No, it's the entire point. Your stream, to the extent that it's "your" stream, is already manipulated in ways you're not told, based on what Facebook thinks you will find interesting, funny, or engaging enough to come back and see more ads. Experiments have to happen as part of Facebook's desire to expand, if only to see which manipulations mean more ads displayed. The only difference is that now the people who are interested in something closer to science than ad sales at Facebook won't tell us about their results. Are you happy?

+1

Right: TWC sold me "15 Mbps" and Netfix "X Tbps," not me "15 Mbps unless lots of people in your neighborhood are watching Netflix" and Netflix "X Tbps unless you happen to be sending to an individual neighborhood." It's totally plausible that the terms they gave me are very difficult to meet, but that sounds much more like their problem to solve than mine.

If their defense is that they mislead me into thinking they're giving me more than they are ("up to 15 Mbps") I'm not going to be particularly sympathetic to their complaints about the cost of upgrades to handle load.

That's cute

The OP was not talking about trademark, but about copyright on the selection of packages in an argument analagous-ish to one that a mashup can be copyrighted separately from the underlying songs. It's odd and untested but not on it's face definitely wrong under current law, dickishness notwithstanding

I'm pretty sure there's no deduction for a dependent's private school tuition. And while the US tax -> school structure has lots of problems which are fairly off topic, tax deductions wouldn't apply anyway.

It's all or nothing. And if *all* the cars on the road aren't autonomous, then the non-autonomous ones are mostly a traffic hazard whose only advantage is clear liability.

FTFY

That's a pretty negative view of young SAs, not borne out by my experience. Are you sure you're not discriminating against them?

The top of the list is probably an intersection of "cities people move to for work" and "cities which have recently developed IT industry," or places where IT workers are less likely to have extended family.

Woah, interesting. As a counterexample ever since Windows search was introduced I always hit start and type the first several characters I'm interested in:

[win]steam[enter]
[win]chrome[enter]
[win]kmymo[enter] (kmymoney)
etc.

Perhaps if, in order to become law, your idea must become so sabotaged that it is no longer decent, you should not pass it.

What makes you think Facebook's architecture doesn't have a similarly complex diagram? Also, it's been more or less admitted that the whole "Eligibility" box was not correctly implemented, which takes a lot of steps out of the chart.

Interop is very difficult when you don't control both ends, you won't find cogent arguments against that, but defining bad interfaces is bad design, not some magical issue that only affects government work. If a bad design results in excess cost, most people would consider that a problem. Within the government, if they can't coordinate enough to redefine interfaces correctly, the issue is a dysfunctional organization.

For interaction with the external insurance agencies, work was probably harder. Supporting disparate systems may have been unavoidable given deadlines. While the PHBs for this project may have said "this is how you get your plan listed on the exchange. If you don't work with our interface, tough." If so, good for them! I've heard too much about how hard it is to work with so many insurance companies to be optimistic about that, however.

Intelligent software design is not optional in any service at scale. The fact that it's hard does not excuse doing it incorrectly at 6x the cost.

FTFY

Accounting especially is outsourced all the time. That's why there are the "Big Four" audit/accounting firms. You hire one to account for you and another to audit for you. And the money flows...

This is seems like a permutation of the Butterfield fallacy

Whichever attack you've decided was the "most visible" was so because it was missed.

Fortunately this doesn't affect arguments regarding the proper scope of surveillance, but unfortunately it underscores that people are often oblivious to their assumptions. In your case, it's that you would have heard of stopped terrorist plots. I'll agree that it's plausible because of the temptation to brag about success, but far from certain.