It would be great if you could create a separate links page for individual teams within an organization. The most important and most complicated links at my work tend to be specific to my team, and are not relevant to the rest of the company.
PodTalk is a podcast app that lets you add voice comments and talk with other listeners.
It features a Reddit-style comment system with upvotes and all that.
Right now there is only one podcast available: EconTalk. If there's enough demand, I will add a couple more. I'm deliberately limiting the podcast selection.
I made this app because I often talk to myself while listening to EconTalk. I thought there might be other people doing the same.
The website doesn't give me a lot of information - The main page has a neat screenshot, but it wasn't evident that it shares the posts or has community about them.
Maybe you can add some information about that community element to the main page?
Econometric models typically do not say anything about causality. For example, the coefficients in OLS are just correlation, i.e. one unit increase in X is associated with $\beta$ increase in Y. Let's say that we regress "happiness" on "being married." It's impossible to tell which way does the causal relation flow, or if "happiness" and "being married" are both caused by a third factor altogether.
In contrast, causal models explicitly think about when we can claim that an effect is causal.
From the econometrics I have seen there is a heavy focus on finding correlations and at best argumentations whether such correlations are plausible causal relationships.
Good scientific method suggests working in the opposite direction: first make a hypothesis, then test it. Working backwards from the statistical test to the hypothesis is... troublesome.
Many academic fields are overlapping, yet have a surprising ignorance of each other. Tenure is largely independent of one's knowledge outside one's own field.
We've tossed around ideas like this -- including something similar to how Numerai uses staking for their data science competitions. The security researcher would stake a small amount based on their confidence that the report is an impactful vulnerability.
I think it's an interesting idea, but could be complicated to get right. We’re also wary of creating barriers that are too prohibitive for some of the really great and hard-working researchers in the world.
I think an easy solution may be to build good vetting tools and a thorough process: a short application, technical interview, and/or trial periods for new researchers. Right now though, we’re personally reviewing every researcher. :)
A big part of this, too, is providing the environment where researchers can learn and emphasize their existing contributions. I think there’s a lot we can do there, while still allowing researchers to provide a lot of value.
That'd be interesting--a small, maybe even just $1-10, deposit that gets refunded if the bug is legitimate.
I don't think punishing dupes is a good idea though, because a researcher has no idea (and should have no idea) whether their bug has been found before, so dupes should probably still result in a refund.
However, as a kid who has no credit card, but has found some pretty spicy bugs (and gotten rewarded for them), it would make it impossible for me to report them.
We definitely don't want to discourage you from contributing. It also doesn't necessarily have to be money, you could stake reputation you've previously earned.
The dupes problem is super important, in my opinion, because it's currently an unpleasant experience for both sides. Not getting paid out for valid work that has simply been reported before (but not disclosed) can make doing this kind of research as a freelancer unfeasible, while triaging duplicate reports burns time for dev teams.
We've tried to build out in-scope/out-of-scope functionality that makes it super simple to keep your scopes current (could even update automatically via API). We definitely want to build out additional functionality that makes publicly acknowledging known, 'won't fix', and non-impactful issues super easy, perhaps by pulling most of the information from a duplicate report. Do you think that’d be useful?
The other thing we want to really focus on is the disclosure process, and encouraging companies to do it as often and soon as possible.
It absolutely does not. That is still entirely legal. All the GDPR does is make sure that the entity you're trading with is up front about what data they are collecting, and what it will be used for, giving you the ability to make an informed decision.
That's not all it does. Among the other things it does:
It requires the entity to give you the ability to delete your personal data, which means a contract where you grant a service a permanent and irrevocable right to data about you in exchange for a service is illegal.
It also requires the entity to provide an equivalent service to any site visitor that chooses to not grant their data to the entity, thus making the business model of trading even revocable access to one's data for a service unviable in the long run.
It makes it illegal to offer a service in exchange for data that is stored without end-user retrievability. Therefore, it makes a contract where you grant a service irretrievable data about you in exchange for a service is illegal.
All of these reduce the range of possible voluntary interactions. It's anti consent.
No, they do not. Not a single one of those reduces the range of voluntary interactions. If anything, they increase the range, because now it actually is voluntary.
And it is bonkers to imply that something that requires you to actually get affirmative consent from the user is "anti consent". You know what's really anti consent? 10 page TOS listings written in 10pt font that hide what's actually being done with data deep inside.
I just gave you examples of voluntary interactions that are now illegal under the GDPR programme, and you respond that none of the examples reduce the range of voluntary interactions. It's bizarre.
>>You know what's really anti consent? 10 page TOS listings written in 10pt font that hide what's actually being done with data deep inside.
I agree that it is anti-consent. I don't have a problem with laws requiring more legible consent forms.
My problem is the many limitations on the range of voluntary interactions that two parties can enter into that are found in the GDPR, a few of which I listed, and which you totally ignored.
"I just gave you examples of voluntary interactions that are now illegal under the GDPR programme, and you respond that none of the examples reduce the range of voluntary interactions. It's bizarre."
No, you didn't. You gave a list of one-sided transactions where the user has no freedom or really consent at all in the matter.
"My problem is the many limitations on the range of voluntary interactions that two parties can enter into that are found in the GDPR, a few of which I listed, and which you totally ignored."
No, you didn't. All you did was post a list of "transactions" where the company has all the say, and the user really has no input whatsoever. No one is going to miss those transactions.
If you truly, honestly are concerned with "consent", then you should be applauding this law, as it does require actual, informed, affirmative consent. Not the "Here's a great wall of text, agree to give us every little bit of data with no recourse whatsoever for you or don't get any access to the service at all" form of "consent".
I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously the idea that "if you can't sell yourself into slavery, you aren't free".
>>No, you didn't. You gave a list of one-sided transactions where the user has no freedom or really consent at all in the matter.
I have difficulty responding to such an immature mischaracterization of what I listed.
I listed a set of contractual arrangements that are now illegal. All of them could be entered into completely consensually, and cannot be reduced to being categorically one sided, given we don't know what the value of the service the user gets in exchange for their personal data will be in every instance that said contract is used.
You're infantilizing people when you claim they're not capable of consenting to the sale of their personal data. In fact, no court of law would ever agree with you that these contracts are non-consensual ipso facto what the user offers, which is why the only way these kinds of contracts could be categorically disqualified is to circumvent the courts' purview of establishing consent, by resorting to statutory interventions like GDPR.
And you're vastly over-simplifying the world, and overestimating your understanding of it, when you claim that such contracts could never be in the interest of the user.
What you're doing is absolutely reckless.
>>I'm sorry, but I cannot take seriously the idea that "if you can't sell yourself into slavery, you aren't free".
Selling your personal data to someone is not slavery. Slavery is a permanent condition, affecting your future self.
Personal data sold at one point in time only covers the data generated to that point in time, and does not forfeit data that is generated by your future self.
>I listed a set of contractual arrangements that are now illegal. All of them could be entered into completely consensually, and cannot be reduced to being categorically one sided, given we don't know what the value of the service the user gets in exchange for their personal data will be in every instance that said contract is used.
And in that set, you predicated that the user could not revoke consent. That means that it is not a free contract.
>And you're vastly over-simplifying the world, and overestimating your understanding of it, when you claim that such contracts could never be in the interest of the user.
A contract in which one can not revoke consent is a contract in which one can never truly give consent. If I am unable to revoke my consent, then it can never be in the interest of the user, because my interest may change in the future.
>What you're doing is absolutely reckless.
No, what was absolutely reckless was the attitude of this industry that they should be entitled to suck up every last piece of data they could.
>Selling your personal data to someone is not slavery. Slavery is a permanent condition, affecting your future self.
Which is what you're pushing for. You don't want me to be able to withdraw consent later, thus my selling of data WILL affect my future self.
>Personal data sold at one point in time only covers the data generated to that point in time, and does not forfeit data that is generated by your future self.
It still affects your future self.
Once again, you have twisted this idea of "freedom" so badly, that you are claiming that it is anti-freedom for the user to have the freedom to withdraw consent! You should be ecstatic that you will now be able to exercise greater freedom than you could before. You will have that most basic of freedom to evaluate whether or not something is still in your interest, and if it's not, withdraw, without the other party still benefiting off of your information.
>>And in that set, you predicated that the user could not revoke consent.
No I didn't. I said that these contracts enable the user to sell their personal data. If a personal data sales contract includes a clause allowing you to 'revoke consent' AFTER 'selling' your data, then you are renting your data, not selling it.
By making contracts without such clauses illegal, you are reducing the space of contractual interaction, in making it impossible to sell one's personal data.
>>That means that it is not a free contract.
Again, I have difficulty responding to such immature mischaracterizations of reality.
Selling your personal data is a 100% "free contract".
>>No, what was absolutely reckless was the attitude of this industry that they should be entitled to suck up every last piece of data they could.
You obviously don't care to debate this issue based on rational arguments and facts. You're debating in bad faith. You've already made up your mind and are more than willing to mischaracterize the situation, and people's position, to push your views.
>>It still affects your future self.
Everything you do affects your future self, but this particular type of sale does not cover data genereted by your future self. It only covers what you have already generated.
It's absurd and totally dishonest to compare it to selling oneself into slavery. It's nothing more than hysterical fearmongering about the free market, in support of government limiting people's contractual rights.
>>Once again, you have twisted this idea of "freedom" so badly, that you are claiming that it is anti-freedom for the user to have the freedom to withdraw consent!
You're once again mischaracterizing the ability to re-voke a sale, after the fact, as "withdraw consent".
When you sell something to someone, you no longer have a claim to that something, and thus the other party no longer needs your consent to maintain ownership of it.
That I really need to explain the semantics of ownership to you, and explain how allowing retroactive and unilateral reversals of sales makes it impossible to sell something, shows just how completely delusional and dishonest you're being.
Terms that you accept by clicking an "I accept" button can be a proper, considered contract. From what I understand GDPR requires more legible terms of service, in place of the undecipherable legalese one finds now, which could potentially help with the issue of users not understanding what they're accepting.
I don't see why the new rules couldn't have been limited to those of this sort, which ensure that users are providing considered agreement.
There is an interesting parallel here between bottom-up programming and the common law system. Common-law courts don't create law in advance; they wait for conflicts to arise.
After enough similar conflicts arise and cases have been decided, an abstract "law" organically emerges that is used to decide future similar conflicts.
It's also kind of just like concept formation and theory building in science.
In algebraically or mathematically oriented communities like much of the Haskell world, you see a similar kind of "bottom-up programming" but with an added focus on compositional structures with laws for reasoning.
When a Haskell module really comes together beautifully, it's because you've managed to extract useful standalone concepts that combine in an algebraic way, with binary operators, associativity, and so on.
Eric Evans in Domain-Driven Design, usually considered a book about object orientation, also comes to a conclusion that if most of a program's logic can be expressed in pure functions and closed operations on value objects, then you can attain a "supple design."
I suppose the Lisp community has concepts like "value abstractions and syntactic abstractions" or something like that, one of them being related to well-suited data types, and the other being related to macros.
Incidentally, I've recently come to realize that Agda, the dependently-typed Haskell-style language, comes very close to being Lisp-like in its support for syntactic abstractions: you can go a long way with just custom mixfix operators (e.g., defining if_then_else_)... and then there's also a sophisticated macro system, using an AST data type and a "typechecker monad."
I think it would be better if you gave drivers/customers complete control over everything.
Let drivers choose their pick up area (like a circle on a map), drop off area, price, pickup time (15-minute window), whitelist/blacklist customers, etc.
Then riders can see what drivers are offering and decide if it's worth it. Riders could also post requests that drivers could bid for.
Unless I'm using the product wrong...