Twitter and politics has been a beautiful picture of harmony and fairness...
And I am definitely not even remotely worried about Facebook getting more control over politics. Nope. Not even a little bit. This seems wonderful! /s

I guess constituents that don't use Facebook will miss out. Poor us. I regularly contact my representatives on issues and am surprised by how poorly some of them handle things like e-mail. Most of them aren't yet ready for the digital age (despite it having arrived decades ago).
I guess Facebook will bring in some new drama. How soon until someone gets arrested for posting a stupid comment on their Congress Critter's Facebook post?

Part of the problem comes when an "urgent" request for data comes in, and you have to cobble together a piece of crap that is only supposed to be used once. Then it gets requested again. And again.

I have some VBA code that I am proud of (well, as proud as anyone can be of something done in VBA). I have a few monstrosities that I hope no one ever sees. The difference is that I had time to think about the first group. The second group grew as management requirements and requests changed mid audit/lawsuit/whatever. "We need data X." "Now we need data X, correlated with Y, then compared to Z." "Now tell me the number of hours for each gender on Y". I left a biotech company a couple of years ago and got a call just last month asking for help with a macro I had made that they should never have been using. They found an old version I had sent to my manager and just continued using it without anyone having the skills to go in and change things, despite extensive comments.

Sadly, the beast is created far more often than the beauty in certain environments.

Until a committee or management are involved. Then your straight line looks like the paths a dozen Pachinko balls take through the machine.

Throwaway code is often rolled into prod because that's all you have time for. I wish all other things could be equal.

I did not know this was an option, but I immediately fell in love with it. Thank you, MightyYar!

This kind of thing can be so aggravating. I worked at a company where I was doing graphics design and e-learning development. I was hobbled with sub-par hardware, but was making due. I, in my misguided innocence, requested a second monitor. Because I already had a larger than standard monitor (all employees were issued a 19" monitor), a two month long series of weekly meetings were held with various department heads and corporate suits before I was finally denied my request.

The reason? The vice president on site did not have two 'large' screens. Corporate would not allow anyone to have larger monitors or more monitors (or a combination of the larger/more) than an executive stationed in the same facility. To get myself a second monitor (I would have been happy with a tiny one from an empty station, I just needed more screen real estate), the VP would need to get larger monitors. He didn't want a bigger screen, so I didn't get a bigger screen.

This kind of course is amazing for those who are already looking to stretch their minds and fact-check their own beliefs. For people who are new to the idea and attend the course, it could potentially inoculate them against falling for stupid shit again and again.

The big problem is that this inoculation is non-transferrable. This course will not be as helpful as you would think in showing your "casually racist uncle ... why a claim is bullshit." It won't help with the constant stream of false, gut-reactionary posts and images that are shared on Facebook.

First you have the Backfire Effect, where when someone's deepest convictions are challenged their beliefs get stronger. Your uncle probably shared that stupid post because it "felt right". Arguing against the facts of that particular post will often alienate him and cause his beliefs to be more firmly entrenched.

Still, I am glad this kind of class is being offered.

It's not that they can't afford healthcare for their workers, it's that they don't value their workers enough to care (i.e. putting profit and bonuses before their worker's well-being). They have a large base of people who are desperate for any sort of work just to survive. Many workers are competing for the job. The companies are not competing to hire their workers. Yes, some of us have the knowledge, skills, and references we need to find better, higher-paying jobs where companies are competing for us, but not everyone has that option. Just because we can treat our workers like shit doesn't mean we should.

I am sure Microsoft has smart people who know how to sift through data to make future decisions, but I can see it going wrong (and have seen it go wrong).

Camera pans over boardroom:
Data Guy: "Did you know user data shows that consumers spend less than 0.1% of their computer time in the control panel?"
Executive: "It must not be important and takes up a lot of developer time. Remove it!"
Programmer: "Um... can we, maybe, not do that?"
Executive: "Just KILL it! Also, you're fired!"

Anytime someone asks questions about my concern for privacy online and why I find data collection so dangerous ("But I am doing nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, so why should I care?"), I point to McCarthyism and the anti-communism mania from the 1940's and 1950's. In the late 1940's, the House Committee on Un-American Activities (Yes, that's really the name of a U.S. House of Representatives investigative committee) began to subpoena Hollywood types (screenwriters, directors, actors, etc.) and ask them to testify about known or suspected membership in the Communist Party, association with its members, or support of its beliefs.

This committee would ask people to name names of colleagues with Communist affiliations. They saw a massive web of dissidents just based on affiliation. No bad deeds required other than showing up at a house party 20 years earlier. A paranoid black spot on our history that had serious repercussions for a lot of professionals when private companies started to blacklist people (See the Waldorf Statement) based on little to no evidence. Just being subpoenaed by the committee was enough cause to lose your job and not be able to find another job. Why would you be subpoenaed? Who know? Did you go to a coffee shop where "Communist" meetings were held? Did you best friend become a Communist? You could be roped in and tarred when you hadn't done anything wrong. It was even worse if you were actually a member of the Communist party (something that was not illegal) ten years before.

Can you imagine how horrible that era would have been if they government had just the Metadata on every single person in the country? Who you messaged, called, etc. tells a lot about your network, and you are going to be 'guilty by association' for a lot of things that you are not necessarily guilty of. It may be wrong of me, but I often draw parallels in modern times with what happened then. Are there any ideas they or their friends hold that may become more unpopular in ten or twenty years? Do they have religios beliefs that will be considered 'bad' in the future? We don't know... but if it does we have a record of every person you talked to. And that's just the Metadata. Browsing habits, actual content of communication: apparently a lot of that was collected (if not retained). Location is just as dangerous. There is a record of nearly everywhere you have been since you they started logging where your phone has been. Every day for a month, were you at Starbucks around the same time as a future terrorist? You wouldn't know, but the government does.

People are damned by what they say, even if what they say wasn't wrong when it was said. It can get taken and twisted by a motivated agent, and we are giving them the ammo future McCarthys need to do horrible damage to society. Sure, no one is actually looking at you when your data sits in a massive data warehouse, but when that data becomes relevant or certain ideas are labeled as 'dangerous', it's there for discovery. What was once 'no evidence of wrongdoing' at one time becomes the noose that is used to hang you in the future.

Having experienced bricking a cheap $35 router trying to build a pirate box in the early days of its development, I completely understand what you are saying. I got stuck halfway through the process with no (documented) options for moving forward. The documentation for that project was even better than what I see with the "remake your phone" crowd. It's especially worse when they have you downloading random programs/utilities with little to no explanation as to what is in them and what they do.
I will not do that with my phone unless I am comfortable losing it. I have had success with cheap tablets, but that was in spite of the documentation, not because of it.

I agree. Nintendo is in a different place than Sony was when it comes to the handheld market. They have a fairly devoted following and some solid IP. I know several people that carry a DS (various generations and styles) everywhere they go. Their recent nostalgia targeting console (release old games today? wow!) did exceptionally well. They can bring all of those to a modern device and I think people would jump at it.

I can't say, though, whether that devoted following is deep (i.e. fans would replace their current phone with a Nintendo version). Nintendo would have to do several things right to pull off a console/phone hybrid, and even that may not get enough people to switch to make it worthwhile. They could just make a version of their DS that has the capability needed to be a phone (insert sim card, can hold up to ear as phone, send messages) and hope for a slow and steady uptake, but they won't sweep into the market and see instant adoption amongst established markets. That hurts companies frequently.

There is a difference between "popularized", "refined", "simplified", and "gave birth to". They might be able to claim some of the first options, but not the last.

You aren't a saboteur or a spy unless you have actually committed an act of sabotage or collected and shared intelligence with the enemy. It doesn't sound like this guy was even planning on doing those things. Now, catching someone planning something might allow you to charge them for conspiracy to commit an act, but they don't even have that!

Having a flag != being actively engaged in criminal acts.

I am inclined to agree with you except for the fact that internet access of some sort is a necessity in same places. If they have a data plan for their phone, a cable TV subscription, internet access, and subscriptions to Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, etc. we can have a talk about priorities (and I'll happily call them out for not managing their finances well), but basic internet isn't always just a 'nice-to-have'.

I wouldn't say that was 'independently wealthy', but it is far better than the majority of Americans. 62% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings. As of this year, 46% of Americans couldn't cover a surprise $400 expense. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I do agree that people without a reserve have a lower chance of improving their long term prospects, but it isn't always about learning how to manage the money. Sometimes, people are stuck in a bad situation and have no way of catching up. The 'living paycheck to paycheck' crowd should probably stick with the cheap option when it comes to internet ('no internet' is probably unrealistic), but that is often Google. Google probably needs to grasp the realities of taking payments from consumers who actually have to time the payment of the bills in order to avoid being overdrawn (and further punished for being poor).