> Brexit, without the whole concept of targeted ads and the data collection that goes with it would have not been possible.
However nobody mentioned all the people that didn't bother voting because they were at Glastonbury which was on at the same time.
I very much doubt that is true. The UK has been a bad fit in the EU and there has been a sentiment for years that we don't want any EU interference. For example many don't want "The EU monopoly money" (not my words mind you) and generally the public is Euro-sceptic.
The papers and politicians were trying to find a scapegoat because quite frankly it didn't go the way they wanted. Much like Trump's victory claiming that Russia hacked the election (there were like a few thousand placed on facebook, which paled in comparison to the Democrat's budget).
Many of the people that voted out were of older generations that don't pay attention to tech. So I find it dubious how much influence the likes of Cambridge analytical really had.
> Actually I disagree here. When you look at the consequences of the technology in countries like Myanmar, The Philippines, Brazil, Cambodia and others and the likes of Mr. Zuckerberg and his ilk giving exactly zero fucks (unless it becomes bad PR) I'm afraid you're definitely wrong on that one.
Like exactly what? You haven't qualified anything here. You just claimed I am wrong because of what? What adverts, what is happening? This is a very vague claim.
I suspect much like the vote to leave the UK it will be very spurious evidence.
So the regulation causes problems for people that haven't done anything wrong.
A lets be clear here. People aren't dying, it mostly ads and shitty data collection. I think it might be better to actually educate the public (which govs are doing) as to some of the pitfalls of the internet rather than regulating the crap out of it.
Because some publications has deemed the likes Nigel Farage to be a "fascist". So saying that Alex Jones is worse than anyone else is crazy. Just watch CNN and their conspiracy theories about Trump, they do the same but they are never mentioned because they are deemed to be "on the right side" whatever that is.
"I happen to know quite a lot about GDPR because I dealt with it at a client I was previously working with,"
There we go. You already done the time investment at someone else's expense.
So thanks for proving my point.
My comments weren't about GDPR but about regulation in general. Any regulation requires more work which makes it difficult for smaller players. You had to do the extra work.
The problem is any regulation is that it increases the startup costs for smaller businesses.
So as more regulation comes in it will just end up cementing the large players in place as they can absorb the costs of any regulation, while smaller businesses will have higher startup costs (which lets face it were next to nothing).
So while you maybe rejoicing now that shitty companies have gone for now, regulation will just make it harder for these massive companies to be toppled as it makes it harder for smaller companies to comply.
The EU are trying to have article 13 pushed through and any site that has user generated content will have to have some sort of upload filter to check for copyrighted content. That is going to cost money to implement and since Youtube hasn't really be able to achieve it, the only people that will be supplying the software will be the likes of Google, Microsoft etc ... So again it will just make it harder to the small business and help the large businesses.
Also a lot of these regulations make are making the web a shittier place. Every time I go onto a site now, I have the stupid cookie and GDPR notice plaster in front of what I want to look at. I already protect myself and don't care about their attempt to track me. It is just an irritation that nobody pays attention to and it achieves the opposite of what it was intended to achieve.
I find conspiracy theories to be almost like some sort of sci-fi / fantasy lore.
I love watching stuff like Ancient Aliens, I know it is complete nonsense but it is fun laughing at all the begging the question they do.
My other half believes in some super natural stuff such as horoscopes etc and she gets a bit annoyed at me and my brother taking the mickey out of it but that is about as far as the "harm" goes with most of this stuff.
Trying to stop people believing in crazy things just isn't possible and actively trying to suppress it online will just make it worse.
And then the immigrants stay and get old and there is increased strain on the strained social systems. Most immigration systems in Europe assumed that the immigrants would go home once they have made some money.
At some point it is going to implode anyway. The UK in the last 25 years has completely changed due to immigration and our health system is basically about to fall over, there are massive cultural tensions between natives and immigrant populations that are on the verge of exploding in poorer areas (North of England) on almost a daily basis. None of this gets covered in the news but there are plenty of videos on Facebook, Youtube etc of clashes.
A software engineer is like a plumber you link up lots of small components, weld them together and then the data flows through the application (at least that is the idea).
Oh comon. We know that most of the fanatics would like to see Gates in Chains.
> Anyway, I think we've seen the whole repertoire by now, whataboutism, name calling, strawmen, I'm out of here.
LOL. I always find it funny once you call out Linux fanatics on their nonsense they run away by claiming all sorts of things of their opponent. I didn't name call you, I just said you fit a pattern of a stereotype that I seen before, that isn't an Ad-hominem attack that is pattern recognition.
You provided no evidence other than the usual nonsense of pretending that Microsoft don't have a right to protect their IP and the conspiracy theories that Microsoft are this all powerful entity.
The author uses the more complicated definitions of the SOLID principles.
These are much simpler to remember:
* Single responsibility principle - A class should have only a single responsibility, that is, only changes to one part of the software's specification should be able to affect the specification of the class.
* Open–closed principle - Software entities should be open for extension, but closed for modification.
* Liskov substitution principle - Objects in a program should be replaceable with instances of their subtypes without altering the correctness of that program.
* Interface segregation principle - Many client-specific interfaces are better than one general-purpose interface.
* Dependency inversion principle - One should depend upon abstractions, not concretions.
A lot of these principles also tie into other principles such as DRY (Do not repeat yourself).
Sure you can get a car roughly driving around the city autonomously (there are basic self driving cars back in the 1950s that drove on a wire track) but getting it perfect is where the vast majority of effort is going to be expended.
Crimes. Lol that is it. I know you are one of those. Crime means things like murder, burglary, rape, assault. The language you are using sounds like “for their crimes against the state”. You me (ab)use of English is making me chuckle.
This whole schtick of acting as if Microsoft goes into peoples homes and rapes their mother is ridiculous and has to end.
> So, to summarize: vendor lock-in is a thing and the best way to get there is to create closed stuff that open source then has no chance to properly deal with. You can use this to strong-arm all kinds of entities to deal with you on your terms.
No. Please don't put words into my mouth.
The problem is that there is no specs / documentation for anything generally. Most of my time in dev has been spent dealing and finding work around for all sorts shitty bugs in applications when dealing with either web browsers or generating documents.
This is partially because of deliberate vendor lock-in and partially due to nobody being given time to actually produce specs as these are often an after thought. Customers don't care about me making proper documentation, even when they do other developers that do integrations DON'T RTFM and I have to guide them through it anyway. Customers don't pay for specs / docs etc, they pay for the product that lets them get shit done.
Fanatics of Open Source (and they are that) always argue about cost of the software, vendor lock in etc. The costs of the software are almost nothing compared to hiring people. I was on a team of 6 people doing a major rewrite (which shouldn't have been happening IMHO) and it cost the business about £500,000 just in staff. Licenses for SQL Server and Windows server was a small percentage of that and were about 1 man months worth of cost. These costs are nothing for large councils / businesses that will either recoup that cost from the software itself or will just raise taxes to cover the shortfall (which is what Gov always does).
The really good reason to use Open Source software is security, privacy and being able to run what you want on what you have purchased, but that never gets mentioned, it always the bullshit cost angle because £400 sounds a lot to the kids in University which are broke.
Also vendor lock-in is the norm for a vast number of reasons other than "M$ is the evilz, stop using Windoz". Just look at the 8bit/16bit era, almost everything was lock-in and much more expensive than today (by factors of ten). The free PC ecosystem is NOT the norm in computing.
> I really don't think I speak for the Linux community but I do think that MS is still the big evil, just in slightly nicer packaging. Fantastic PR, crappy company.
LOL. Google, Facebook, Paypal, Twitter are far more powerful than Microsoft and are much much more evil, you know why? Because they think they are the good guys. Microsoft are basically like IBM these days, they sell loads of proprietary stuff that office use because they have won in that sector, they are dominate almost nowhere else.
A great deal of the internet is now hosted on a about 5 or 6 providers, the largest being Amazon's cloud. That is far more frightening to me than Microsoft. Every single competitor (except Microsoft) uses Amazon's Object Storage API because they are the largest.
This isn't the early 2000s where Microsoft were a monopoly they simply aren't anymore because the market has changed so drastically in 20 years.
However nobody mentioned all the people that didn't bother voting because they were at Glastonbury which was on at the same time.
I very much doubt that is true. The UK has been a bad fit in the EU and there has been a sentiment for years that we don't want any EU interference. For example many don't want "The EU monopoly money" (not my words mind you) and generally the public is Euro-sceptic.
The papers and politicians were trying to find a scapegoat because quite frankly it didn't go the way they wanted. Much like Trump's victory claiming that Russia hacked the election (there were like a few thousand placed on facebook, which paled in comparison to the Democrat's budget).
Many of the people that voted out were of older generations that don't pay attention to tech. So I find it dubious how much influence the likes of Cambridge analytical really had.
> Actually I disagree here. When you look at the consequences of the technology in countries like Myanmar, The Philippines, Brazil, Cambodia and others and the likes of Mr. Zuckerberg and his ilk giving exactly zero fucks (unless it becomes bad PR) I'm afraid you're definitely wrong on that one.
Like exactly what? You haven't qualified anything here. You just claimed I am wrong because of what? What adverts, what is happening? This is a very vague claim.
I suspect much like the vote to leave the UK it will be very spurious evidence.