You sound like someone who doesn't have young children who cross a road where the road users should be respecting the speed limit set deliberately low because it's right in front of an elementary school, but instead a significant proportion of them are Michael Schumacher wannabes who need to drive everywhere at 60km/h.
No need to have children. It’s the same crap in France and I have to be very careful not to get killed when I’m driving myself. These morons don’t care about kids but they don’t care about other drivers either.
I’m a big privacy advocate but when you are handling a killing machine on a public road, there is no privacy IMHO.
I think that's simplifying things too much: as a driver, there are also pedestrians who will jump out into a street without so much as looking where there is no crosswalk; there are also drivers who will drive 20km/h in a 50km/h zone, and you have no idea what's going on except that you are likely to hit 5 red traffic lights which are designed to be a "green wave" and make a 30 second drive through one street into a 5 minute one, and resulting in more gas usage and more pollution.
And yes, this type of driving will produce annoyed drivers that "drive crazy", and I don't accept that this is just their fault.
Mostly, these same drivers doing 20km/h will not even stop for pedestrians on a crosswalk — slowness does not equal attention and safe driving!
Traffic, in essence, is a collaborative effort that requires all participants to be empathetical to other participants — as such, we need to be most mindful of the "weakest" participants like pedestrians (especially kids, who can also be very inattentive), cyclists, motorcycles but also of other car drivers — if we care about each others' experience, we'll reduce the risk for everyone involved, while getting everyone where they want to go in a timely and efficient manner — and that is the goal!
Yes it requires collective empathy. There was a time when we never required the nanny state to constantly watch over us. A sign of a high functioning, free and unified society is that you shouldn't need be forced by the hand of the law to conform to the lowest common denominator.
Of course it is. Is this controversial anywhere? I would expect surveillance cameras to be regulated in most parts of the world, certainly around Europe. In the Netherlands I believe you need to register such cameras with the local police and you are responsible for following the relevant regulations and data protection laws.
GDPR says no. Also, when you are using a cloud service it is no longer private use, you are sharing the surveillance video with Amazon (and almost certainly with the USA three-letter agencies) too.
It is the "systemic/constant/permanent" recording, record-keeping. etc. a.k.a. "processing" (GDPR "processing" means "if it exists and you touch it, your are processing it").
Back in 2005 I remember working with some physical sec company that were setting up cameras in a factory, and they wanted the cameras to 'not record traffic, be activated on if THIS part of the screen has motion')(sidewalk vs sidewalk-right-on-our-doorbell vs road). Also, sudden changes in lighting would trigger it :)
Then you need to have retention period (good luck). Most people use those door-cams are violating GDPR. UNLESS when people complain and take you to court (very very very rare), you can prove that "I auto-delete records after 24h when there is no incident", "I have proximity scanner so it is only 0m-2m from my front door", etc.) (violating GDPR because "hey you pervert why do you record my kids EVERY DAY going in and out")
Privacy and Data protection is very very very difficult with GDPR (and thank you Facebook for messing up back in 2015ish!!!)
You can set up your cam but have the "AI" automatically pixelating all license-plates, and the video recording (if any) should be post-pixelating, and not the original feed. How about you put something with a speed-measuring-sensor (that is NOT a camera), so you only get 'anonymised' data, i.e. "20 moving items", and their speeds. But you will not be able to tell if the 300km/h was done by a bicycle or a Hayabusa ;)
Video surveillance limited to your own private property is not actually subject to GDPR. See GDPR article 2 para 2 lit c. It's not my asswipe opinion, either, see this whitepaper from a state privacy commissioner: https://www.datenschutz.sachsen.de/download/Hinweisblatt_Vid...
Sorry, I should have clarified my question further. They already broke their promises on Hong Kong. So I was asking what the other promises people think they won’t break?
Like are we talking Taiwan? Or something in mainland China?
Hence: which promises and which people?
With regard to HK - agree they broke their promises, but it’s not like it wasn’t highly predictable a leader like Xi would do this, the shocking part was the speed, not the action.
Apologies for upsetting people by being too vague.
That's more of the solution than the problem. Most of the light is absorbed rather than reflected, but causing more to be reflected isn't that hard, e.g. cover a large surface area of low value land or ocean with cheap reflective material.
I missed the citation on his education point. Has someone proved that “teaching to the test” leads to lower educational outcomes than not having tests?
IDK. I don't think we can actually have a discussion about education where all statements are supported by indisputable evidence.
There do happen to be citations for this question but I doubt any really clears an "indisputable evidence" standard. That's the nature of the field. Even if the whole discussion was evidence based and dotted with citations, we'd still be working with a lot of intuition and speculation.
Not a citation, but I believe it's a mediocritizing measure. For some teachers and some students, teaching to the test is probably better. I suspect more heavily concentrated in the bottom 50% of each group. For a subset of great teachers and great students, it's a detriment.
I saw some professors share the least about their tests to make sure we truly understand the material, sounds to me like a real-life usage of a train/test split. It’s not far fetched to think they employed this technique because teaching to the test didn’t work well by itself.
Thanks for raising closed hardware too, and I presume you are talking about the Intel ME (backdoor spyware [1] that Intel puts into all their chips via their closed source proprietary firmware). It's a complete blackbox, other CPU that no one knows entirely what it does, but has full access to your main CPU/memory/computer, and allows it to be remotely controlled by anyone with Intels signing keys.
We need to open this too, or at least be transparent, and your points on closed firmware/hardware is really important.
You can never truly be sure as it's can't be entirely removed. There has to be a little bit remaining, just the first few modules or the machine will shut down after 30 minutes, but the Librem 15 is a beautiful machine and Puri.sm are really awesome.
Sometimes a metaphor doesn’t make sense so you might abandon it for another rather than trying to stretch it.
Sometimes when fishing you catch something your rod or skill level is not capable of reeling in. So you are better to cut the line/bait rather than lose your whole rod.
Two distinct expressions that happen to share words. Is how I thought of it. Certainly in the context of the OP it seems he is not presenting an either or but a change course.
At which point I gained the problem of having to keep track of all of my microwallets securely, hopefully in a way that survives my phone being lost, a house fire, or my untimely death, leaving the wealth to inheritors. All while, at the same time, not ending up behind a single key that has access to all the information to those micro wallets.
Quickly you end up in a situation that either starts to look like how financial companies keep their most high risk keys, or end up outsourcing the whole thing to something that quickly starts to resemble your bank.
So ultimately it's just like cash: Fine for small amounts. Risky, but maybe livable for somewhat larger accounts, or a giant headache that will probably bite you when you start looking at lifetime savings.
A $1 note being a macro scale physical object enjoys a variety of benefits such as object permanence which provide a baseline level of recoverability. Whereas a wallet key l, being a number, enjoys no such protections.
Of course you may choose to encode your wallet key on paper, metal, or stone granting it properties not unlike a note. However you have now compromised the security of your wallet as well it becomes no mere $1 note, rather it is a note that represents all or a significant fraction of your net worth.
There's no fundamental property of the monetary system that prevents transfers of arbitrary value across international borders. There's just a large number of financial regulators, border guards, etc. who will throw you in jail if you carry a big block of gold across the border or accept a large wire transfer without filling out the necessary forms. In many countries, the laws governing those forms don't yet apply to cryptocurrencies, but I'm skeptical it will remain that way forever.
That's true, and the AML laws for crypto are already becoming more strict, especially in Europe. But in practice, it will be much easier to evade those laws than it is with fiat transfers or moving physical cash/gold.
You can’t seriously believe this right?