The post you are responding to is about punishing the victim because teachers are too lazy/cowards to punish the culprits. Cams incentivize them to do the right thing.
Even if the situations are noticed and seen fully, does it cause the schools to not punish the victim? The stories I've heard about zero tolerance policies were that _even when the situation was fully obvious_, victims got punished because they took part in an altercation.
The video evidence is just one piece of the puzzle that is needed to help administrators properly adjudicate conflicts, and to help the public hold the administrators accountable.
If the rot is so deep that even who was right and who was wrong does not matter, then that is a separate issue that members of the public need to sort out with each other.
Sometimes problems are real. That guy will never be my friend because he wants my position. That other guy is scared because he thinks my work is a threat to his silo, and he's right: the management is after him.
No frank conversation is going to change those situations.
The slow strips on the outside moved at five miles an hour; the inner ones faster and faster...
Not good enough. The same strip should go faster and faster over time and decelerate near its end. It sounds impossible, but I can think of a few ways to make it work.
The naive implementation is a train: everybody enters at once at a fixed point, the strip accelerates, everybody leave at the next stop or stay for the next stop. I wonder if you devised a way to make people keep accelerating while other enter and leave the strip. Side strips at lower speeds are too easy a solution.
Honestly, I can't get myself to worry about "societal damage"... what would the contact mean for individuals? Medical and technical advancements would extend our lifespans and could add enjoyment to our lives.
A civilization capable of space travel doesn't seem that would be so interested in slaving or torturing humans for the sake of it. Would "our culture" disappear? I still doubt it. It'd be kept as History.
I like visiting museums and learning about the history of ancient civilizations but by no means I'd like to live in the any of those past environments.
There's a joke about a speeding BMW that crashes into the back of a hay cart. The driver complains that the cart should had a red rag to signal its presence. The carter responds "you didn't see the cart, would have you seen the rag?"
The info in Voyager is just a vanity plate... or a time capsule. Nothing wrong with that anyway. Some time in the future, humans will locate it and put it back in a museum.
Laws should be enforceable, but at some point "it's a bad law if it can be bypassed with corruption" just completely surrenders any hope of holding powerful people / companies accountable to anything at all.
That's a very absolute outlook. The fact is that they were very naive and, althoug they seem to be adjusting, it's been painfully slow and the harm has been done and the public is suffering meanwhile.
Law making is a way of predicting the future and setting up incentives to achieve a goal. You need to foresee what can go wrong, talk to incumbents and anticipate the response. It's a technical matter and this has been a debacle.
It's useless to put the blame in the advertisers. Even if they're evil, that doesn't make the situation any better for the public.
> The fact is that they were very naive and, althoug they seem to be adjusting
Who are "they"? The law hasn't changed, it's enforcement that is changing, albeit very slowly.
There are so many institutions that can be rightfully blamed - chiefly the DPAs and the national governments, but your continued insistence on blaming the lawmakers makes no sense. The law is clear, it's just not being enforced.
Of course advertisers deserve all this blame too, but their blame is irrelevant when discussing enforcement. I don't expect them to stop any more than I expect a serial killer to turn themselves in. This is still a failure of the institutions.
Well almost all websites in France do the legal thing now with an obvious "decline all" button, which was not the case at first.
It took just a pair of ruling that made it clear this illegal pattern was going to actually be cracked down upon, and now these popups are just a small annoyance rather than the absolutely enraging trap that they were at first.
Of course I still wish they were unnecessary, but they serve as a reminder that these websites are still trying to prey upon their visitors.
I agree. These websites should just not spy on me and therefore not have a pop-up.
But in the absence of that? I appreciate at least being asked for my consent so that I can press the "I do not consent to being tracked" button. It shouldn't exist in the first place, but since these websites are unwilling to just not spy on people, this seems like the next best thing.
> That's like saying "don't visit places where people get murdered if you don't want to get murdered."
Nope. Murder is an action after which the victim can not make any more actions. It would be like saying "don't go to the bakery where they spit in your food and slap you in the face every time you order something". You are enraged by the behavior of the websites you visit and you still keep going there every day. Either you are a masochist or "voting with your wallet" or, in this instance with you attention, doesn't really work. Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit?
> How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone?
They are. What gave you the idea they aren't? Because some pages still behave illegally? You understand that murder still happens?
> Because that is clearly not the law.
Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not. Could you point to the text of the regulation that you object to? I'll wait but I'm sure I'll be waiting for godot here.
> Murder is an action after which the victim can not make any more actions.
What does that have to do with anything? I think you missed my point.
> Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit?
Because I have no choice. Every website has these damned popups. Where am I supposed to get my news from otherwise? I mean, what internet do you use...?
> They are. What gave you the idea they aren't?
Because sites are still allowed to track me? Why bother with consent around tracking? Just make it illegal to begin with.
> Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not.
That's inappropriate for HN. Please see the guidelines. Assume good faith.
Lawmakers should have a limit on the number of laws they can write. Say it's 100. They can regulate 100 things, so they need to consider importance. If they want to regulate something new, they have to give up something else. Which one is more important?
The vast majority of laws are never enforced, so in practice this isn't as absurd as it sounds. It would make people consider what laws they spend time writing.
Of course the politicians share a portion of the blame, but we cannot ignore the fact that websites are just playing the blame game as well.
We’re also seeing tracking despite the lack of user consent as well. This could be a fluke but when I make anonymous search on website and switch to another, I’m seeing the product I have just searched in the ads. With all the tracking disabled I mind you.
The difference between a law an a program is that the computer isn't a malicious actor trying to do everything in it's power to subvert the law. A law is nothing like a program, because a computer will do nothing without a program, but societies do all sorts of things regardless of laws.
The world a program works in and the computer it runs on are often very malicious, or they sure act like they are. Not to talk about users, some are pure evil :-)
We put a lot of safeguards, exception handling and all kind of measures to control errors.
So you can imagine my incredulity when a few days ago I received one email message telling me that if I don't take action urgently, my One Drive account is going to be deleted, maybe even my files in the cloud.
Indeed. Totalitarians of the past century didn't need any AI to control masses and cause more than 100M deaths. And those ideologies are far from dead.
reply