A phone is a pretty bad proxy for what someone is actually doing with their attention
The first rule reduces platform power. The second potentially requires platforms to build even larger classification and moderation systems. I'm very much in favor of the first, but I don't think they belong under the…
And the incentives are arguably worse than QA: you get little credit if the result replicates, and potentially a lot of grief if it doesn't. Novel results build careers. Checking them mostly doesn't
[dead]
I'd be pretty wary of stretching wire fraud law to cover this. Prosecutors deciding whether scientific results are fraudulent sounds like it could create its own set of ugly incentives
This is the classic difference between testing whether the software works and testing whether the system works
That does make the 10 million figure more meaningful but I still think it is doing a lot of work rhetorically
Without the total number of attempts, number of failures and ideally how those failures are distributed, it tells us almost nothing
I mostly agree but I think the bar for the software still has to be unusually high when the failure mode is "you are not allowed to enter the country you legally live in"... The human fallback is essential, but it…
"Known issue" and "you may not board the flight home" really shouldn't appear in the same system. If a database error can effectively invalidate your legal status at the border, there needs to be a fallback that doesn't…
IKEA Poland missed an opportunity here
This is exactly why the names work
I always assumed the names were mostly random Swedish words picked for the vibe. The fact that there's a taxonomy behind them makes it much funnier somehow
So it is less "England has a program and the others don't" and more that each NHS is pursuing the same WHO goal independently, with different reporting and timelines
My guess is that devolution makes these programs and statistics look more separate than they really are
The downside of that model is that "be proactive" assumes people know what they should be proactive about
A disease that can stay silent for years, but is also highly curable once detected, seems like exactly the thing you want to screen for more aggressively
There is a pretty striking contrast here with the infected blood scandal. The NHS went from being responsible for one of the worst hepatitis C transmission disasters in the country's history to potentially becoming one…
The problem is that one essential app being unavailable can outweigh the other 95% of the phone working perfectly
The frustrating part is that security increasingly means proving you are using an approved device and software stack, rather than proving that you are actually the account owner
The distinction still matters legally and administratively
If it lets the US use that identity to query European databases and retrieve associated information, that is a much larger change
It changes the nature of the scheme quite a bit
A phone is a pretty bad proxy for what someone is actually doing with their attention
The first rule reduces platform power. The second potentially requires platforms to build even larger classification and moderation systems. I'm very much in favor of the first, but I don't think they belong under the…
And the incentives are arguably worse than QA: you get little credit if the result replicates, and potentially a lot of grief if it doesn't. Novel results build careers. Checking them mostly doesn't
[dead]
I'd be pretty wary of stretching wire fraud law to cover this. Prosecutors deciding whether scientific results are fraudulent sounds like it could create its own set of ugly incentives
This is the classic difference between testing whether the software works and testing whether the system works
That does make the 10 million figure more meaningful but I still think it is doing a lot of work rhetorically
Without the total number of attempts, number of failures and ideally how those failures are distributed, it tells us almost nothing
I mostly agree but I think the bar for the software still has to be unusually high when the failure mode is "you are not allowed to enter the country you legally live in"... The human fallback is essential, but it…
"Known issue" and "you may not board the flight home" really shouldn't appear in the same system. If a database error can effectively invalidate your legal status at the border, there needs to be a fallback that doesn't…
IKEA Poland missed an opportunity here
This is exactly why the names work
I always assumed the names were mostly random Swedish words picked for the vibe. The fact that there's a taxonomy behind them makes it much funnier somehow
So it is less "England has a program and the others don't" and more that each NHS is pursuing the same WHO goal independently, with different reporting and timelines
My guess is that devolution makes these programs and statistics look more separate than they really are
The downside of that model is that "be proactive" assumes people know what they should be proactive about
A disease that can stay silent for years, but is also highly curable once detected, seems like exactly the thing you want to screen for more aggressively
There is a pretty striking contrast here with the infected blood scandal. The NHS went from being responsible for one of the worst hepatitis C transmission disasters in the country's history to potentially becoming one…
The problem is that one essential app being unavailable can outweigh the other 95% of the phone working perfectly
The frustrating part is that security increasingly means proving you are using an approved device and software stack, rather than proving that you are actually the account owner
[dead]
The distinction still matters legally and administratively
If it lets the US use that identity to query European databases and retrieve associated information, that is a much larger change
It changes the nature of the scheme quite a bit
[dead]