"data-raping"? Nice work taking a minor issue and attempting to borrow the seriousness of an actually harmful crime.

Don't you think that practice diminishes actual rape by associating it with something as trivial as advertising cookies? Why are you against taking rape seriously?

You aren't the private third party in question, though. You have nothing to do with my interaction with these sites, so by what right do you seek to interfere?

I'm not "deciding to take your privacy away". As I said, that's up to you to use sites which don't behave the way you'd like them to or not. What I object to is you, or a court, or anyone else, telling me I can't exchange data with someone else because it doesn't fit their notion of what I should be allowed to say to them or not. That's not a power which the American people have granted to their government.

Nobody is preventing you from refusing to access sites by anyone you don't like, but what gives you the right to determine the web sites i want to visit are no longer allowed to function?

I don't recall giving the US government the authority to decide for me how my associations and interactions with others are going to work. Busybody nanny state folks like you can butt out and mind your own business, not mine

Oh good... if it does pass, we can join the EU in having to click through a cookie acknowledgement on every single web site we visit... how fun!

Not less work, equivalent work. If men regularly get listed as contributors for performing a particular task, but women don't, that's not fair.

21% of the men on the research teams were named on publications, as opposed to 15% of women.

So your contention is that 79% of the men did equivalent work on the publication, but were cheated out of their co-author credit?

If not, then your statement is nonsense (and it is nonsense). The fact is that just being associated with some work related to a paper isn't enough to be credited as a co-author. You have to make a meaningful contribution, or hold a principle role in the work.

If anything, this paper proves that women contribute less to the research they're working on.

The power grab is by the department suddenly deciding that bees fall under their mandate, not the ambiguous language in the law. So the former is recent (2019), the latter is from 1970.

Amazing how 49 years later the department discovers it had this power to declare endangered insects on land all along and just never bothered to before....

Because what they meant for the "Fish and Game" department to regulate were to be inclusive of "things which live underwater", even if they're not technically a fish, not "every insect no matter what". If they'd wanted to cover all insects, they would've just said "insect".

Yes, the Department of Fish and Game is supposed to be regulating, let's see.... it's around here somewhere.... oh right, "Fish and Game", of which bees are neither.

This is a power-grab expansion of their authority, which the lower court saw through to the obvious, that the intent of the law was to allow them to regulate fish and other fish-like creatures which live in underwater, but was poorly drafted, not that the legislature intended to widen the scope of "Fish and Game" regulations to every insect, but chose not to use the word insect because they just forgot, or something.

To expand the Department's authority in order to become the "Department of Fish, Game, and Insects", taking in a new massive scope of agriculture and pest regulations requires an explicit act by the legislature, not a drafting mistake in how they wrote the law. But as long as the appeals court here doesn't get overturned, because they're in favor of additional regulations, despite the lack of authority from the legislature, apparently bees (and other insects) are legally fish in CA.

Citation required.

Wells Fargo falls under both #4 and #5 (non-depository and depository credit intermediation)on the list of most regulated industries. The combined regulatory burden puts them in the #1 category.

In terms of patching schedules, that's just an example of the level of detail, but it's one anyone in the financial industry familiar with the regulatory patching requirements can confirm. A few years ago the regulators began requiring weekly patching cycles of all devices. Not quarterly, not monthly, but weekly. Lots of regulation gets done by regulators deciding something is a risk which needs a specific control, and then enforcing that control under threat of penalties and publicity.

That's been the case since the 1930s. Nothing new here, just the exact details. And it's not allowed to hold, it's the minimum required. It's allowed to hold more.

You've apparently never heard of the asset restrictions the Fed placed on Wells Fargo:

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell on Wednesday said the asset cap that was placed on Wells Fargo in 2018 will remain in place for now.

Powell said the cap, which mandates that the bank keep its assets below $1.95 trillion, would remain in place until the company has fixed multiple problems, Reuters reported. He suggested that Wells Fargo still has a ways to go before this is achieved.

If you believe WF is an "unregulated" big business, you know absolutely nothing about the financial industry in the United States.

The government regulators effectively run WF now, right down to telling them what patching schedule to use for their servers and how much capital they're allowed to hold.

The reason behind this specific phenomenon, is that WF has rules (and they're not "informal", they're enforced by HR - you literally can't get someone through the hiring process without following them) which require all hiring for any significant position to have "underrepresented" candidates interviewed and present on the interviewing panel.

So it doesn't matter if there is only one person who can do the job who applied, or if you're trying to poach a particular person from elsewhere, you still have to jump through the HR diversity hoops. It's not bias against minorities requiring this, it's official government and HR diversity policies.

So, basically, what this "professor of computer science at UC Berkeley" is advocating for is that all the tech companies which host content should get together and form a cartel to censor/ban/suppress information they don't like, such that if one of them identifies a piece of information via a hash, they can quickly and effectively get everyone else to ban it as well.

Yeah, can't see how that could possibly go wrong...

For publishers, Amazon already requires EPUB for all new eBooks. You can't submit MOBI any longer for anything except a fixed-format file.

Diesel generators also top out at 40% efficiency, for the obvious reason that they're using the same basic technology as a diesel engine in a car. Now if only batteries didn't weight anything to haul around with you and didn't lose power while you charged them, especially when fast charging...

Better fuel efficiency doesn't punish anyone.

Except, of course, people who want safer cars. Or who want to spend that money on something else.

There are tradeoffs to higher fuel requirements, meeting them doesn't come for free. Less safe cars and thus more people hurt/killed in car accidents is one. Lost opportunity cost for what people would've otherwise chosen to spend those resources on if not forced to spend them on more expensive safety features is another.

TANSTAAFL.

It's already required as part of copyright registration (which is required to get full protection) to submit a copy to the Library of Congress.