If my workplace announced that policy I'd just assume they wanted to know how productive I actually was. I would leave on time to signal that I had an appropriate workload.
Facebook beat them to it... that's the whole reason for tagged images imo. Then they can relate identities with each other and with exif gps data to track their movements over time.
HN discussions tend to devolve into rants about privacy. There are a lot of repeated discussions that occur here. They overwhelm the discussion about the actual technology
Also, my own personal privacy is less secure if it's a relative inconvenience for employers. If everyone but me gives up their privacy then there's more pressure on me to follow suit.
The argument even doubles back on itself. If these comments aren't interesting to you... don't read them. Embrace tree-style collapsible comments.
You can learn lots of interesting things by invading people's privacy.
I responded to the argument you linked. You're avoiding a more interesting discussion on the topic. Push the [-] button and move on. Your comment is blatantly hypocritical:
"Every time X is updated people complain about X; those people ignore the details of the update."
"Every time people complain about X other people complain about them complaining about X; those people ignore the details of the complaint."
That's because the privacy implication of the technology should be part of the discussions on the technology... technology is not neutral, the way its used and the privacy implications are significant.
Maybe they envy us; Maybe they merely envy themselves in a world without us antagonizing them. Dismissing the latter as if it were the former is disingenuous douchebaggery. "I'm not an asshole; They're just jealous"
As long as we have military bases all over the world I don't see how we can complain about other countries trying to influence our elections. I can't believe it's even a news story... It's just so obviously happening.
It usually means asocial. This same problem shows up with atheist and antitheist.
Also, even used correctly antisocial doesn't necessarily imply violent. It can but ultimately "antisocial behavior" and "violent behavior" are distinct categories.
Fighting is an extremely social behavior, particularly in the context of adolescent males. It represents a high degree of concern for honor, status, reputation, justice, the in-group, etc - high enough to risk physical harm. Someone (like me) who has never been in a fight is far less social, less engaged, more apathetic about peers and their emotional lives, than someone who will throw down when they feel it’s appropriate. In this case, that lack of concern for social status is positive, but stil.
Fighting is not isolation taken to an extreme, it’s the opposite.
You're taking antisocial as a colloquial term. When discussing antisocial behaviors in terms of psychology, fighting is will almost always be antisocial.
But also probably for pulling fire alarms repeatedly, petty vandalism, cussing people out, etc. Not your actual violence, but still acting contrary to how we expect people to generally act in society. Which is also different from simply not interacting with people very much.
What even is a Nazi at this point except for an instance of #2? If #1 justifies any means of opposition then we're already Nazi's. It's just radical egoism on a national scale.
I realize you were joking but "get of my lawn" is normally something that the rich say to the poor. In this situation it's the opposite. Also, I'm young enough to be in the "next generation" and, at least in my case, the GP is wrong. The previous generation assumes they can get lost in the noise. They imagine all our data flowing into a human machine for processing. They don't understand the power of machine learning and fail to grasp the degree to which this data will increasingly determine outcomes in their individual lives.
>I realize you were joking but "get of my lawn" is normally something that the rich say to the poor.
No it's not. A lawn is a very middle-class thing in the US. It is stereotypically an older person that spends a bunch of time keeping their lawn pristine since they have no small children.
I'm not sure I'd make absolute statements based on arbitrary birth dates. Some of us have created the very things you use and are well aware of the implications. I'd also make no such assumptions based on someone being younger than myself.
I didn't intend for my statements to be absolute. I could have thrown in some seem tos and generallys but I felt like the "at least in my case" covered it. I've spoken to older people who are very aware of what's coming and/or already here. It's just not the common case. I'm not making a hard assumption; It's more like a branch prediction.
Non-technical managers often fail to account for the Inventor's Paradox [1]. They assume more general solutions will necessarily require more resources. This is often not the case even if you ignore the resources which would be allocated to problems (solved in the general case) that you do not yet have.
Except although the movie does say battery. That's not the original plot device that was written. They were originally written as human based cpu computers. But some higher up thought people wouldn't understand "human processors" so just everytime you think about or watch the matrix again. Just think it's a poor mistranslation that made it into the movie, "processor->battery"
I'm paraphrasing, but Neo says "that's impossible (in reference to the Matrix) since it violates the laws of thermodynamics"
To which Morpheus replies "and where did you learn about the laws of thermodynamics?"
If you're in the Matrix, your knowledge of the Matrix would come from the Matrix itself which would have a bias towards falsifying information to preserve itself.
All it takes is one incident to indicate the possibility that something can occur. It can profoundly change your outlook on the world. Depending on the event this can be irreversibly negative.
