Matrix multiplications are linear. Modern neural network methods usually make heavy use of nonlinearities. You could also say that quantum mechanics is just matrix multiplications, but look where it got us.
The Venn diagramm of the websites that have a Cookie-Popup right now and the websites that would choose to not be GDPR-compliant is a circle.
This change would mean most website couldn't be used by privacy concious people anymore and that the websites in turn are free to track the sh*t out of everyone else. From my perspective that sounds a lot worse.
The web is a mandatory part of public live for most people by now and it's good and healthy that corporations get push back for not respecting privacy.
The market would only react if people were actually aware of the privacy violations. This is what the GDPR is trying to address by making data processing require informed consent.
The vast majority of people (some even on HN) have absolutely no clue how advanced the stalking actually is. You hear every so often these anecdotes about people suspecting Facebook of listening to them; it's actually more creepy that the tracking is advanced enough to successfully infer conversations without actually listening in.
>They understand how the above instruments are crucial for an economy even though they are not end-user products like Twitter is.
Do they actually know these instruments are crucial for the economy or do they just know how to make money with it? I'd think the latter would be enough.
Can you recommmend any resources to understand the importance of financial instruments to the economy?
>Do they actually know these instruments are crucial for the economy or do they just know how to make money with it? I'd think the latter would be enough.
There is no difference in capitalism between something being "crucial" for economy or just a way "to make money." They are equivalent.
That's hard for me to understand. I'd take 'crucial to the enconomy' to mean 'positively coupled to the rest of the economy' or 'the rest of the economy would be worse off/less efficient if this financial instrument were to be outlawed.
Why does this follow from 'makes a lot of money'? That seems like a very complicated question to me.
I was trying to say that these are equivalent, crucial to economy and way to make money. To me they are equivalent because capitalism will find the shortest and most efficient path, if it doesn't make money it will not exist. Hence, crucial means survives by making money.
> it's already completely undermined by mail in voting
This keeps coming up but is not generally true. See my comment from another thread [0]:
I don't know how it's done in the USA, but in Germany voting by post has to be carried out before the day of the election. The actual postal votes are stored and only opened on the day of the election. After somebody send in their postal vote they can go to the public voting office and declare to invalidate their postal vote. The people counting the postal votes will get a list with invalidated votes and remove these envelopes before the votes are opened. The person who invalidated can then either do another postal vote or vote at the ballot box.
So in Germany postal voting is secured against selling votes.
I don't know how it's done in the USA, but in Germany voting by post has to be carried out before the day of the election. The actual postal votes are stored and only opened on the day of the election. After somebody send in their postal vote they can go to the public voting office and declare to invalidate their postal vote. The people counting the postal votes will get a list with invalidated votes and remove these envelopes before the votes are opened. The person who invalidated can then either do another postal vote or vote at the ballot box.
So in Germany postal voting is secured against selling votes.
If there is a way to invalidate a vote in the UK, I'm not aware of it, and as someone who's actively stood for election I've got a greater awareness of the average voter, and 50% of people have less awareness than the average voter.
It's not about selling, which would be easy to detect like all large conspiracies. It's about subtle coercion that postal voting can enable.
You (kind of) can by now. Killing male chickens after hatching is outlawed in Germany since the beginning of this year. From [1] it reads like Germany subsised research into preselecting female eggs and only hatching these ones.
This is still killing male chickens in some way, but arguably less gruesome than how the industry has dealt with male chickens before.
