That definitely addresses the privacy issue, but some of the automatic braking and driver awareness monitoring is a bit much for me. For example, Subaru now puts a camera in the dash that frequently scans your face and makes a beeping noise if it thinks you're not paying attention. As you can imagine, it beeps a lot.
The NTSB's publishing of the transcript but not the recording is a pretty standard means for providing full privacy while increasing safety. A recording allows an incident analysis which is extremely useful in updating safety procedures to prevent incidents and plan for the ones that do occur. Publishing the raw sound recording reduces privacy with no increase in safety, but publishing an analysis of the recordings does not harm privacy, while getting the entire safety benefit.
This is different than a privacy vs liability conflict, where a recording isn't going to provide a safety benefit, it'll just move liability around, where there's far more controversy over publishing any analysis of the recording, or even creating one in the first place.
The NTSB should never have published the unredacted spectrograph, as it is effectively a raw sound recording.
That’s very interesting. You’d think he would get bailed out, right? Being a big dumb idiot shouldn’t really get you thrown in jail for an extended period of time. Maybe we can bring back the stocks!
The military doesn't pay for quality, they pay for compliance. When you wrap everything in rules about rules, you end up paying $5 for a part and $95 for paperwork.
So if your service is proprietary, but your client is open source, it looks like your're free to go.
As someone that relies on third-party clients to get usable interfaces, if this gets widely adopted it would be great news. It would end the cat-and-mouse game from companies trying to force users onto first-party clients.
But only if the user is not getting the app through an app store but from a "code repository"? I'm not sure if I interpret that correctly, but at first glance it seems confusing and ambiguous.
Does that mean I need to download the Android apk from a git repository? Would a clever lawyer be able to argue that the release section on GitHub is outside the repository and therefore not fulfilling this clause?
Would F-Droid still not be exempt because it is structured like a store and offers pre-built binaries?
But the text says "or," not "and." So by my interpretation if you process user data but are available via "free, public" repo, you're not covered. I presume "free" is defined elsewhere in the text, and that it approximates "open-source."
(e) AN OPERATING SYSTEM PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER THAT DISTRIBUTES AN OPERATING SYSTEM OR APPLICATION UNDER LICENSE TERMS THAT PERMIT A RECIPIENT TO COPY, REDISTRIBUTE, AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE WITHOUT ANY PLATFORM-IMPOSED TECHNICAL OR CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PROVIDER OR DEVELOPER ON INSTALLING ALL MODIFIED VERSIONS.
Aha, thanks! So I think that raises the question of whether e.g. RHEL is affected. Technically it could be argued that they don't add any additional restrictions, but I wonder if Colorado will see it that way.
If you ever want to whistle blow or otherwise leak private information, this would be a great way to do it. Don't just blatantly run the script on your user account, but anonymously upload it as a plug-in that does the scraping and something useless, like tells you which floating-point numbers are even (none of them) then run that and play the victim.
At first I though the Apple one had a half-dozen departments actually coordinating on something, but then I took a closer look and realized it's just more micromanagement.
There’s an interview with someone talking about Steve having an extreme melt down rage about the header not being technically centered in one spot on the Apple page.
I want to see his reaction trying to type a message on the iPhone keyboard from anytime in the past 7 years.
Or navigate the random nonsensical grouping of stuff in settings that got so out of control they added a search bar or watch a pip video or really use anything. Every feature has some sloppy problem.
It used to be excusable as nobody else was trying and they’d be working to fix it. Now they just add a feature that’s sub par to things already out there, no innovation, and then it feels sloppy. Most things just don’t feel good to use down to the size and weight of phones now. Rather than fix the problem Apple just keeps copying the homework and claiming they can’t fix perfect.
Steve would be punching holes in the wall. Probably would stomp a hole through the floor to strangle the keyboard team
And that's just the iPhone keyboard. The physical keyboards on MacBookPros are still terrible. I've had two of them where some of the keys shorted out or stopped working. Eventually, thinness has diminishing returns. I'd rather have a thicker/heavier keyboard where the keys don't die.
My thought on this was always that micromanaging in this structure is rational and maybe even the best. It's not really a Jobs thing—though he's (right or wrong) probably the picture most people have in their head when they think of visionary CEO—it's just that if the leader has a vision then it is great if they're capable of having everything run through them. It's when there's no vision at the top and no leaders sitting across the silos pulling things together that it helps the company to have people below with increasing autonomy. Whether the autonomous people should be higher or lower depends on which other org structure you've chosen. Silos are fine when leaders have a vision. That said, I haven't seen many groups that placed power in the place where their chosen org structure is meant to place power.
reply