I find the "Nike shoes ad" thing--and many very similar incarnations of targeted advertising, such as books and movies--particularly stupid. If I just bought some goods that will last for several years, pretty much by definition I'm not going to need any more for several years, so therefore I should be one of the lowest-priority targets for further advertising! How do advertisers not get this?
Between the obvious stupidity inherent in so much of it, the "creepy factor," and the poor psychological signaling that it conveys, it's no wonder that essentially everyone hates targeted ads. And the name hardly helps either; who wants to be a target?
WRT the concept of private information getting accidentally released due to a bug, have a look at this account of exactly that happening to a programmer just last month. A bug caused this guy who was trying to upload some code to a private GitHub repository to a public repo instead, and it contained a security key. A big mess ensued very quickly.
Meh. It's like I've been saying for a few years now, this is a service for twits. I've never really understood why such an obvious nickname hasn't caught on.
It's true that Malmström went on to present some very vague ideas about ways in which corporate sovereignty could be "improved", but so far these have not been turned into concrete proposals that could be discussed with the Canadian government.
Apparently he's not listening. Or maybe the public hasn't quite been clear enough. They should just come right out and say it bluntly: the only good ISDS is a dead ISDS.
But they're also used to hunt down people suspected of misdemeanor theft...
...and what exactly is the problem with that? I have various possessions that are quite valuable to me, even though their worth in dollars would probably not be enough to make the act of stealing them a felony. If someone did steal one of them, though, I'd certainly want the police to use any tools at their disposal to track the guy down and get my stuff back. Wouldn't you?
The only problem I have with law enforcement using Stingrays is when they pretend they weren't using Stingrays. It makes it look like they've got something to hide, when it really isn't something they should have any need to keep hidden.
Lessig still makes a very compelling argument about just how corrupt the system really is, and how that undermines nearly everything in government
Yeah, that's one of the most important points that almost nobody understands. The Constitution states that the Government is established and organized by We The People. If it's someone else--anyone else--establishing and organizing our government, then the entire system breaks down, because that is literally the most fundamental principle that the entire system is built upon.
The stuff about allocation of capital reminds me of something I've mentioned on here before, an analysis of why silicon valley funds Instagrams, not Hyperloops. It's a real problem with the way the VC system is set up and the way their interests are aligned.
At around 19:20, Catherine mentioned loan forgiveness. This is a very important idea. It's been around almost as long as civilization itself, the concept of a forgiveness of debts as something necessary to the smooth functioning of civilization. In the Law of Moses, for example, the balance of any loan that was not paid off after seven years had to be forgiven, and every fifty years all debts were canceled. This keeps debt from piling up perpetually and from becoming too unmanageable in general.
Contrast that with the current system, where debt continues (and continues to grow!) in perpetuity, making things worse and worse. Just think back seven years, when an overload of debt (primarily on a class loan that lasts for a truly ludicrous thirty years!) crashed the economy, and the chosen solution was... prop it up with even more debt! And now we've taken that about as far as we can, and it's just starting to crash again, and looking like this time will be worse than the last time.
If those debts had been nullified instead, imagine how much resources would be freed up for productive economic use rather than wasting it on debt service!
Around 32:00, "Name an example; what is a company that started out just serving a super-high-end need, and then pivoted and was serving the broad base of the economy." Tesla. That was their stated plan from the beginning, and they're currently in the process of performing that pivot.
The stated examples such as Uber and AirBnB aren't about serving the masses; they're about exploiting them. When you look at the demographics of people using these services, (from the provider side,) what you see is a lot of unemployed/underemployed people looking for another source of income out of need, not by choice. It's no surprise that we're seeing them spring up now, in the middle of an economic downturn (it would be politically uncorrect to say the "D" word) that's been going on for 7 years now with no end in sight; these are "services" that would never have arisen--or at the very least would not have prospered--in a strong economy.
Or you could do what Tesla is doing: pragmatically achieve B) by means of A).
They started out building elite "yacht" cars that would get them the money they needed to invest in developing a more affordable luxury car, which would bring them the money they needed to invest in developing an Everyman car. The first two steps have been a huge success by all accounts, and they're currently well on their way to developing and bringing to market their Everyman car. Once they bring that to market, it will benefit everyone, not just rich people, and not just people who own a Tesla.
I mean, building a coastal city below sea level is obviously not such a bright idea in the first place, especially when you're right in the middle of hurricane territory. But they got lucky for a while.
When the inevitable finally happened, amid environmental and political circumstances that guarantee that, for the near future at least, the sea level will keep rising and hurricanes will get worse, that really should have been a wake-up call. But did they listen?
Of course not. These are people who live on the coast, below sea level, in hurricane territory! So obviously they do the dumbest thing possible: they rebuild.
Kinda makes me wonder what it will take for them to actually get the message: that's a really stupid place to live, and it ought to be abandoned before more tragedies strike.
Where are you getting that from? The game was DRM-free, a fact that was widely discussed back when it launched. I'm just surprised that the Wikipedia article doesn't mention it.
It's not like this is the first time this has happened. Anyone remember the most successful game of 2008? That's been the standing rebuttal to the "but, but... piracy!" claim for 7 years now.
So the government doesn't have the resources or the engineering expertise to support a major transportation project, and people think it would be foolish for the private sector to try and help out? Sounds familiar.
[P]laintiffs contend that Smith violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment. According to their briefs, this argument is based on Smith’s application for, and execution of, a search warrant.
Wait... isn't the point of the Fourth Amendment that you need to get a warrant? And now someone's claiming that Smith getting a warrant and then using it as intended violates their Fourth Amendment rights?
Am I totally misreading this, or does that claim make no sense whatsoever, to the point where you wonder how it didn't get laughed out of court long before reaching a point where the judge ruled on it?
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 41: Privacy Policies Have Nothing To Do With Privacy
Between the obvious stupidity inherent in so much of it, the "creepy factor," and the poor psychological signaling that it conveys, it's no wonder that essentially everyone hates targeted ads. And the name hardly helps either; who wants to be a target?
WRT the concept of private information getting accidentally released due to a bug, have a look at this account of exactly that happening to a programmer just last month. A bug caused this guy who was trying to upload some code to a private GitHub repository to a public repo instead, and it contained a security key. A big mess ensued very quickly.
On the post: Getty Images Goes Copyright Trolling After A Meme Penguin
Re: Free Clue for the Clue Challenged
On the post: Videotron Tests Neutrality In Canada: Biggest Music Apps Now Cap Exempt
So if you're using data while the cops are spoofing your cell tower, you don't have to pay for it? :P
On the post: Twitter Suspends Accounts For 'Infringement' Despite Not Linking To Any Infringing Works
Re:
On the post: European Commission Admits Defeat In Trying To Improve Corporate Sovereignty Chapter In CETA
Apparently he's not listening. Or maybe the public hasn't quite been clear enough. They should just come right out and say it bluntly: the only good ISDS is a dead ISDS.
On the post: DOJ Says Federal Agents Must Seek Warrants For Stingrays; Forbids Collection Of Communications
...and what exactly is the problem with that? I have various possessions that are quite valuable to me, even though their worth in dollars would probably not be enough to make the act of stealing them a felony. If someone did steal one of them, though, I'd certainly want the police to use any tools at their disposal to track the guy down and get my stuff back. Wouldn't you?
The only problem I have with law enforcement using Stingrays is when they pretend they weren't using Stingrays. It makes it look like they've got something to hide, when it really isn't something they should have any need to keep hidden.
On the post: Techdirt Reading List: Larry Lessig's Republic, Lost
Yeah, that's one of the most important points that almost nobody understands. The Constitution states that the Government is established and organized by We The People. If it's someone else--anyone else--establishing and organizing our government, then the entire system breaks down, because that is literally the most fundamental principle that the entire system is built upon.
On the post: City Of Peoria Offers $125,000 Non-Apology To Owner Of Twitter Account That Parodied Its Mayor
Re: Re:
On the post: City Of Peoria Offers $125,000 Non-Apology To Owner Of Twitter Account That Parodied Its Mayor
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 40: Is Silicon Valley Only Building Tech For The Rich?
At around 19:20, Catherine mentioned loan forgiveness. This is a very important idea. It's been around almost as long as civilization itself, the concept of a forgiveness of debts as something necessary to the smooth functioning of civilization. In the Law of Moses, for example, the balance of any loan that was not paid off after seven years had to be forgiven, and every fifty years all debts were canceled. This keeps debt from piling up perpetually and from becoming too unmanageable in general.
Contrast that with the current system, where debt continues (and continues to grow!) in perpetuity, making things worse and worse. Just think back seven years, when an overload of debt (primarily on a class loan that lasts for a truly ludicrous thirty years!) crashed the economy, and the chosen solution was... prop it up with even more debt! And now we've taken that about as far as we can, and it's just starting to crash again, and looking like this time will be worse than the last time.
If those debts had been nullified instead, imagine how much resources would be freed up for productive economic use rather than wasting it on debt service!
Around 32:00, "Name an example; what is a company that started out just serving a super-high-end need, and then pivoted and was serving the broad base of the economy." Tesla. That was their stated plan from the beginning, and they're currently in the process of performing that pivot.
The stated examples such as Uber and AirBnB aren't about serving the masses; they're about exploiting them. When you look at the demographics of people using these services, (from the provider side,) what you see is a lot of unemployed/underemployed people looking for another source of income out of need, not by choice. It's no surprise that we're seeing them spring up now, in the middle of an economic downturn (it would be politically uncorrect to say the "D" word) that's been going on for 7 years now with no end in sight; these are "services" that would never have arisen--or at the very least would not have prospered--in a strong economy.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 40: Is Silicon Valley Only Building Tech For The Rich?
Re: Said this a while ago to my friends
They started out building elite "yacht" cars that would get them the money they needed to invest in developing a more affordable luxury car, which would bring them the money they needed to invest in developing an Everyman car. The first two steps have been a huge success by all accounts, and they're currently well on their way to developing and bringing to market their Everyman car. Once they bring that to market, it will benefit everyone, not just rich people, and not just people who own a Tesla.
On the post: Canadian Scientist Muzzled For Writing And Performing Song About Canadian Government Muzzling Scientists
Re:
On the post: FBI: Hurricane Katrina Made It Clear We Just Don't Have Enough Stingray Devices
I mean, building a coastal city below sea level is obviously not such a bright idea in the first place, especially when you're right in the middle of hurricane territory. But they got lucky for a while.
When the inevitable finally happened, amid environmental and political circumstances that guarantee that, for the near future at least, the sea level will keep rising and hurricanes will get worse, that really should have been a wake-up call. But did they listen?
Of course not. These are people who live on the coast, below sea level, in hurricane territory! So obviously they do the dumbest thing possible: they rebuild.
Kinda makes me wonder what it will take for them to actually get the message: that's a really stupid place to live, and it ought to be abandoned before more tragedies strike.
On the post: The Full Counter-Argument To Game Studios Claiming A Need For DRM: The Witcher 3
Re: Re: Re: Re: 7 years late to the party
On the post: The Full Counter-Argument To Game Studios Claiming A Need For DRM: The Witcher 3
Re: Re: 7 years late to the party
On the post: The Full Counter-Argument To Game Studios Claiming A Need For DRM: The Witcher 3
7 years late to the party
On the post: DailyDirt: Getting From Point A To B... Really Really Quickly
Re: Re: Re: Pretty Pictures, No Substance.
On the post: Judge Finds No One To Like In Lawsuit Brought By Ripoff Report Against Overreaching State Prosecutor
On the post: Judge Finds No One To Like In Lawsuit Brought By Ripoff Report Against Overreaching State Prosecutor
Wait... isn't the point of the Fourth Amendment that you need to get a warrant? And now someone's claiming that Smith getting a warrant and then using it as intended violates their Fourth Amendment rights?
Am I totally misreading this, or does that claim make no sense whatsoever, to the point where you wonder how it didn't get laughed out of court long before reaching a point where the judge ruled on it?
On the post: DailyDirt: Getting From Point A To B... Really Really Quickly
Re: Pretty Pictures, No Substance.
Just consider recent history. Betting against Elon Musk and his ideas doesn't tend to work out so well.
Next >>