There are exemptions for academic research and journalism in the GDPR under article 85 [0]. That is why the original news article (that I wrote) clearly mentions right away that the information was collected for a academic project.
Sure - but if I, a stranger, am really looking forward to seeing the burning of an effigy of some dude's ex-girlfriend, that would make me look pretty weird.
I don't know, burning a symbolic "ex" could be something many people would relate too. Instead of taking out your anger on a real human, you take it out on a symbolic effigy. It's better for everyone involved.
Why? Billions of teens are dancing along to songs of Taylor Swift figuratively burning her ex-boyfriends. That doesn’t mean they hate men or that they “look pretty weird”.
That's a problem with social networks at large. At least before the stupid or degenerate were ashamed of themselves. Now everybody can find a circus of freaks to belong to, which makes them believe their behaviour to be appropriate.
No, just unmoderated social networks. One of the longest-running types of “social network” (going for centuries now!) is the academic journal—but those have the explicit goal of sanity cross-checking anything submitted to them before allowing it in, so they result in something else being promoted.
(I don’t want to say it's “good, rational discourse” that journals promote, because that doesn’t seem to be exactly what comes out of journals; they do have their own incentive structures that bias "the conversation" in specific directions, even besides the ones that are extrinsically imposed upon them by academic hierarchy.)
I think it’s a matter of time before the copy-cat stuff is going to get us one of those weird Japanese suicide pacts. They are already starting with the new crate challenge (which is dangerous as fuck).
I saw kids doing this on concrete recently. On concrete.
Tiktok is literally an at-scale sorority/fraternity, which means people are taking part in an at-scale hazing ritual - to fit in. The problem with this is the same problem that arises if you are 20 and watch Sesame Street every day still. There’s a time and place for this behavior and we are not setting any cut offs for when it’s time to stop the nonsense.
People already died from planking. And tide pods. People have been ongoingly dying from drinking bleach. People dying due to social trends isn't new though: perhaps more notable is that it's easier to know it's happening in an age of instant global communication, and since we all have quick and easy access to all the knowledge needed to avoid these entirely preventable outcomes.
The milk crate challenge on concrete is hardly different to any other dangerous behavior engaged in by (principally) young men: i.e. what's the difference really between this and say, street racing? Which has been a thing pretty much since car's became affordable to 20 year olds.
There is a voyeurism here. At risk of entering extreme levels of armchair psychology, it’s the bystander effect at scale.
You are free to Google milk-crate challenge death and see for yourself (how guilty am I for the thing that I condemn). They fall on their necks.
I certainly don’t have the answer, but this can’t be normalized, and sadly I think we are just at the beginning.
Kids abusing the medical system, disrespecting a disease, walking on shaky crates six feet off the ground. It’s hard for me to say it’s kids being kids, or the weak in natural selection being handled. Something is up.
People are not robots. Horrible mishabs happen. But 50 years ago, nobody was doing a global list of these. They ended up being a village story.
We need to educate the young to make sensible decisions. It doesnt really matter if TikTok, FB, the foobar challenge, or something else is the current culprit. The world is full of crazy things. People need to navigate that anyway.
Have you seen LinkedIn recently? It's all of the Facebook garbage just moved to a new home. Most of the content on there has little to nothing to do with the professional world.
No he means the 'code' that runs Google in the business / HR sense is not version controlled and reviewed. So when it changes to something he disagrees with like the pillow purchase being disallowed he can't see or take part in the discussion that led to that change.
> The code that runs Google itself is not publicly reviewed. There are no commit messages, no attribution and no version history. How can a Googler "think like an owner" when they're being told to follow inflexible rules even when they're so clearly against the company's best interest?
I would not be surprised. At one point, I interviewed with an adtech company where the people I interviewed with bragged about how only the founder-CEO knew the key part of the code and nothing got deployed without him.
Presumably, there is an inner cabal who has some access to something.
I doubt the search code started with version control. Then, when it became key to success, it was viewed as a risk.
I have zero inside knowledge, but I had theorized as much over the years. It is very likely my guesses are wrong.
Would be interesting if someone who knows can explain. I'm interpreting it as there is a core/trusted team working on search that uses version control and does code reviews, but these are not visible to everyone else in the company.
Given the constant battle against SEO, with 140k employees it makes sense that they would try to delay such knowledge from leaking. Odd that it sounds like the code itself is visible though.
I don't know, but it's likely that a knee-jerk reaction against any and all intervention-- which is seemingly where things are in much of the US-- is not an intelligent or informed strategy.
Many societal problems are improved by 'taking our freedoms.' We enforce speed limits because fatalities are much more likely at speeds above 65 MPH, and many people speed or drive recklessly when they are running late.
I hope we can trend towards finding some 'happy medium' between burdensome interventions with limited impact and just letting covid 'rip' through vulnerable populations.
