Only tracking cookies require consent. Cookies could be about the last time you saw the website's weather content, in which case it's purely functional and need no consent.
Not all places in the world share the same set of laws or jurisprudence. What's allowed or required and what isn't is entirely dependent on the jurisdiction(s) the website operators are beholden to.
Are you sure of that ? I knew that the competent jurisprudence or "forum" is that of the user, or everyone could circumvent the law using "offshore" companies to track people in regulated countries (i.e. EU). I was reading here on HN that , for that reason ( avoid EU Regulation ) sites like New York Times, blocked the availability of their contents in whole EU.
I was checking, see here, for example:
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/many-eu-visi...
Insofar as what the jurisdictions the website operators are beholden to or perhaps care about have to say about it, but otherwise I (not a laywer) share your perspective.
Strictly necessary cookies do not have to be session cookies. If you read https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ it says they generally will be session cookies, not that they must be. If you think it is appropriate for your users to be already logged in the next time they run their web browser, using a persistent cookie for that is permitted.
Yes, they can become persistent once you get consent or other grounds. You probably get that consent in registration form and "recall" it on login. Otherwise you process data from across sessions, which is a huge red flag.
That's because there are more people who drive cars than people who handle plutonium. A more sensible statistics would be the number of death per hour of usage (which might still be in favor of handling plutonium).
Taleb literally did say that you should never board a plane on which the pilot isn't onboard (such as a drone plane). Unless this was intended to never make you board an unethical plane, he does believe in some sort of insurance related to "skin in the game".
I would never get on a plane with the pilot anywhere but on the plane either.
But, the point of skin in the game isn't that it reduces the risk, it's a moral issue of who bears the risk. Skin in the game means you don't get the upside without the downside risk. That's it. It's not some magical pixie dust that makes people act rational, or follow safety protocols.
The pilot is more often than not the cause of the accident. Without a pilot airplane would have to be designed to a much higher standard. Right now the pilot is an unreliable fallback
Working with QA analysts has shown me that quality people are totally autonomous in adding disproportionate hurdles to the way of production without needing the help of any external lobbying.
It's very simple: the only way to 100% prevent an incident is the absence of production at all. If your incentive is to avoid incidents at all cost, you are incentivized to prevent production entirely.
That's completely speculative, plus those are not the KPIs that the business gives a shit about, in terms of engagement oriented revenue. Advertisers care about impressions, and unique users, and that's it and I would bet your childrens' lives, that both have seen a statistically significant hit.
"research on language model" lol OpenAI is where the research happens. It's like saying SpaceX not giving away rockets hinders research on rockets. Anybody is free to develop their own AI model.
