My understanding of ePrivacy (mostly GDPR) is that this kind of feature does not require consent.
It's only features that would allow you for tracking of the user that require consent.
Storing some setting in a local storage, never sending it to the server is fine.
Things get a bit muddy when sending to server but even then you may not need a consent if it is a feature that is required for correct working of the website or better experience without tracking and profiling.
This is correct. Unless it involves personal data and/or tracking the user somehow, then GDPR isn't relevant.
Example: If you're storing lightOrDarkTheme in a cookie/localStorage, then there is no need to try to follow any directives, nor are you required to inform the user about that you're storing the preference.
GDPR and ePrivacy are different regulations. Under the latter even purely local data storage still requires consent unless it's "strictly necessary" to implement something the user has requested.
You don't need consent in this case, as clearly stated in 3.6 UI customization cookies
--- start quote ---
3.6 UI customization cookies
These customization functionalities are thus explicitly enabled by the user of an information society service (e.g. by clicking on button or ticking a box) although in the absence of additional information the intention of the user could not be interpreted as a preference to remember that choice for longer than a browser session (or no more than a few additional hours). As such only session (or short term) cookies storing such information are exempted under CRITERION B
As long as it's clear to the user that they're making a site-wide UI customization choice and just not choosing the language for this specific example I agree with you, but I don't think it's clear in the typical case.
12 years ago, when I just arrived in UK and was renting a room in a house, one day in the morning we got woken up by banging on the doors by police looking for one of our housemates. They kept asking him where is the phone, he showed them all phones he had but they were not the phone they were looking for.
He was a door security in one of the clubs in central London and apparently a police officer lost their phone in that club last night and gps did point at our address so they assumed he stole it. They kept searching the whole house, including my room until they finally found the lost phone in another room. Another flatmate went to that club that night for a party together with security guy. Strangely after they found the phone they kept searching.
In the end they finally told us they were not really looking for a phone but for a police badge that was lost together with the phone. The guy said he found only phone, I think he was laying but that is not part of the story.
Point is, they have ability if they have motivation. Took them only few hours since party was over to come knocking, 7 officers, and do the search.
I guess the security guy living in the area where GPS was pointing could be considered extra evidence but surly if with enough phones stolen and clear pattern of them going to the same area they could collect enough evidence.
I think, they don't do it for each phone because they don't have resources and these are low priority not because they can't do it.
A lost warrant card (the police badge in question) is a pretty huge deal apparently.
You are correct though that stolen phones are deemed low priority, the term used for it is "volume crime".
"Why don't the police use findmy" comes up nearly weekly on the /r/policeuk subreddit. Same answer every time - too inaccurate for a warrant, not enough priority to put the work in to develop further evidence to pursue a warrant.
And already mentioned by others but just to give it another thumbs up:
https://www.youtube.com/c/inanutshell Very nice animations explaining various topics from science, philosophy and politics. The only channel I literally seen all the videos. They sometimes make videos with fun ideas like what would happen if we nuked the moon a bit in the spirit of https://what-if.xkcd.com/ but most videos are on more serious subjects in a very easy to understand format.
I think there are only 2 questions you need to answer to decide if someone is your friend.
1. Do you trust them?
2. Do you care about them?
Ideally it should reciprocated. The hard part is getting there, usually it comes naturally as you spend more time with the other person out of your own volition.
Just because you are meeting someone everyday at work does not mean they will become your friends, do you trust them? do you care about them?
Once you friends you don't need to meet often as long the trust and care is still there. You can become friends in short time as well if you decide to put the trust early into the other person and they reciprocate. Point is, there is no formula or plan to follow.
When I say friend I mean a true friend, not colleagues or acquaintances. Were these meanings mixed into "friend" word before Facebook as well?
Lou Holtz [0] used to use these questions and one more as the three questions you ask leaders in general.
The other one was "Are you committed to excellence?" which he sometimes described as "Do you have high standards and do you strive to live up to them?"
I always liked his ending statement whenever he talked about this:
"Think of someone you respect. Now think of those questions. Odds are the answer to all three is 'yes'. Now think of someone you are having problems with and, again, think of the three questions. I would bet the answer to at least one of them is 'no'".
...A college coach who participated in grift and bribery, indirectly or otherwise, in a system that exploited young athletes to play a violent sport with lifelong consequences for health mentally and physically and offered no long term health care and virtually no monetary reward.
No successful NCAA coach is a moral paragon. John Calipari used to be held as the bad boy, but actually he was the most honest of the bunch.
If those were the only criteria, making friends would be easy. People have more built-in tribalism at the very least; the article reads like a '50s science fiction novel about robots making friends.
I trust you are being genuine when you say that, but what an odd comment. The article seemed like a very profound an interesting commentary on what friendship means. I fail to see any kind of science fiction in it. The article even seems to suggest friendship can cross tribal boundaries, but it takes work.
I guess trying to explain how friendship happens seems weird to me? It's obvious enough as it's happening that being forced to spend time together (as with school) generates friendships. Maybe I'm being too critical.
Is building trust and growing genuine care for someone easy for you?
Trust is always a gamble, at extreme you are putting your life on the line and you never know if the other person will decide to betray you next time regardless of what they did in the past.
Caring about someone is even harder as it is not a conscious choice we are making, it is feeling. You can't just decide from today I care about this person so they are my friend.
My point was, how do you know someone is your friend not how to make one. There is no method to make friends, at best some tips or guidelines.
What if you trust someone and care about them, but don’t particularly enjoy their company? I suppose it would still be normal to call that person a “friend,” although you’d be missing a key part of what most people think of when using that word.
I used to work at the Pret during my student years. All employees, we were very puzzled by why Pret is so popular and why are they willing to pay so much for the food.
Today with a better-paid job, when in the centre and need to get a quick snack, Pret is often my choice. End of the day they have good food and offer good service.
You hear many stories about people who used to work for McD and they say they will never eat there again. I can confidently say that at Pret, I did not see any red flags that would make me not eat there.
I wonder how the subscription idea will work for them. Pret is a sandwich shop, but most of the profit comes from coffee. When I used to work there, the price of a coffee was £2, and the cost was £0.20. I guess they expect most people to not max out on the offer, which is probably a reasonable assumption.
At the time, we were told the reason Pret does not offer free coffee after N transactions is because they want to make a customer feel special when they get free coffee. That's why all employees are allowed to give free coffee to anyone at their discretion, just not too many :) Sounds like it is about to change.
I guess the coffee deal is mainly to drive footfall. I expect their hope is that when people are deliberating over lunch, those that already have the coffee deal will default to Pret so they don't pay twice for coffee with their sandwich etc.
That free coffee thing. I used to go to a Pret frequently with one of my female colleagues who happened to be very traditionally attractive. She got a free coffee from male staff every single time.
> All employees, we were very puzzled by why Pret is so popular and why are they willing to pay so much for the food.
What's was puzzling about it? They're reasonably nice and fresh sandwiches in a nice room for not a lot of money. And as you knew yourself it seems clean too.
Now that I’m a senior software developer, I earn enough that I don’t need to care how much food like this costs.
When I was a student, during term time (rather than the summer holidays when I had a job and lived with my parents), I made a game out of spending as little as possible on food. My record was 50p per day sustained over an entire term in 2004 (adjusted for inflation, that’s about £1 per day today).
Accounting for disposable income rather than gross income, being surprised that students find £4 sandwiches expensive is like being supposed that someone on €60k doesn’t eat every lunch in €100-a-head restaurants. (Those sorts of restaurants are still “fancy special occasions only” for me).
But presumably these people are aware that there are people who aren't living on a pound a day. They can't be genuinely surprised that most people out there can afford a couple of pounds for lunch? They'd have to be ignorant of the basic economic state of the nation to be surprised by this.
Anchoring bias is a powerful thing. As far as I can tell, most people think of themselves (in the System 1 sense) as representative of normal, no matter how rich or poor they are.
I don't know: as a reasonably well paid software developer I still find the amount people are prepared to pay for lunch surprising. As the article mentions, once you buy coffee+sandwich+pastry+fruit you can easily be over £10, which is something like the price of a new Macbook every year?
Well my rationale is a little different. I tend to buy lunch every day because I like fresh/hot food, I like variety and I like putting money into the local economy (many lower income folks depend on their food service salaries). And I enjoy doing other things with my leisure time than prepping meals.
Nothing wrong with prepping food on the weekends — many find it therapeutic while others do it out of financial need or for dietary reasons - but I personally wouldn’t do it to save a few bucks. I was a poor student for many years, and I’ve had to do it out of need, but I’m glad to be able to live differently now.
The sandwiches are twice the price of a supermarket sandwich, and for many (especially students working at Pret) the idea of buying lunch out rather than making it at home and bringing it in may be a luxury.
If you're on £16k a year, spending £1000 for a sandwich every day for lunch is a lot (£4 sandwich * 250 working days).
Thing is, for most people living in a large city and on a tight budget, it's not the cost of the ingredients that matters but the facilities to prepare them.
I once worked at a large web company located in the center of Paris and that had a free use kitchen. It took me less time (<1h) to go shopping and cook for a few colleagues than it would have for us to go to a restaurant, and cost the same as buying supermarket sandwiches.
Sure, but most people have food prep facilities at home, particularly for those who can't afford to eat out as much, so bringing in food in a lunch box is accessible to most.
First time I reluctantly had one of their sandwiches I was pleasantly surprised. I thought it’s be bad being pre-made but it was fresh and well proportioned.
The only acceptable sandwich lunch is a burger, IMO. These days, even working from home, once a week I ride my motorbike to Netil market to get a burger from the Lucky Chip stall.
I don't understand how people can tolerate buying pre-prepared sandwiches from shops when street markets are an option, fresh hot tasty food cooked right in front of you.
I don’t always want hot food for lunch. Sandwiches are great. Pret sandwiches, although pre-made, are quite fresh. Their bread is good and the ingredients are fine. It’s sort of a “just in time” pre-made sandwich.
Definitely overpriced but you’re paying for the convenience too. A burger here are there for lunch is nice too.
It's like anything else: convenience, quickness, consistency, perception of cleanliness, habits of others around you, and so on.
If it's a group decision - and often enough it is - a place like Pret becomes the acceptable least common denominator. No one might love it, but more importantly no one probably hates it.
I hate it, and I hate what it stands for. I mentally associaciate Pret with bankers, and I haven't forgetten about 2008.
I'm being facetious, but only just... I work in fintech, and I end up associating with a bunch of bankers, and I give those who still patronize Pret a bit of a hard time.
I'm not so sure on the value front. There's a lot of meat on a typical £5-7 hot meal. You can't generally pay that much for a sandwich, and when you buy a cheaper one, it's miserly.
I like the Pret food, but their coffee is awful. Worst thing they sell in my opinion. I'm not a coffee snob - I usually drink starbucks - but I hate the Pret version.
Yeah same here, sandwiches are not bad (better than supermarket equivalents, but should be for the price premiuum), but not a fan at all of their coffee at all. Kind of tastes watery and burnt at the same time.
Being an on and off customer since 1998, I was fascinated by the idea that I can walk in and pick a sandwich out of 20-50-100 combinations (I honestly don't remember how many options were available but I remember it as "oh sooooo many!!!".
I treated it as a snack. Once I moved back to London some years back I was (negatively) surprised that MANY people consider lunch to be: "1 sandwich +1 bad of crisps/chips +1 sugary soft drink". I believe that Pret helped push obesity in the UK (and McD, and KFC, and many more - but Pret definitely contributed).
It is sad to see that jobs are on the line, but in all honesty people need to start eating better and stop considering Pret as "the place to get lunch/dinner"
It should be only for a quick lunch for tourists that may want a quick bite before they go from tourist_attraction_A to tourist_attraction_B without spending time and money for lunch.
To the profit point: liquids tend to make most of the profit. Sandwich takes time, effort, material, cost for quality, etc. A coffee (nowadays) is cheap and easy, it won't go bad after 24h. I was reading somewhere (HN? Reuters?) that BP sold 150mil cups of coffee.. easy money for all!
The idea that what’s essentially a regular sandwich shop (and not one particularly notable for pushing “chips” or “sugary soft drinks”) is in any real way contributing to obesity in the UK is laughable.
It really isn't. Small sandwich + crisps + sugary soda or coffee >= 700 calories, which is around twice what someone sedentary needs for lunch unless they start their day with a decent run. Add a chocolate bar and you're over 800. Start with a bigger roll or a wrap instead of a small sandwich and you're over 900.
It's also a huge carb hit, which is not ideal for staying awake later. And it's low in bulk, which will lead to snacking later.
All of this gets worse as you get older and your metabolism slows down. It's sort-of-ok for someone in their twenties, but literally lethal for someone in their fifties.
Pret are at the better end of the spectrum, and they also sell salad-related items which are less of a problem.
But this kind of sandwich lunch culture in general is a huge contributor to obesity. It doesn't look like a lot of food, it doesn't really fill you up, but it is a lot of calories.
> Small sandwich + crisps + sugary soda or coffee >= 700 calories
What are you on about? That's under a third of the daily recommended calories for a man.
Even if you ate this three times a day... you're going to be under.
> around twice what someone sedentary needs for lunch
So a 350 calorie lunch? So that'd be under half the recommended daily intake total even if you ate a large breakfast. So people living on about 1000 calories a day? How does that work? Most people's weights would be in freefall.
People have weird warped views about how many calories things are. For example did you know if you ate a full McDonald's meal with fries and regular Coca-Cola for every meal... you'd be under your recommended calorie count?
I actually ended up on ~1000 calories a day as a tallish guy. My wife asked me to join her on a meal plan and I forgot to look at the details. It ended up being about 3 meals a day at 300 calories apiece. A month in she let me know that I was meant to be having a 'snack' of another 300 too.
But those weights were for her smaller stature, not mine, and she's always been terrible with numbers (we agree that's my job, so I should've known). I actually got used to it surprisingly quick, and I have to say, it worked and I lost 20kg in a few months without much real discomfort. I cheated one or two meals each week which helped keep me sane.
I mostly stopped because we were cooking certain recipes on the plan and it was just annoying and uninspiring after a while. I did learn a lot about food and how much I actually need if I'm just sitting around some days. But I don't think my 1000 calorie diet was healthy or recommended and a lighter touch is probably better.
> how much I actually need if I'm just sitting around some days
If you're a sedentary person then maybe it worked for you, but it's under half what medical professionals recommend for a normally active man. Many somewhat active people (less than an hour run a day) are going to burn half your calorie intake on exercise alone. You do need some calories to simply live and think beyond that.
I think people are out of their minds saying a shop selling 400 calorie sandwiches for probably your main meal of the day is excessive.
I did go to the gym occasionally, but it was more along the lines of pilates type stuff. Also walked the dog each day. So nothing crazy but I wasn't just sitting around.
Somehow I wasn't even underweight when I stopped, but in another couple of month I probably would've been. There is of course a good chance the calorie counting was wrong too.
It really isn't. Small sandwich + crisps + sugary soda or coffee >= 700 calories, which is around twice what someone sedentary needs for lunch unless they start their day with a decent run. Add a chocolate bar and you're over 800. Start with a bigger roll or a wrap instead of a small sandwich and you're over 900.
Basically what you're saying is "eating too much food is bad" which… well, obviously. If you are eating a large sandwich, crisps, a sugary drink, and a chocolate bar for lunch… isn't it obvious that's too much? Eat a regular-sized sandwich, some popcorn, and a banana – like all the people who went to the Pret next to my office did pretty frequently.
literally lethal for someone in their fifties.
This is quite funny. "Sandwich culture is lethal to the over-50s".
I like to eat at Farmer J's. Decent food (quality/quantity), costs around £8. A "lunch" (laugh/cry) on Pret costs £3? £4? People that spent £10-20 per day to commute, £3-5 on dry cleaning, £6-8 for x2 coffees, will try to squeeze every penny. So yes they may go to Pret and save £4 from their "lunch".
I don't blame the shop, they don't sell heroin, they sell sandwiches. I merely focused on the fact that people see it at a "source for nutrition". The fault is to both sides. People prefer the tasty quick-fix (salt/sugar) instead of a balanced nutritional lunch. The Pret is positioning itself in every other block for convenience. The people (especially in the square mile and Canary Wharf) are overworked, stressed, and they need the quick bite/fix and then run back to work. I've heard a million times the line "I got no time and/or money to spend for a normal/decent lunch".
It is a mixture of the above. Plus the revolution of caffeine (no need to eat and sleep well - coffee will fix everything, will keep us going).
So yes, a "sandwich shop" (aka fast food) is also to blame partially (just as McD, KFC, etc.)
It is a hydra with a thousand heads, and COVID helped cut some of them, show how we can thrive with a different lifestyle.
People work from home. They will eat (hopefully) better, caffeine/sugar consuption (I hope) is reduced, the work is done, people will spend 1-2-3h less on trains/buses that they can spend with their loved ones (or sleep).
And yes, a sandwich shop (in every bloody corner) selling cheap junkfood 'packaged' (offered) with fried salty junk (crisps) and sugar (soft drinks) DOES contribute to obesity. Thinking that it doesn't is illogical. It's not a discussion on causality/coincidence.
And yes, a sandwich shop (in every bloody corner) selling cheap junkfood 'packaged' (offered) with fried salty junk (crisps) and sugar (soft drinks) DOES contribute to obesity. Thinking that it doesn't is illogical. It's not a discussion on causality/coincidence.
I'll leave the fight-club fantasy to one side, but point out that a sandwich from Pret is basically some bread, some salad, and some protein. It's fine. If this is where you're starting as a contributor to obesity, then literally all food is obesogenic.
There are many of them out there, but they have a much lower budget than banks, FAANG, and other top tech companies. Because of that they usually have a much smaller reach, and you don't hear about them much.
Computers are everywhere today, and charities do work more efficiently thanks to specialised software as well.
In the UK, for example, you can find a job at a charity on https://www.charityjob.co.uk/, and some need software engineers/web developers.
If you want more of technology-focused companies, one example that comes to my mind is a Little Ripper, life-saving drone https://thelittleripper.com.au/.
They are out there, but sadly they don't have the same reach as corporations. Another debatable reason: to save our planet, all of us need to take action and software can't help here.
I have changed the job recently, and I did a few interviews. I enjoyed pair programming and code review that some of them did. Especially that this is something a software engineer, does daily as opposed to implementing complex algorithms, it felt more like I am being tested on skills that are required.
One of the companies, most interactive, did a bit of role-playing. Interviewers took on the roles of product owner and my teammate to help with code if needed. They provided a simple code base with REST API, and I had to implement new endpoint and later there was "change in requirements". I had to refactor the code a bit. Tasks were simple but stimulated a lot of conversations about how and why allowing to cover a wide range of concepts.
Two companies said "pair programming", but in reality, it was me writing code for tasks they wrote down for me without much interaction. Interviewers were mostly silently watching me with occasional nudge if they saw me struggle at some point. But still better than whiteboard :)
One company provided me with a task to solve, and I had a few minutes to read it and ask them questions if any. They left me for an hour to implement it. I don't think they expect anyone to 100% solve the tasks, but I'm sure it could be done in that time frame if you are fluent in tools best suited for it. After one hour, they came back, checked my progress, asked questions about decisions I made and followed up with a conversation on how I would continue and implement remaining parts.
Code review, I was presented with one page of code, nothing complex, but there were either some bugs or code had a questionable quality. We had a conversation about what I think should be changed and why.
I know you asked for company names but I think if you job hunting just ask for a details of the process on first contact. They usually provide it anyway and see if they do things you like and cut it short if they have some things you don't like. I just wanted to share that if the have pair programming and code review in the process they may have a good process.
One of my side projects was to make a game where you need to calculate your odds correctly as fast as possible but main goal was to learn some TypeScript so I lost interest after I was satisfied.
Anyway, I got at least one "game" done, you need to correctly count your outs. It is not perfect but covers most cases well.
I think the only valid interpretation of the IQ test is that you are good at solving some riddles and spotting patterns.
In no way, it can be used as a generic metric of who is better or worse.
I took the MENSA test last year just for fun, I did not get in :)
The examiner before explained as well that the exam measures an only small part of what is considered an intelligence.
In short, it is a fun exam if you like riddles and no other value.
>I think the only valid interpretation of the IQ test is that you are good at solving some riddles and spotting patterns. In no way, it can be used as a generic metric of who is better or worse.
Correlations are what matter. It just so happens that success at solving such seemingly trivial riddles is correlated with important tasks such as coding and life outcomes. If IQ didn't correlate with anything there would be no reason to have IQ tests. It would be as useful as astrology.
