Yeah I'm honestly not sure why people would be surprised at this comparison - Whole Foods and Trader Joe's are specialty stores. Nobody goes into them just to buy a head of lettuce.
Trader Joe's has their own in-store brands for tons of products, which has spawned various guides on what should/shouldn't be bough there (https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/save-money/what-to-buy-at-tr... for example). CVS, on the other hand, is a far more general store. They both sell food, but they're not in the same market segment - so the comparison is strange.
Honestly? That would be awesome. I already have security cameras set up like that (although not wireless) - just home devices that do things for me and report back to a central server in my home. That server can connect to the internet (when I want it to), grab new firmware for the cameras, then disconnect and send out the firmware.
That's pretty much all I want from home automation as well. I see the value in being able to say "Alexa, turn down the lights" and having AWS do the voice recognition - but given that I can't trust services to stay more than a few years, I'm not going to invest in it.
Yes, and those people might visit a website, which asks for...shudder...cookies. If you can show that the cookies do something nefarious, I'd be interested. Do you think they general population would even get to the point of installing an APK?
"Consider what that means for Mossad"
At this point, you can't even prove that the APK does anything nefarious - and it would be dangerous for the Mossad if it did, because the challenge is literally to decompile the APK.
Does anyone have insight on why they're making this change? All they say in this post is "In our effort to continuously improve customer experience". From my point of view as a customer, I don't really see an experiential difference between a subdomain style and a path style - one's a ".", the other's a "/" - but I imagine there's a good reason for the change.
At 32 seconds into the video, you can see a few frames of a Google Sheet where one column is the name of the sport (you can see "Quidditch" quite a few times) and a second column is a rule, like "The Chasers are there to try and keep posession of the Quaffle...". Looks like one row per rule. Teh filename is "AKQA AI SPORT".
No idea if that's what they used for the actual training, though.
First, amazing post, I want to see a blog post of someone's day entirely like this.
> That isolation is great though because I went straight back to enjoying my beer.
Second, I find the isolation to be a bit leaky - rarely am I immediately back to my normal operation. Maybe I need to reimplement my VM.
Third, isolation in theory is great, but in practice requires far too many resources. I agree that the "internal virtual machine" metaphor is fantastic, but if everyone is running it to fit in with society...we're wasting a ton of brain space at the societal level.
I think you'd get far more traffic if you linked to a page that actually has information (https://code.headmelted.com/) instead of to the list of builds!
In any case, this is awesome and I'll definitely give it a try
I've written this type of script before - I didn't need too much in the way of debugging. Mine (similar to GP, it seems) didn't actually do the registration, just save the current state of known divs or even the whole page. Then it would send me an update if that changed.
So, I didn't need to debug what happens when the class shows "open" - I just saved the div that said "closed" and sent myself an email/text any time it didn't say exactly that.
Clickbait title - the "this" referenced is Instagram, and other social media accounts.
"...hiring managers are more likely to check your Instagram account."
"...38% search for social media accounts..."
"When evaluating a candidate, I check for a Twitter profile to see what types of articles are shared, where he or she gets news, what content is of value to the candidate, and how he or she engages with other people"
I wrote this in another comment, but this is only partially true. The GDPR protections can potentially extend to non-EU citizens who travel to the EU, but the letter of the law seems to state that that's only true if data is actually collected while the person is in the EU. In other words, Facebook and others could potentially say "if this data is geotagged in the EU, don't record it. Wait until they're back in the US." Then, since no data collection happened in the EU, they wouldn't have the right to get it deleted.
Edit: rereading https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/, it specifically mentions the "processing of data", not just storing. In other words, Facebook could potentially stop an American from logging in when in Europe. Would they? Likely not, it would hurt their business. But what if I (an American) sign on via a British VPN?
It also doesn't answer what would happen to the data of EU citizens who are never geotagged in the EU (due to living outside of it), but also have shadow profiles created without their consent anyway. The first GDPR lawsuit will be fascinating.
It may be - but that would just allow Facebook to say "if the login is from an EU IP, don't save this record" - but the rest of your profile, generated in the United States, can still remain. As long as no collection happens while you're within the EU, they may be fine. The whole thing will have to play itself out in court, it seems.
This is technically true, but there are a lot of really weird implementation details. Since GDPR only applies to EU citizens, and those citizens could physically be anywhere in the world, how Facebook implements this will be super interesting.
Think about how a shadow profile gets created, for example - they notice that a group of three people keep getting tagged in photos, but there's a fourth person in the pictures who doesn't have a Facebook profile. The three people keep logging in from the same physical place (say, in the U.S.), and that same place is where the pictures are geolocated. You can assume this fourth person was in the U.S. So, Facebook starts a shadow profile on him - pictures he could have been tagged in, locations he probably was in, interests he probably has based on the intersection of his friends' interests.
But this guy is actually an EU citizen who showed up in the U.S. for a vacation. Uh oh. When would Facebook have found that out? When would they have asked this guy to opt-in? Can they assume everyone in the U.S. is not an EU citizen until told otherwise?
So that's going to be a really interesting thing to watch. Technically, the answer to your question is no - GDPR has nothing to do with being in the EU, it has to do with being a citizen of the EU. So if you're an American who travels to the EU, your shadow profile might get tagged with being in the EU, but you're still not eligible for GDPR protections.
On the other hand, if you're an EU citizen living in the United States for the last 20 years (meaning, before the advent of Facebook), you technically have the right to request that all your data be deleted from Facebook's servers.
Now, how will you know if they have data on you? Can you just assume that they do and make the request anyway? Will tech companies begin verifying your citizenship to tell if GDPR really applies to you? We'll soon see.
You should track the "longest shortest paths" of things and display them - has anyone managed to hit 10 degrees of separation, for example? If someone finds one, let us know!