"Consent" and "Legitimate Interest" are legal terminology - they're two bases defined in GDPR and have different implications and requirements for balancing user and processor interests.

When the author says that Persona claims the "legitimate interest" basis for these data, they're saying that Persona is trying to achieve maximum flexibility for using the data (since "consent" generally requires specific agreement on a specific use for the data, and the burden of maintaining the consent records, where "legitimate interest" does not).

https://www.bulletproof.co.uk/blog/consent-vs-legitimate-int...

Sometimes, but if your product is a platform (or anything beyond a niche solution in a broader problem domain) then you're going to spend some time showing people how to make it work best for them.

This chart shows total tax receipts as a percent of GDP, which doesn't seem to address the poster's contention that historically the rich paid a higher share of those receipts through elevated marginal tax rates.

They don't NEED them, but better project estimates can reduce the error bars on other dependent estimates (e.g. estimated sales, estimated ship dates, estimated staffing requirements, etc...), and that might be useful to a business (or not).

Plenty of my former coworkers have evolved into lifelong substantial friendships.

What started with smalltalk evolved into conversations over lunch which then afforded after work socializing which then led to actively scheduling time for shared interests. All of those provided ample opportunity to learn almost everything about that person and open the door to a deep friendship when mutually desired.

The three arxiv links being summarized are included in the article.

The code was just created to support some broader goal, which it presumably did much of the time. The value of those goals is where the meaning comes from.

A chef reflecting on their life would hardly lament that every meal they'd ever crafted ended up in the bin (or the toilet).

Much of the coding we do is repetitive and exists in the training data, so I think its pretty great if AI can eliminate that toil and liberate the meat to focus on the creative work.

There’s a reason they call working at Google “shuffling protobufs” for the vast majority of engineers. Most software work isn’t innovative compression algorithms. It’s moving data around, which is a well understood problem

Looks like he's updated the text, striking through "robustness" and substituting "adaptability"

Don't disagree with any of that, and I don't want to minimize the seriousness of the issues you've cited, but that kind of reinforces the implication of the scorecard?

People are persistently presented with perils (plagues, parasites, pollution, power-hungry politicians, propaganda, plutonium-powered projectiles, etc...) and humanity keeps finding a way through (though certainly at great personal and population-wide cost sometimes).

Some pretty serious chokepoints in the full history (including research suggesting that something reduced our ancestors numbers by ~99% a little under a million years ago) and yet this particular strain remains.

The whole history of the humankind is akin to that passage of Odysseus between Scylla and Charybdis. The further into it, the narrower it becomes. And exponentially at that...

Thank you for sharing your hopes for the better outcome no matter what, I'm with you on this.

What would a Neanderthal say about this?

What would a Denesovian say about this?

More generally, what would _any_ collapsed society or extinct evolutionary branch have to say?

"Not much", outside of what they'd contributed to any surviving lines.

To your point, whether we're winning or losing very much depends on how we define our team.