I’m happy that researchers are publishing their data on this, but I wish they’d include discussions of some of the bad faith antics organizations are pulling while pretending to push return-to-office (RTO). This goes way beyond reasserting control over their employees, like the firms owning those buildings and expecting rent from same-site retail businesses that need the higher foot traffic RTO could bring or wanting to do a round of layoffs without paying for severance.
That wasn’t the conclusion of the study at all; It only sought to establish if there is indeed a correlation between between diversity and a company’s EBIT margin (essentially, a cost management index) in three seminal McKinsey studies. It did not aim to discuss the effectiveness of diversity in corporate hiring in a broader sense:
While our results do speak to the lack of robustness of McKinsey’s (2015, 2018, 2020) studies vis-à-vis large public US firms, they do not speak to the connections between racial/ethnic diversity in employees and/or Boards and either firm financial performance or non-financial firm goals, nor to intra-firm activities. Nor do they speak to any social or moral contributions that racial/ethnic diversity in US executives provide.
We conclude that in light of the prominence of the connections between firm financial performance and the racial/ethnic composition of their employees, not just in the US but around the world, there is great value in future research that would seek to empirically test for the presence, sign, magnitude, and direction of any causal relations that exist. Such longitudinal and causality-oriented study may also help bring into sharper focus the identities and sizes of the costs and benefits, as well as the risks and returns, that are associated with higher or lower racial/ethnic diversity, not only in firms’ executives, but in their Boards of Directors and rank-and-file employees.
it’s time to remind everyone that Tesla’s design choice to disengage self-driving in the instant before impact is intentional to ensure the driver is in control during the moment of impact
That sounds like not only an admission of fault for the collision on Tesla’s part but also deliberate fraud to me. That shouldn’t protect Tesla from liability; it should increase it.
“Analyzing several high-profile accidents involving complex and automated socio-technical systems and the media coverage that surrounded them, I introduce the concept of a moral crumple zone to describe how responsibility for an action may be misattributed to a human actor who had limited control over the behavior of an automated or autonomous system. Just as the crumple zone in a car is designed to absorb the force of impact in a crash, the human in a highly complex and automated system may become simply a component—accidentally or intentionally—that bears the brunt of the moral and legal responsibilities when the overall system malfunctions. While the crumple zone in a car is meant to protect the human driver, the moral crumple zone protects the integrity of the technological system, at the expense of the nearest human operator.”<
I like the Dutch consent form for body donation. You can just checkmark what you’re ok with and what not. I don’t know all the details but I expect that it’ll be used responsibly.
I think we can all agree that that’s an important topic. Why can’t we do that for other, often less important, things too?
Like sure, access my diary if your research is supported by a board but not for security purposes unless you have a warrant.
So this type of consent is something like “you don’t need consent to do basic data processing because consents are not real”? Bruh what’s up with all the horrifying ideas recently?
EDIT: the upvote rate of this post makes my miserable hope for humanity even lower
As I understand, it wants a third consent option, that’s what it calls “murky consent”, that would only allow very basic and very minimal data processing rights. For example it would not allow usage based on “legitimate interest”.
Still it is data collection without my consent. What if I open the website accidentally for example? That concept is no more than enshittification to me. Better do something with the data sharing (like limit it and implement severe punishments for the violations) on the law level
That’s the neat part. With this they would only be allowed to collect data that’s technically absolutely necessary. No legitimate interests and whatever bullshit. This is for those who only want to give their “consent” because other people are making them use the system.
This of course won’t solve trust issues. I won’t trust facebook and google because of it, that they will honor it. They can do whatever they want in ways that never will get to known. But I don’t think that’s solvable with big central providers.
I think that consent is necessary. ANY data processing without consent should be illegal, even if you’re not able to use the system without it. It’s a matter of human rights.
As I understood they proposed replacing on/off with all/basic_only. That is bad because I have the right not to give any data, especially if I visit the website accidentally. It may not make much actual sense for most people but I’m really serious about my rights
If they really want to replace “off” with “basic_only”, I totally agree with you. “off” is a must have option, partly as you say for accidental visits, and for when you just visited but reading their policy made you leave the site, to keep it that way that data collection can only start when the user presses the agree button.
The problem is that there’s no clear definition of “legitimate interest”. You may argue that Google has a “legitimate interest” about every part of your life, because they do, so that they can sell your data. Legitimate interest.
The way I see this today can only be defined as “legally stealing”. They take our data without our knowledge and use it however they want because they own it the moment they take it from us, but there’s no legal threat to them, thus “legally stealing”.
Interesting paper, but I doubt its central proposition has much likelihood of success. We’re headed for super-intelligent AGI whether some people like it or not.
What does unlawful sources mean? If you donated to a Russian band a few years ago, you were doing something lawful. Now, it’s unlawful in some parts of the world. Even remittances to your Russian family puts you in question. If you supported certain protests, you can be unlawful, but lawful the next government. Privacy pools only “work” if they are federated because laws throughout the world are not uniform, but being part of the “wrong” federation can make you unlawful. In the end, fear will prevent people from joining, and that fear will spread to the pool developers since at least one federation will do something another country does not like. I’ll fail before it gets started. Just use Monero.
>demonstrating that their funds (do not) originate from known (un-)lawful sources, without publicly revealing their entire transaction graph.
tbh, I am skeptical about how the current status quo of government apparatus defines the "lawful" and "unlawful." So, it is total obfuscation without compromises.
papers.ssrn.com
Hot