I like the critical thinking in this article. Problem is, I am critical about it's critique. Just because Ted Cruz made use of the same platform and did not win, does not mean there is no problem with what Facebook is doing. They are still thieving people's data and selling it for a nice sum.
I don't think the author was trying to excuse Facebook's business model by bringing up Cruz. She was pointing out that if this 'psychological profiling' technique from CA was really a silver bullet for swaying votes, Cruz would have done better in his run the Republican nomination. It's a single data point that arguably isn't worth much, but it was interesting to me as I'd not heard of any other prominent politicians using the service. Balanced article by WAPO in my view.
I thought Cruz came in 2nd? To the guy who was on every channel of TV all the time. Keep in mind R primary voters get more of their news from TV than the general electorate, which explains why Trump beat Cruz more than he beat Clinton. Keep in mind also that Cruz is a total pariah in Washington. The only people who will talk to him are those who are paid to do so. Based on previous form, one would not have expected Jeb and the rest to all lose to Trump and Cruz.
What the hell are you talking about? There is no stealing. People agreed to give their data to facebook and do whatever with it. read the terms and conditions of using fb.
It's not that simple. Facebook's shifting privacy defaults are what enabled some of the deeper reach of the CA mining tactics and are arguably what gave them much more information than probably even Facebook had intended.
That's not to say that people are pretty careless about privacy management (and security), but this went well beyond what the informed public thought was happening (or possible) on FB during those years.
> If you are not reading a regular amount of classics, you are doomed to be historically parochial.
Precisely. Often, I cannot relate to classics, and therefore end up feeling let down and questioning the hype. But the reason it is a classic is because it stood out from peers at the time. It is this quality of classics that I believe you are referring to.
> Pop social science and business self-help books are like chocolate - healthy in small doses, as part of a balanced diet.
I suppose it's more like sugar for the brain. Too much of it is bad. But I see what you mean.
Not really. It implies that the owner no longer has faith in Samsung products and has switched, so I'd say it's relevant. They could have said that he replaced it with "another brand," which would have been more appropriate, but I still think it's relevant.
It's still not relevant to the story, which is about the phone exploding. The owner losing faith in Samsung doesn't matter. The only way it would be relevant is if he has decided ahead of time that he was switching to the iPhone and Samsung tried to bump him off because of it.
If he stated so, it is clearly not in line with the title of his blog post [1]. Come on, the media preys on keywords like hacking, so if you don't see it coming be careful the next time is my advice to the "hacker" in question.
[1] http://deedy.quora.com/Hacking-into-the-Indian-Education-Sys...
