scott_w

5 ms·

1.
by scott_w 3d ago
Yep, you’re right. I was mixing it up with Groom of the Stool.
2.
by scott_w 3d ago
I just checked and you’re right! I’m mixing it up with Groom of the Stool, which was a separate but also honourable position.
3.
by scott_w 3d ago
Not to mention the Privy Council, so named because they were trusted to speak to the King while he was on the toilet! I don’t think the modern day Privy Council ever met with Elizabeth II in such a way!
4.
by scott_w 3d ago
I do think it’s fair to point out that both of these postage Matilda by a few hundred years. I’m actually struggling to think of many Christian European kingdoms that would have at this point. France only had kings at that point (in fact, M
5.
by scott_w 4d ago
The substance of your objection is “these criticisms are regularly levelled at men today,” and you skip the part that 900 years have passed since they were levelled at Matilda. You then demand the article provide evidence to overcome this c
6.
by scott_w 4d ago
So there were some texts later discussing the problems of Elizabeth I being Queen Regnant when all laws and customs referred to a “King.” We also see a lot of her father’s behaviour (Henry VIII) being driven by his need for a male heir. It’
7.
by scott_w 4d ago
Er… no it didn’t? It just said the criticism being based on her womanhood was evident because of <reason>, it never promised to prove it, it was just a rhetorical device and they expect the reader to know the information already. If y
8.
by scott_w 4d ago
I’m struggling to follow your point. The article isn’t giving a major thesis on why medieval people thought Matilda couldn’t rule England. From the perspective of the barons at the time, Matilda couldn’t be queen in her own right because w
9.
by scott_w 4d ago
More importantly: a king was expected to embody the traits a queen was hammered for.
10.
by scott_w 10d ago
Let me get this straight, your contentions are: - Bush invaded Iraq because an oil company funded his campaign? - Obama bailed out banks (a thing every government worldwide was doing) because banks funded his campaign? There’s no evidence o
11.
by scott_w 11d ago
That’s not an answer to the question. How did any of these presidents profit, financially or not, from their actions regarding Iraq or the 2008 financial crisis? What was the quid pro quo they received?
12.
by scott_w 12d ago
No, they’re not examples of corruption. Did Bush or Biden seek to profit from their actions financially? Not that I know of, unless you have proof showing what and how.
13.
by scott_w 14d ago
I explained: they’re all doing different things, they have different behaviours, they have different performance and uptime characteristics. The reason that the values change are completely different, so how that information is set and read
14.
by scott_w 14d ago
One way I’ve thought of it is to ask what happens if the function is blocked, how is it enabled mechanically and why would that be changed? Once you answer these, you start to see the groupings more clearly, I’ve found.
15.
by scott_w 14d ago
I 100% agree with everything you said and more. I spent a significant amount of time at my job arguing constantly with the entire engineering department that “Feature Flags” are not all the same thing and had to push back on efforts to mix
16.
by scott_w 18d ago
I’m not here to defend credit agencies but I will point out that the GDPR does put the onus on them to make sure the information is accurate. This is a net positive. The power to delete your data with them would actually result in exactly t
17.
by scott_w 18d ago
> If that's right than handling a GDPR data request 100% according to the rules would require having some way to search nearly every computer we've got looking for anything concerning any particular customer. You’re only half r
18.
by scott_w 18d ago
> So first you tell me to blindly trust officals, now i should leave country! Great advice! Again, context. I’m bored of explaining it to you like a toddler so I’ll just tell you to reread my comments very slowly and figure it out. >
19.
by scott_w 18d ago
> You said "shady shit"! Look, I don’t think English is your first language, so I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it’s getting really tiring having to explain basic things like “context” to you. I’m obviously
20.
by scott_w 18d ago
> just because I have small profits, does not mean i sell drugs! I never said anything about drugs. I’m talking about doing illegal things with people’s data. > And than you get different offical, with different opinion. Their advice
21.
by scott_w 18d ago
While you might hate them, you don’t want your data to be removed from their systems. If you’re having a hard time accessing credit with them, imagine what happens when you try to access credit as a ghost.
22.
by scott_w 18d ago
By “major player” I meant the analytics companies that you pay, not you. > Yet more extra work! If “customer asks me to update my records on them, so I do it,” is too much work then you really shouldn’t be in the business that requires i
23.
by scott_w 18d ago
> GDPR is easy to implement once, but it is constantly changing every year. No it’s not. If you’re running an online store, compliance is pretty straightforward. Most of the PII you collect has a good reason: payment, fulfilment, fraud p
24.
by scott_w 18d ago
As someone who worked on GDPR compliance just last year, in a company that is deeply affected by it, no, it’s not that complicated.
25.
by scott_w 18d ago
As someone who, until recently, worked in a company heavily impacted by GDPR, it’s a good thing. It forced the mindset away from “just do whatever is easiest,” to considering how it affects where our customer’s data is stored. Was it a PITA
26.
by scott_w 1mo ago
> Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion. You’re correct but missing the point entirely. I’m answering “why are the MoJ spending money on this?” Whether one should change the law is i
27.
by scott_w 1mo ago
Doubtful. I suspect the CEO was the one doing the estimating, so any number you give him is ignored in favour of what he provides instead.
28.
by scott_w 1mo ago
That does not counter my point at all. There's a gaping maw between "a person's back garden" and "The North Sea." To demonstrate the difference to yourself, look up "Trump International Golf Links Aberdeen
29.
by scott_w 1mo ago
Which laws? Who is "they?" Be clear.
30.
by scott_w 1mo ago
I took the wording from the article: > The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street. A further £35,300 was spent on overtime and security cos

More ›