing. Elon Musk talks a lot about freedom but he has never practiced it with regards to others, only himself. He has always considered the technologically well educated to be superior. He is also an egotistical narcissist. You can't believe anything he says he believes because he projects what he wants others to believe of him, not what he truly believes. The same is true of many of the techno bros whose actual technical abilities are heavily accentuated by their salesmanship. They lie and manipulate and call it human progress while actually being focused on their net worth. It's exactly what these sci-fi stories warned us about, but they used it as a playbook, not a warning, because they envisioned themselves as the tyrannical leader, not as the repressed masses beneath them.
It certainly is doxxing (although there is no legal definition of it that I'm aware of). I also wrote that X has the least censorship of any social media platform. If you have to dig down to elonjet, it just affirms my statement.
X has massive censorship. Not only are pro-Palestinian accounts regularly banned, reach is restricted on any anti-Israel content. They even censored the Iranian flag! If you post it, X replaces it with their own, incorrect version.
I saw plenty of far out posts under the previous owners too...
But X banned accounts for non-spam content violations at a much higher rate than Twitter and approved content censorship requests from authoritarian states at a higher rate
I assert that Twitter censored less than X, based on the evidence provided by X of how many million more accounts it banned for non-spam policy violations and how much higher its censorship requests compliance was.
And that's the formal policies, never mind the arbitrariness of Elon getting so ban-happy for petulant personal reasons even Paul Graham got a suspension for mentioning Mastodon.
You might prefer mass throttling of any links to news sources the CEO disagrees with over throttling of Scott Adams, but that says more about your personal tastes than the latter moderation policy being a more censorious one
Similarly, it is impossible to argue with a straight face that accounts that reference the existence of an ADS-B feed are somehow a more egregious violation than any of Trump's (remember, the guys in the West Wing he was shouting out to were attempting to violently subvert the democratic process), particularly when you know exactly what an ADS-B feed is, what it does and doesn't show, and how many other websites publish this data.
In this algorithmically recommended world it would be naive enough to think that censorship is as binary as “you can’t say that!” or “now you see it / now you don’t (because we took it down!)” It’s all about the reach these days, i.e. “you can say whatever you want but we control how many people actually see it”:
It didn't happen in Canada, unless you mean the part where we rounded up all the natives and put them on reserves. I'm a white Canadian born and raised in Canada and I am far from being a minority no matter where I go, from the prairies to the GTA. Conservatives keep talking about this like it's a thing, but they do so from their majority white communities. The only places you see large numbers of immigrants is in low paying service jobs and you can thank the exploitive hiring practices of major companies like Tim Hortons - the people there are slaves living under the constant threat of deportation if they disappoint their employer/owner.
It's also worth noting that those white people concerned about becoming ethnic minorities are themselves immigrants. British and French colonists; German, Ukrainian, Hungarian, Irish; Hutterite and Mennonite - all immigrants, many within just the last few generations. For as long as Canada has been a country, it has been made up of many groups of different ethnicities, all immigrants. "White" isn't an ethnicity.
People with other ideas are barely literate. Said someone who feels good about himself today but couldn't offer up actual facts and offered nothing to the conversation.
Debating is impossible when you don't have facts supporting you. Mockery is next followed by acceptance. Wish you well on your journey towards knowledge.
I hope you get what you want. Keep all the whites in your territory, and you get to have your land for your race, whatever you think it may be.
On this side of the pond, we can be welcoming all those pesky Indians, Asians, Muslim, Latin Americans, African, Slavic and so on. The more highly educated they are, the better.
You are a minority in Toronto if you are white and less than 20% if you are British. Edmonton is 53% white and going down fast. Vancouver is down to 45%. GTA 43% white.
If you are in tech or government or banking or any large corp you are a minority.
That's becoming less common. The issue is that, if training only contains examples of CVE reports, then asking for one will get you one, even if it's not grounded in reality. But if training consists of many negative cases with the response, "I can't find one," them that will become the default unless evidence pushes it towards a report. It's a classic class size problem. SOTA models seem to have this largely solved, though a determined person (just like a determined boss) can prompt one into giving a false answer just to satisfy the request.
Much of it comes from the same place. Depression, ADHD, and many others affect our ability to concentrate and plan. When you are in those situations, long term doesn't matter - you are fighting to live in the short term. Part of using medication is helping to get those effects under control so that you can be forwarded looking and disciplined.
Simply saying "exercise more" to someone struggling with mental health is like telling a person who is bleeding to death that they should stop bleeding. Yeah, chances are they really want to, but they don't have control over it in the moment.
And this article is about not saying that, but giving them actionable guidance and (possibly) referring them to programs that can help (like how you might be referred to a nutritionist by your doctor instead of just being told to "eat better").
