There may also be a Bitter Lesson element here. Ultimately, if law is like other domains, we may be able to solve legal applications with more compute on the limited freely-available data.
That's a load-bearing "if", though, given the incohesiveness of legal systems compared to typical Bitter Lesson examples.
There are (non-shady) firms that do exactly this for other areas (flight compensation, most notably).
There are some issues with contingency fees in German legal professional law. However, it can be argued that suing for these 5,000 EUR is just "collections", so it may be allowed.
The risk lies elsewhere: As I outlined in another comment, there is reason to believe that this may not stand on appeal, or at least that other courts in other parts of Germany may decide differently. As a result, it takes a lot of capital to keep all of these lawsuits going until the Federal Court of Justice or the ECJ have decided and there is legal certainty.
It should be noted that this may not stand on appeal. The full decision is not yet available. All we know is from the press statement.
For example, the court ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to these damages without even hearing them personally on what kind of injury they sustained. This is an interesting direction, and we will see how it is argued in the decision itself. I would assume this could be something that Meta challenges on appeal.
Another way to go would be to argue that this lawsuit involves unresolved questions of EU law that need to be addressed by the ECJ.
In either case, this verdict will create some legal uncertainty in the short term, and I assume many people will sue---but we shall see what happens on appeal and perhaps at the ECJ, which will perhaps be a couple of years out.
I think there is opportunity for a more design-oriented tool in this space. I tried pitch.com a while back and was a heavy Google Slides user for a while, but, like the author, I keep coming back to Keynote.
What drives me nuts, however, is the lacking vector workflow in Keynote. The only way to export vector graphics is by exporting as a PDF. Import is similarly difficult. I wonder how this is done internally at Apple, but I would assume that everything we see these days in the keynotes is done using Motion anyways.
I have run into similar issues and I agree, it’s not without flaws. The formula editor is another example, as others have pointed out.
A good solution I have found to your particular problem is to use checkboxes in the cells. You can select them as a cell type and it converts from Boolean value text to checkbox. I also prefer that, as a user, to typing True/False.
Given that most of our civilization is run using these tools, it boggles the mind how they are still so limited.
Why is there a limit of nine levels of headings in Word? Why does it feel less usable on my i9 with 32GB of RAM once you hit 200+ pages? Why is the "collaborative mode" still way, way, way behind Google Docs functionality circa 2012? I feel like the core functionality has stagnated since Office 2003.
To my surprise, what used to be called iWork has been my main "Office" replacement for years now. It's good enough, and it's free. I have switched over most of the non-technical people in my life to it, and they have no issues using it (except if they email a .pages document to a Windows user).
I especially enjoy Numbers and the way you can arrange multiple tables on a page. It's a different paradigm coming from Google Sheets or Excel and takes some getting used to, but to me it now makes more sense.
Of course, if I need something "done right", I'll drop down to Affinity, LaTeX, or InDesign. But I rarely have these needs nowadays.
A similar argument could be made for going all in on Google Docs/Sheets/Slides, but I feel queasy knowing that all of my data is in a free Google account, after reading some of the stories here about reaching Google support if something goes sideways.
Interestingly, Apple apparently confirmed to a French website that M4 lacks the interconnect required to make an "Ultra" [0][1], so contrary to what I originally thought, they maybe won't make this after all? I'll take this report with a grain of salt, but apparently it's coming directly from Apple.
Makes it even more puzzling what they are doing with the M2 Mac Pro.
I agree. Nonetheless, I agree with Siracusa that the Mac Pro makes sense as a "halo car" in the Mac lineup.
I just find it interesting that you can currently buy a M2 Ultra Mac Pro that is weaker than the Mac Studio (for a comparable config) at a higher price. I guess it "remains a product in their lineup" and we'll hear more about it later.
Additionally: If they wanted to scrap it down the road, why would they do this now?
They update the Studio to M3 Ultra now, so M4 Ultra can presumably go directly into the Mac Pro at WWDC? Interesting timing. Maybe they'll change the form factor of the Mac Pro, too?
Additionally, I would assume this is a very low-volume product, so it being on N3B isn't a dealbreaker. At the same time, these chips must be very expensive to make, so tying them with luxury-priced RAM makes some kind of sense.
This kind of thing has been done for a couple of years now, if I understand the Vodafone offer correctly. Binge On in the U.S. (or StreamOn in Germany) by T-Mobile is the same thing, and the Deutsche Telekom used to offer a plan where you get free Spotify streaming, no matter the state of your data plan.
But then again: Does this kind of marketing touch the _core_ problem of net neutrality? You could argue that--as long as the user's high-speed data is intact--all of these services operate at the same speed.
Of course, this is an incentive to users to choose Spotify or WhatsApp over some competitor, but you could argue that _because_ they're giving you the same speed for everything as long as you still have data, it's not as bad as other approaches (not that I think it's a good thing).
Then again, it probably is a really slippery slope.
I learned OpenCV using the O'Reilly book by Bradski and Kaehler (back when it was OpenCV 2). I found it well-structured and it worked for me. They have an updated version for OpenCV 3.
However, I can't tell you if OpenCV is still the framework of choice and/or widely used in the field you want to go into.
This looks cool, I especially like the lower-case characters (with the possible exception of the descender on the g). Also, the idea of using a monospaced font as a display font rather than a font for restricted environments (terminals) is new to me.
This may be a tangent, but speaking of mono fonts sponsored by big SV firms: Am I the only one who would like to see Apple's San Francisco Mono (which they stealthily debuted at WWDC) released properly (i.e. as an independent font file)? It's currently in the Xcode preview, but you can't use it anywhere else.
Okay, first off: This is great. The most popular messaging app finally gets the security it needed. And we've just rolled out E2E to 1b 'monthly active users'.
However, I have always wondered one thing about WhatsApp: How does it generate any kind of meaningful revenue?
Apparently they've ditched the old $1 subscription model [0], and even that was so loosely enforced that I have never paid a single cent for WhatsApp in my life--and never will (got it while it was free on the iOS App Store and now have a 'Lifetime' subscription, if they don't change those at some point).
And even back then, maybe half of their 900m monthly active users [1] were iOS users who paid only once, and the rest may have dodged the fee in various ways. I have a really hard time believing the revenues so gained could ever actually cover the cost of R&D (especially for so many platforms) and infrastructure (which should be huge, given the amount of data they shift). Now they say they want customers to use WhatsApp as a platform, the way Facebook Messenger is doing it, but I'm not seeing any of those features implemented anywhere.
I always assumed there was some heavy data analysis going on behind the scenes--which would have been fair, I guess, since we're neither being shown ads nor really paying. Facebook's involvement added to that conviction. Now that they're encrypting everything (which, again, is wonderful), they can't analyze what is really, really interesting data anymore (keywords, etc.). And it's not like there was a public outcry for them to take this step--I would guess that not many end users actually appreciate the importance of E2E encryption.
So the question remains: How are they making money? You still have metadata (I presume), but then again, how do they use this data to make money if they can't always match it to a Facebook profile (where they can show you ads), and also, does this data really provide such a big improvement over all the data collected by Facebook and Facebook messenger? It just seems strange to me that WhatsApp apparently does not want to make any money.
Does anyone have any insight on this? What am I missing?
Out of sheer curiosity: Does anyone know/suspect if Netflix is actually using techniques in addition to blocking IPs of known proxy/vpn/unblocking services? Because I would imagine that is a bit like fighting a hydra, very labor- and cost-intensive, yet they are getting excellent results (apparently, still, the sample of people who complain and thus get media coverage is pretty biased).
Is anyone with a 'homegrown' vpn tunnel experiencing issues? I could also think of a solution involving cookies/fingerprinting that detects if someone's geolocation moves around quicker and more often than is physically possible.
I'm sure the technology is under tight wraps, and I'm also sure that other companies will be dying to license this from Netflix if they get it right, even if it's just a lengthy list of IPs (e.g. the BBC for iPlayer).
For those who are interested in Klee's personal notebooks, this collection of Bauhaus eBooks on the same site could also be of interest (iirc, HN brought me to these a couple of months ago):
http://monoskop.org/Bauhaus#Books
But still, it corrects incorrect things that my spell checker doesn't see, like inconsistent spacing and 'goofy approximations' like (R) for ®. (Depends on your definition of incorrect, but I personally would not mind at all if these things were homogenized for everyone, it would not take any richness out of the English language).
What I'd like (--help doesn't list such an option) would be to be able to enable some checks with a flag while disabling other parts (the ones that contain suggestions you can elect to break).
Of course, that would be the ideal way of combating this. If you're talking about financial stakes in certain findings however, these might be hard to prove (and stalking colleagues to prove they're playing dirty is not and shouldn't be in the spirit of the academic debate).
I think the procedure itself entails a conflict of interest: If you dispute certain findings by certain researchers (and you have a clear agenda), how can you be trusted to write an objective year-end summary of relevant findings in the field? I think these kinds of articles are the root of the problem. Of course, it would be far from easy to find an objective voice interested in writing these without having an 'ulterior opinion'. Still, I think editors should at least bar researchers from summarizing what they have a stake in (or summarizing a debate that they have taken part in during the last couple of months).
I'm not saying there is not a general problem with internet addiction, however:
The sample size is ridiculous. 27 participants is--as far as my understanding goes--not very representative. To make a news article based on this sample claiming that half of US students could be addicted is really a stretch. I understand that the researchers acknowledge this and have followed a qualitative approach (focusing on stories, backgrounds, etc. rather than facts and numbers), yet the title misrepresents that.
That's a load-bearing "if", though, given the incohesiveness of legal systems compared to typical Bitter Lesson examples.