> What, exactly, should Walmart's response to shoplifting be? The article seems to make a point of the low dollar-value of some of the items stolen vs. how much the police spend arresting the subjects. I fail to see why the value of the stolen goods matters from a illegality perspective; it's not like Walmart can punish the shoplifters themselves.
Honestly, shoplifting and other small scale financial crime committed by individuals who are not conspiring, should be largely considered in financial terms.
This is sadly one of those situations where the guy's heart is in the right place but he is simply wrong on the number.
$11-15[1] by 2020 is a reasonable national range for a minimum wage with certain states/localities raising it higher. The simple fact is, the peach picker in rural Georgia has a lower cost of living than the Subway "sandwhich artist" in NYC.
[1] 2016 Dollars, permanently adjusting for inflation against 2016 USD indefinitely. This whole "random correct every so often" is simply disruptive to both businesses and workers since it makes projection difficult compared to small, annual raises linked to inflation.
> It's trivially easy for Google to do this already without the NHS data, and they don't face prison time for doing it. See all the pregnant teens outed by supermarket loyalty cards for other examples.
And how many members of the general population do you think are aware of this?
> I understand "the" NHS is complex, but it's pretty frustrating talking to someone who has very strong opinions and who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
It probably has something to do with the fact you are completely missing the point I'm discussing rather than the strength of my opinions.
Well, they'd also need the codebook where you store the passphrase to get the other half of the password.
So if you change the master password regularly, they'd need to hack a database in that time window and steal your codebook. I highly doubt anyone would put that level of effort in.
1) I have a disagreement with bait and switch data privacy laws that are publicly sold as anonymous when everyone can tell from the implementation details that they are not.
2) You asked why they were astonished. Well, #1 is why. Most people don't have the time/energy/desire to study the implementation details on every facet of their lives.
Its psuedononymous data the NHS has previously admitted can be deanonymized given sufficient effort but such deanonymization carries criminal and civil penalties.
> "All necessary safeguards would be in place to ensure protection of patients' details - the data will be anonymised and the process will be carefully and robustly regulated.
> "Proper regulation and essential safeguards need to be in place when it comes to patients data," he said. "It cannot be done in a way where essential rules are threatened."
The legality of these data sharing laws start off with public promises of anonymization, robust regulation, safeguards, and privacy.
> Amber data are where we remove each patient’s identifiers (their date of birth, postcode, and so on) and replace them with a meaningless pseudonym that bears no relationship to their “real world” identity. Amber data are essential for tracking how individuals interact with the different parts of the NHS and social care over time. For example, using amber data we can see how the NHS cares for cohorts of patients who are admitted repeatedly to hospital but who seldom visit their GP. In theory, a determined analyst could attempt to re-identify individuals within amber data by linking them to other data sets. For this reason, we never publish amber data. Instead, amber data are only made available under a legal contract to approved analysts for approved purposes. The contract stipulates how the data must be stored and protected, and how the data must be destroyed afterwards. Any attempt to re-identify an individual is strictly prohibited and there is a range of criminal and civil penalties for any infringements.
The problem with psuedonymous data is the NHS basically admits it can be used to identify people given sufficient effort.
---
That is why people are "astonished" by these decisions. The politician provides the initial promises that imply anonymity, the implementation doesn't provide true anonymity but provides criminal penalties for pulling off the mask, and then the data is handed to enough 3rd parties if such data is leaked its likely impossible to know by whom unless the data was tampered with to provide a per-contract identifier.
I understand this specific decision did not involve a politician but the conversation was why people are surprised. How many people do you think really know the anonymity originally promised became a permeable pseudonym?
Because politicians keep making promises in regards to privacy that they don't keep in regards to "confidential" information.
Similarly, most of the medical value from such information [e.g. Frequency of X within a given population fitting certain characteristics] would likely deanonymize people.
> To me that's just bizarre. It's like Trump saying he'd be a great president and Obama meeting with him and saying he's the real deal, it'd just wouldn't happen.
It would happen if Gavin was Satoshi. Gavin attempts to permanently deflect things on to a smooth talking conman with liquidity problems to maintain his privacy.
Hell, he could even give Wright some of the bitcoins as payment for the cover.
> About 2 years ago the tenor of the publications shifted from libertarian to more and more reactionary (bordering on proto-fascist). When I skip the articles nowdays, I think that the authors have no problem with authoritarianism, as long as taxes are reduced and social welfare is gutted (it is obviously not stated as such, but most opinion-pieces speak for themself).
I think the problem with this is their ideological goals are to starve the beast and play at being antiestablishment. They were always unscrupulous about the how and have been since at least 2011 when I first noticed they existed.
I honestly don't think the tone has changed substantially.
> (Bloomberg LP competes with Zero Hedge in providing financial news and information.)
Does anyone else feel this is particularly generous?
ZeroHedge is borderline conspiracy theorist nonsense surrounded by occasionally correct financial analysis with a level of accuracy on par with a dart board.
> You assume a constant price for gasoline, which is a bold assumption, given that the oil markets are currently gyrating wildly, and have been for some time - we're likely to see prices at the pump go up by orders of magnitude over a relatively short timescale, which will provide a big push towards EV adoption, and will drive people away from older vehicles which guzzle gas.
Sorry, that isn't likely. We have basically "infinite" (50+ years worth) of Oil @ $100 [1] [2] [3] a barrel which is why all those shale wells came online when oil was priced higher. We've already been ~$100 for years at a time. Similarly, the shift to greener technologies is going to put downward pressure on it once it is back to the ~$100 baseline from years past.
> Hiring in CS / IT is massively more objective compared to most of other fields.
That is the illusion many people have convinced themselves of but literally 0 of my coworkers could answer the questions I was asked simply because don't have similar responsibilities despite us applying for literally word-for-word identical job ads.
The reality is, unless you do X regularly, you simply aren't going to be able to impress people with your answer to X.
> Do I want to see booters online? Of course not.
> But if CloudFlare were to shut them down without due process, that would damage their credibility - to the point where I would feel uncomfortable doing business with them.
The problem with this stance is it appears to be a conflict of interest. The easier it is to access a booter site, the more people who need Cloudflare's services.
I'm not saying that is the reason they do it. I'm just saying that is a conflict of interest that can really only be resolved by removing clearly labeled booter sites.
> Think also from the customer standpoint: people who need DDoS protection are people who are having their site shutdown without due process (by criminals who launch DoS attacks). When the company you hire to fix the problem becomes part of the problem, it's not good - and they would be part of the problem if they offered a 'send us an email and we shut down our users' denial of service attack vector.
Hosting booters makes them part of the problem is the flaw in that logic.
Honestly, shoplifting and other small scale financial crime committed by individuals who are not conspiring, should be largely considered in financial terms.