They might be willing to offer 1.4x. If you tell them you want at least 1.2x, they're probably not doing 1.4x. If you ask them what the range is and they tell you a range, you can at least ask them for the top of the range or more. Worst case they just say they can't do X but can do Y, and then you have more info to negotiate with. Way better than not knowing and leaving money on the table.
To me it feels like the original fine may have influenced by that. It would have discouraged Intel from offering these rebates to OEMs, giving AMD a chance to slowly get back into laptops. At the time Intel's mobile CPUs were far superior, but the same could not be said for their integrated GPUs, but IIRC the rebates required that OEMs go full Intel (CPU, GPU, chipset, and WiFi).
This doesn't particularly make sense. You can't even use non Intel chipsets with Intel CPUs and integrated GPUs are inherently tied to the CPU. (In the case of the discrete GPU segment, Intel didn't even have an offering.) The only place where alternatives are even technically possible are in WiFi where there is no impact on AMD.
> You can't even use non Intel chipsets with Intel CPUs and integrated GPUs are inherently tied to the CPU.
You used to be able to, but Intel cut off the rights to use their chipsets' interconnect. Before that point 'integrated on the chipset' was a valid way to do integrated graphics.
There were many people over many studies that were responsible for mRNA vaccines and you don't hear them agreeing. Robert Malone had a small contribution early on. He's probably stirring controversy for publicity's sake.
We still need there to be suitable alternatives, so there needs to be some regulation at least, to encourage competition and/or to prevent companies from reaching a point where there are no longer alternatives.
There's three independent issues here affecting users and developers:
1. People are tracked in ways they don't understand without their knowledge or consent.
2. Apple requires that in-app purchases go through the App Store.
3. Apple does not allow 3rd-party app stores.
These can all be independently tackled and it would be a shame to gate solutions for one problem on solving the others first or at the same time. For now, apps can change their business models to ensure profits. Later, when the other issues are taken care of, they can take advantage of that as well.
Why? I feel like a lot of people want to do things that are productive for society, that we have too little of right now. Things like producing art of all forms, building things, increasing their level of communication with those around them, participating in community events and activities, etc. Sure, these things aren't economically productive, but they're still productive for society, which is the gap that I'd like to see filled, whether by UBI or other forms of providing more security for the general population.
>Why? I feel like a lot of people want to do things that are productive for society
Most of the things that are productive for society require study and practice of skills that aren't particularly interesting to the vast majority of people.
>Sure, these things aren't economically productive
The vast majority of things that are productive for society are economically productive. That's why people pay for things.
We don't need UBI to go toward funding artists and musicians. That's a waste of resources. Particularly considering that far too many people are likely to choose the easy way out, pursuing "what they love", i.e. soft skills like art and music. You also drastically underestimate the number people who are perfectly content with doing drugs and watching TV/playing video games all day.
Unfortunately while resources are scarce, human nature is such that people require incentives to do the things that need to be done.
IMO, UBI can actually encourage innovation and productive work, on "hard problems" that are not economically viable in a short-enough time-frame or lucrative enough for VCs, but for which society would certainly benefit from.
This is a problem because companies can use this ID to correlate private user data, without anyone's knowledge or consent.
There are companies that specialise in sharing user information. Some of them work by only sharing data with companies that first share data with them (an exchange).
If you got this Google ID, and you had a few other pieces of information about the user, you could share that data with an exchange, indicating that the Google ID is a unique identifier. Then, the exchange would check if it has a matching profile, add the information you provided to that profile, and then return all of the information they have for that profile to you.
So, let's say you're an online retailer, and you have Google IDs for your customers. You probably have some useful and sensitive customer information, like names, emails, addresses, and purchase histories. In order to better target your ads, you could participate in one of these exchanges, so that you can use the information you receive to suggest products that are as relevant as possible to each customer.
To participate, you send all this sensitive information, along with a Google ID, and receive similar information from other retailers, online services, video games, banks, credit card providers, insurers, mortgage brokers, service providers, and more! And now you know what sort of vehicles your customers drive, how much they make, whether they're married, how many kids they have, which websites they browse, etc. So useful! And not only do you get all these juicy private details, but you've also shared your customers sensitive purchase history with anyone else who is connected to the exchange.
I have no doubt that if you had a record of my browsing habits for 2-3 days you could readily identify who I am the next time you have my browsing habits for that period of time.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if 2-3 hours of active browsing was enough for this.
It seems likely that the ad network could detect the change in ID if the expiration happens in the middle of a browsing session. Which, considering user habits, they are probably online at the same time every day, or have habits that cycle weekly.
Also, considering we largely do the same things every week and every day, I suspect a single day to give you at least 50% of a user's identifying data, and a week to give you at least 80%. That leaves a whole week of pretty accurate tracking.
I think you've made a pretty wild claim that 14 days isn't enough time to build a useful profile. Regardless, even if the usefulness of the data over two weeks is questionable, it's still illegal to share the data in this way. You wouldn't be too happy if someone broke into your house and "only" stole a single fork.
Considering how much time many people spend online, and how efficient these profiling systems have become, I wouldn't be surprised if 14 days was plenty of time.
The time of validity and how hard it might be to build a profile are not factors in whether or not this is legal under GDPR. Here's the actual text from GDPR on pseudonyms and synthetic keys of this type[1]
> The principles of data protection should apply to any information concerning an identified or identifiable natural person. Personal data which have undergone pseudonymisation, which could be attributed to a natural person by the use of additional information should be considered to be information on an identifiable natural person
So PII that has been pseudonymized (mapped to a gid in this case) is protected in exactly the same way as if it had not been if the pseudonymized data could be mapped to a natural person by the use of additional data. The pseudonym (gid) is itself also considered PII under gdpr.
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
> The pseudonym (gid) is itself considered PII under GDPR.
I know of multiple systems that use a UID but throw away a user’s information, including the UID mapping, when the user leaves. This allows historic metrics to be retained without ever identifying a user who isn’t still using the system.
Thank you: that explanation is the first that makes sense to me.
I get the impression that this structure would require an exchange: retailers would not trust each other otherwise.
Wouldn’t commercial pamphlets, interviews with salespeople, etc., from the exchange be obvious proof of illegal behaviour there? Google’s implementation is imperfect but, for the loophole to work, it would need coordination between several competitors and third party with a business model explicitly and almost exclusively about going around against GDPR.
If I can risk a comparison, that would be Google is like a chemical company selling fertilizer, and the exchange is selling bombs made from raw material bought by other people.
Am I missing the point? Shouldn’t this article be about those exchange and their clients, not Google?
I suspect that's true, but you don't actually know that from this dataset. Some portion of the cost is born by the auditee to respond/defend against the audit and passed on to shareholders/employees/customers.
If the response costs are great with respect to the IRS's audit costs, the government could quite profitably add auditors, but have a negative overall impact on end citizens.
Even if the IRS "profits" from spending $1B to collect $2B, that's a 50% processing fee on that incoming money, halving the efficiency of that marginal dollar. If that's still worth collecting, it's better to raise taxes. Really the appropriate stopping point in IRS funding has little to do with whether one of these numbers is close to another.
It's also a deterrent to people trying to evade taxes.
It's not fair to raise taxes on other people who are honest and pay because it's a pain to collect from some people.
I realize that's simplifying things some, and not all people who don't pay do so because they're sneaky or dishonest or whatever, but I think the broader point stands.
My gut instinct is that the mob might be a (potentially significant) factor here. I could be wrong, but this is their bread an butter after all: bribe politician to get large-scale infrastructure project and then artificially inflate costs (false purchase orders, buying materials from companies they operate in amounts that are far in excess or what's required and not actually shipping them, etc.) so that they can siphon away tax dollars.
