The poster didn't claim to be an American and even if they are American, there are lots of different opinions on what things are important to spend time on and not everyone agrees that it's following the news or reading up on various ways places structure their government.
they claim to live in the state of California, and are concerned about voting so that would imply they are at minimum a Naturalized Citizen of the US...
>> there are lots of different opinions on what things are important to spend time on
True, however they are the one acting shocked about a new law being passed, if they do not believe new laws in their state is something important to spend time on, they should then not be shocked when a law passes they were no aware of.
Another way to approach interacting with other humans is to understand that the law only describes minimum expectations and isn't a replacement for ethics or common decency.
You can use all the tools of the law to disadvantage others but word will get around that you're a dirty dealer and it'll be their privilege to not do business with you anymore.
Yes, and the standard among VCs is to follow social and industry norms. Silicon Valley is an iterated game, and very few players are willing to play in a way that destroys future payoffs.
I went through a similar change from my sparkier first years of driving as a teen and early twenty something to now.
The motivation incidentally wasn't to improve economy or avoid citations. It was mostly to reduce the frustration of feeling like I was constantly being impeded by others who weren't interested in driving as aggressively as I had been, and partially an increased interest in safety.
It worked. Driving is much less stressful with cruise control.
What I find especially bothersome is that their resolution has, in practice, only cost their victims more.
Because the time needed to fill out that form and provide the documents will have been worth more than the payout, if one ever comes, for just about anyone who bothered to do it.
I honestly, no bullshit, wish the hackers had simply released the entire dataset. Just drop kicked it into the the public domain.
It would have been the greatest thing ever. This dumb ass bullshit system of credit reporting would have dissolved overnight. Instead we're stuck with the worst of all worlds. Our information is completely fucked, and we're the ones expected to protect it. And we're not even permitted to have proper tools to protect ourselves.
I don't think the lending industry would go away with a leak, though I do think that more players with the ability to analyze the data could have come along and used the data set to lower the costs of lending and/or incentivized other systems of data collection/risk analysis and underwriting.
Though I do think it would have hurt the bottom line of the giants that have few incentives to innovate, and many incentives to maintain the way things are.
> I honestly, no bullshit, wish the hackers had simply released the entire dataset. Just drop kicked it into the the public domain.
A lot of systems that leverage data behind walled gardens, collected from the masses and for the benefit of the few could also have the same approach. A couple of high profile "leaks" come to mind…
The settlement is meant to be punitive, not necessarily amount to a windfall for you. It's not terribly easy in a case like this to even prove damages.
And no, it wouldn't be better to let them off the hook completely. I'm not saying this settlement is _at all_ satisfying, but c'mon.
That’s fine, I must have miss read it the first time. Because I re read it noted the double negative and was editing it when I then saw the final version...
They essentially stole my info and did nothing to protect can it. A corporate death penalty should exist and all assets seized including every paperclip
It isn't supposed to punish the claimants though. Filling out the form was worth less than the payoff. Better to just burn the settlement than to waste everyone's time trying to distribute it. Or give out $600 to every 1 out of 100 claimants based on a lottery instead of $6 to all.
Windfall? People are hoping at best for a tiny fraction of the cost of actual damages. That's not a windfall. The only people getting a windfall are the class action attorneys. The actual victims get basically nothing.
I think you interpreted what I said in the worst way possible, and again, it's incredibly difficult to prove damages. We all know they exist, but if you can prove them you don't need a class action.
If it's meant to be punitive, shouldn't the full penalty amount get divided evenly among everyone who applies for the compensation, rather than being a fixed $6 per person who applies? Or does Equifax somehow end up losing the full penalty amount regardless (e.g. is the unclaimed amount paid to the government etc.)?
It depends on the settlement agreement, but they don't typically go back to the defendant. In this case, I found one source without looking up the actual agreement
>Any funds unclaimed after 4-year extension will be distributed in services
>Services offered are for identity restoration, credit monitoring
And those services are from... Equifax, which I feel is pretty shitty. Like I said, I don't like the settlement itself, but lawyers get a lot of hate for class actions from people who seemingly don't appreciate the risk they take in taking in the case.
I’m so so glad they took all that risk on so that I can get $6 while they get 80 million. Poor lawyers, so charitable of them.
And who gave them the right to profit massively off the violation of my privacy. I should be able to sue them. This is not justice, this is profiteering off others misfortune.
> their resolution has, in practice, only cost their victims more
All class actions are this way.
The only correct move is to exclude yourself from the class and reserve your right to sue individually, after the class action, citing that as precedent.
Class members never get more than a useless coupon or comparable.
This particular example is an added expense but doesn't strike me as an extraordinary one, and brings with it many administrative savings to do with applications, enrollments, grading, payments, educational resources, and so on.
These are things that would have required more physical space and more personnel in the past. Schools have transitioned a lot to a more self-service model but it has not translated into savings for students or their families as far as I can tell.
I think your overestimating the effort those tasks required. Grading for example seems like a significant administrative burden ideal for automation. However, collage administrators don’t calculate grades per student, at most their doing a quick GPA calculation based on final letter grades.
Teachers actually calculate grades, but that’s again vastly less effort than grading assignments. to the point where many just use pen and paper to record results. Many attempts at automation have increased teacher workload and require support staff.
Schools are seeing benefits from these computer systems, but they rarely reduce costs.
PS: Another consideration is collages are seasonal. Reducing the effort for some task may aid the workers. However, 100 administrators twiddling their thumbs costs just as much and schools need to staff for various crunch times not average workloads.
There certainly would be more murders if concrete deterrents were relaxed or eliminated. We definitely do not rely on the honor system to keep murder rates in check.
In any case, someone raising questions about emergent behavior in the general population shouldn't invite questions about that specific person's imminent ethical lapse.
Trying to address a problem like this one by placing the responsibility squarely on end consumers seems like a mistake. There are too many of them in too many places and their behavior is harder to regulate.
Placing the cost of disposal or pollution (best that regulators can assess that) upon the producers seems at first glance to create many of the right incentives, such as improving packaging, reducing waste, increasing recycling, more effective disposal, and modifying consumer behavior in the only way that seems to be universally understood: the price of goods.
This is nearly the opposite of what I would want from HTML or the web.
A fixed layout is not going to work for all devices.
Such a choice is tantamount to deciding that some classes of devices are not going to be supported, which may be a reasonable choice but better to make good choices in the HTML and CSS and let the devices try to make something usable of it rather than giving them a fixed window into a layout intended for another.
> A fixed layout is not going to work for all devices.
Designers are also making their choice with HTML nowadays : Desktop is not supported anymore. Look e.g. at twitter, a billion dollars company switching to mobile web only. Flash could easily implement media queries to re-layout itself.
Just by the padding in the buttons it's obvious that twitter's current site was built for mobile. Sure, it's responsive, and i bet flash could become responsive if it was still alive. HTML games however are also non-responsive most of the time just due to the nature of their use case.
They might have meant mobile-first and not mobile only. Their desktop site is very clearly designed for mobile, the main content does not change at varying screen widths. The sidebar and header do a bit of restyling, but thats about it.
Flash could be used for responsive layouts. They were actually far easier to design in Flash than in HTML/CSS. No floating, flexing, grids, nesting HTML elements. You just set the objects x and y axis in Flash to the bottom center or wherever you wanted the object to remain, and you were done.
The layout engine in flash was REALLY well thought out, and allowed for simple constraints that would allow for things to grow or shrink based on screen size. You could anchor buttons and they would move properly, all without having to worry about things breaking across browsers.
If someone would re-implement just this feature along from flash i would be REALLY excited to use it!
So far i dont think there is really much in the way of "constraint based" layout engines that are easy to use for the web is there?
Almost all GUI toolkits work that way, except HTML, because HTML is not designed for GUIs.
For instance look at AnchorPane in JavaFX. You can lock things to the edges or offsets from the edges. You can nest layout managers if you want something different like a table or HTML style wrapping text flow.
In the end HTML is just being abused. It was never designed to be a Flash replacement. If the web was a more pluggable platform Flash would still be alive and kicking for sure, the creation tool itself was lightyears ahead of anything HTML ever had, but the browser makers have killed it pretty ruthlessly. Looks like groupthink to me, tbh.
Re: "A fixed layout is not going to work for all devices."
Agreed, but not all apps need watch-to-wall scaling. All our internal "productivity" apps run on desktops and nobody has complained. Certain check-status-of-project kinds of apps may be something people want on mobile, but not heavy data chomping/sifting.
Different things need different tools and standards. Even web apps don't really work right on mobile unless you test and adjust for mobile. Using Twitter Bootstrap etc. does not guarantee an app is usable on mobile.
And sometimes it seems it would be easier to make two different apps for different devices rather than one-size-fits-all, as it's nearly impossible to optimize the UI to automatically adjust to both using Bootstrap etc. Workable on both, maybe. Optimized for both, no. There may be handful of people in the world who can pull that off, but you won't find them.
In terms of non-exit Tor relays, it doesn't. In fact, for anyone looking at your traffic, Tor relaying is opaque, unlike legal torrents.
As for exits, you'll be dealing with abuse reports from countless parties, including the off-chance that someone sends a death threat through your exit and you have may to fend off law-enforcement that still hasn't gotten the memo on Tor. In countries, like the US where any police encounter might turn deadly, I'd highly advise against running exits at home.
As a Tor exit operator, I can in fact honestly tell you not to run exits on production business networks, or basically anywhere where you're not prepared to be a recipient of a lot of unwanted attention.
Even non-exit nodes can put you in a bad spot (my ISP didn't like it), you'll get blacklisted by quite a few places (because not everyone got the memo that middle nodes != exit nodes)
Yeah. If your ISP is manned by dipshits, they won't like Tor relays, just because.
It's also worth setting up a Tor relay to use a different external ip address. Because VPN/Procy whitelists employed by dumb web firewall products will temporarily blacklist all publically listed Tor relay IPs.
Here's a typical residential setup: ISP-provided broadband modem in bridged mode + some sensible home router with security patches you should be using anyway and the Tor relay server connected to the modem with a non-managed switch (if needed).
Please note that Bridges give help directly to individuals who can't access Tor, due to blockage in their home country. They don't use a lot of bandwidth and aren't listed publicly, so bad actors on the firewall market won't block them.
So, if you only have one IP address available and you want to do the internet at large a huge solid, just run a Bridge.
In principle, pretty much any crime you can commit over tor, you can also commit over BitTorrent. For instance, you could advertise your assassination services by writing up a document, making a torrent of it, and then distribute the magnet link for that torrent on floppy diskettes... or whatever.
In practice, though, TOR is more convenient for such things because a resource's name (the onion address) doesn't change when the content does. This difference makes it rather unlikely that you're going to find the lets-make-an-illegal-deal crowd gathering around BitTorrent.
But legally, and from the ISP's perspective, seeding a torrent with incriminating content is no different than running a TOR exit node that happens to be trafficking that content--it's just that since they attract different crowds, one is more likely to attract the wrong kind of attention than the other.
Also, you get to choose what you seed on BitTorrent, but when you run an exit node, you don't. So you're unlikely to even know what kind of incriminating content is going through your internet connection.
Exit nodes are the points at which traffic goes from the encrypted TOR network to the clear net, and since many people like to use TOR to do legally questionable things you will likely very quickly be flooded with law enforcement requests, if not just blocked by your provider.
The poster didn't claim to be an American and even if they are American, there are lots of different opinions on what things are important to spend time on and not everyone agrees that it's following the news or reading up on various ways places structure their government.