Ok, that made me laugh. His only contribution to MTA in the 90's was to replace the old metal subway tokens with (first paper, then plastic) swipe tickets.
I mean a mayor like Giuliani would see the state the city is in and improve it. Unlike this clown Adams, who is doing absolutely nothing. Keep laughing though.
Then the CEO should also be clear when their motivations are directly influenced by actions (like removing their predecessor) due to PE firms that are acting as political proxies. Because most HN readers agree that R&D is important and that no single business unit will last forever.
Despite the hand-wavy arguments and use of misinterpreted shock phrases like "Orwellian", a persons' memories (and biochemical retention mechanisms) are not the same as a computers. At a bare minimum, the former has a singular lifetime and there can only one instance - zero copies.
OK, so you're fine with being able to forcefully destroy people's diaries? Photographs? What about those with memory problems who depend on such external memories?
>the former has a singular lifetime and there can only one instance - zero copies.
That's curious, I could have sworn humans had developed ways to share their memories with each other through things like "words" or "pictures"? Things proven to allow someone to share their memories with millions and pass them down such that we still know them even thousands of years later. So you're "only" talking about censoring/destroying conversation, phone calls, letters, messages, newspapers, paintings and such?
There is no shock phrasing here, despite you wanting to deflect. To forget is to lose memories. A right to have others forget necessarily implies actively forcing them to destroy their own memories. That's what it means, stripped of the misdirection. It's evil. I'm not sold that "do it on a computer" always is a magic wand that means now it's fine to use government force with it.
> So you're "only" talking about censoring/destroying conversation, phone calls, letters, messages, newspapers, paintings and such?
"Destroying a person's data" and "destroying Google's copies of that data" are two different things.
It's quite possible that Aunt Sally could keep her conversations, poems, paintings, macaroni pictures, or what have you, without allowing Google to index those things or make its own copies.
>"Destroying a person's data" and "destroying Google's copies of that data" are two different things.
Why? How many people may they share copies with before it's no longer allowed in your opinion? What is your basis for calculating that?
>It's quite possible that Aunt Sally could keep her conversations, poems, paintings, macaroni pictures, or what have you, without allowing Google to index those things or make its own copies.
Of course she can choose not to allow Google to index those things or make its own copies, but why should she be forced not to? Or Google forced not to? What about her circle of friends, and how big can that circle be? What if she runs her own little blog, wiki, forum, newsgroup, or the like? What about if it's a newspaper, can they index it or make copies? A single journalist? Researcher? What does "newspaper", "journalist", or "researcher" even mean as a matter of law? Are only certain elites allowed now? And on and on.
You shouldn't argue for a big new expansion of government force restricting information over and above defamation law without really being able to think all this through IMO. Details really matter. Imagine the absolute worst populist wannabe dictators at not merely national scale but at the local small town scale that doesn't get much attention but has real power to affect people's lives. What are they going to do with this? Does it matter if they'd lose a 6-figure lawsuit in the end if no one they would go after can afford to fight it? That's not a theoretical threat. Anti-SLAPP laws help a lot by making things much cheaper thanks to a fairly straight forward (under defamation law) low pass filter. A judge can determine pretty easily if there is a colorable case or not. As the linked article says, "right to be forgotten" is complex and case-by-case, ie, expensive. And we know that "expensive lawsuit" means "bullies will use this for illegitimate ends", so we should be very cautious about opening up mass applicable complex new forms of action without really thinking it through.
Definitely. With 1 or 2, the lies aren't in a searchable database accessible to (e.g.) potential employers, or any rando stalker with an internet connection. That's a very important difference.
>> What if she runs her own little blog, wiki, forum, newsgroup, or the like?
>Google isn't allowed to index it.
I assume you mean Google can't index the forbidden names on her blog. Or is her entire blog now unfindable because she included a forbidden name? How does Google know if the name, of which multiple named people may exist, is the forbidden one? What of the rights of samed named people to be found?
Let me try to supply some hype ... my current no-code solution saved my team negative 0x; it was started and completed in 1 day, followed by 777 days of edits, debugging, and improvements (so far) reducing our OpEx 1568% since "code complete". To get around the 27.9% uptime, we removed that metric. The supplier (us) spent exactly $162 on the entire design and development (thanks to Fiverr). Our estimated ARR should be approaching 167 trillion dollars in 2040. The TCO is only $59,883 (ongoing AWS fees) and growing at an astounding 182% CAGR. And our ROI has already paid us back - just don't look behind the curtains or expect it to pass audit.
LOL, an article about some posts where the author has confused Xitter slactivism as a proxy for actual involvement devoid of any actual policy. It's all just a morass of criticism.
I don't think people realize how little money they'll dance for. I always imagined you had to donate in the hundreds of thousands at a minimum to get their attention. Turns out for even a <$5K donation you can get an invite to a dinner party where you get to whisper in your senator or representative's ear for 2 hours.
> (I'm looking at you new york times, you know what you did wrong)
You're going to have to be a tiny bit more specific here. NYT is THE factory of wrongness for sure. In every dimension. Are we talking "yellow cake" wrong, or somewhere else on the severity of f'up scale...
All they needed was a database, or possibly a DB that supports row signing. I mean actually they could have done it with git. They don't publish that many stories an hour.
Everything about this setup is just plain wrong, and to then boast about it, absolute madness.
Without opening the can-of-worms that is anticontextual architecture, you never have the budget to make cake. I had 1 building in 10+ years - and it was a pool house, an ancillary structure.
