No you’re right. The ARF just ignored that constraint and intentionally built in a back door here. From the linked article:
However, the current ARF stipulates that law enforcement authorities can retroactively trace pseudonyms back to their legal identity. The provisions therefore „strongly contradicts the legal requirements,“ epicenter.works writes.
If they are checking data brokers or aggregators it’s not really a background check. Carefully read any consent you give for a potential employer to perform a background check. Look for the records they are accessing and make a determination based on that language.
It is possible that some vendor is the space incorporates data brokers into their service, and that’s hard to tell. But they still should ask for your consent, I believe.
Depends on what you mean by matter. The point of the criminal justice system is, theoretically, to determine who breaks the law, and to punish people who break the law. In that sense it matters because Trump was found guilty in a fair trial by a jury of his peers.
If what you mean is that it will change the politics of America, certainly. Trump is now running with the specter of a conviction hanging over him. Even assuming appeals and pardons, that fundamentally changes the nature of the election. It raises real and serious questions about how he could serve if under house arrest, parole, or in prison. It forces us to reckon with the balance of powers in this country - can a person dodge justice because they attain high office, or do we hold them accountable no matter what?
If what you mean is in reality, no it probably won’t do shit.
And why do old people randomly capitalize nouns? Every Sentence reads like the just read the Written Word for the first time and wanted to give It a Try For Themselves
Gatekeeping on following the scientific method is pretty good gatekeeping if you ask me. Again, what you are arguing is anathema to centuries of scientific endeavors. You’re applying your own interpretation to something that has literally hundreds of years of meaning already, in a way that is just not right. It’s not gatekeeping any more than “a court of law” gatekeeps the concept of justice.
I mean, Yann LeCunn disagrees with you but sure. Go on.
No it literally cannot be so defined. The last part of the scientific method is “report conclusions.” That means public scrutiny free of bias. Internal groups are not public.
This is akin to saying that a corporation doesn’t need to use the courts because it has internal judges. They might have trials, but by definition they are not doing justice.
No, they can’t. Peer review is not the peers you determine - it’s the peers of your community. Science that is not public is not science, because it cannot be independently verified and reproduced. It is not a small point, it’s one of the foundations of the disciplines of science.
Because science is about objective, provable fact following a known and public method. An organization can say their findings are reproducible, but reproducibility is more than just getting the same results every time the same lab runs the same PCR on the same machine. To be truly reproducible your results need to be able to be replicated by anyone with appropriate materials and equipment.
What you are describing is research, not science. It’s not that research is bad, but that science is a philosophical adherence to a method as much as it is that method itself.
The tobacco companies conducted research when they realized smoking caused cancer and hid those findings from others. That’s not science even if their internal researchers were consistent with each other.
Some published papers are not reproducible. All unpublished papers are not reproducible. You’re creating a dangerously wrong equivalence.
Imagine telling Yann LeCun what is and isn’t right when it comes to science
No need to apologize haha! You were giving good advice and didn’t do anything funny. It’s just tech names that are funny. I appreciate your attitude fwiw and your English is better than mine, so it not being your first language is not apparent at all
No no, I’m not laughing at you. It’s the names of the services that are cracking me up. You didn’t do anything
I know those are all real but this sentence is objectively hilarious
Well that’s because you’re a tech-hating Luddite most likely \s
Yeah since I learned who the Luddites were I’ve kind of fallen in love with them
Happy to! I can see why someone would be confused 😂
The Luddite is an anticapitalist blog https://theluddite.org
People here are far more likely to be anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, pro-privacy, etc. those groups all circle the same kind of Cory Doctorow/Matt Stoller/Luddite world where the word enshittification became popular.
Most gym employees don’t have that level of discretion in the US at least. Most gyms I’m aware of are franchises and asking a wage employee to go against their corporate policies risks their livelihood.
It’s impossible to do without signing the with the valid cert. I think destroying the anonymity is the point