At the very least it lowered the barriers for agents without satellite or maritime intelligence. Another piece of information extracted from the Strava episode is that the carrier is not going through a GPS-jammed location, or jamming it itself.
Sure, but many people want to use Strava for more than one purpose.
a) Analysis and tracking of your own personal goals. (Some of the tools are better than the stuff available on the device itself.)
b) Sharing and socialising some other activities.
You can be careful and only allow certain activities to be public but you'll make mistakes and eventually many people will just think "whatever, I'll just default to public and remember to hide the ones I don't want to be public" and then it's even easier to make mistakes.
Defaulting to "opt-in" is all well and good until a human makes a mistake.
imho with unusually sensitive things like precise location data it could just not let you opt-in to making it all public, and make it much easier to share with a specific named friends than to share on a public directory
I really don't understand these criticisms of Strava, it has excellent privacy controls so you can share as little or as much as you want. You can already choose to share your activities with only your friends (followers). Or keep your activities private or hide the location data.
It does but my point is that your settings are applied to all activities.
Here's a few examples that might help demonstrate my point:
I used to do parkrun regularly. I had no problem sharing my Strava activities for parkrun because me doing it wasn't a secret, nor was the location secret, nor was my time secret. All of these things could be found from the parkrun website once the results had come up. John Doe was at this location at 9am and ran this route with 400 others in a time of 26 minutes or whatever.
I was also part of a cycling club that did a regular "club run" on a Sunday. 5-15 of us all doing the same route. It was good for club morale for us all to upload our rides to help show how popular it was and encourage other club members to come along. They could see that we weren't going at a silly pace and that we stopped regularly to regroup as we had riders of all abilities and speeds riding with us.
But then I also helped out with my kids running club at school, taking a bunch of 7-11 year old's on a 20 minute jog/run (depending on how quick they were) around the local area. This absolutely should not appear on Strava (public or not). The running club wasn't a secret (everyone at the school knew since they had the option of letting their kid do it) but that's a whole world of difference from having it public on Strava showing the usual start time, the various routes we used to take, where we stopped, etc. Privacy zones can help hide the start/end but that wouldn't help hide everything.
We just made sure that all of the parents who helped out knew that we shouldn't even record it with their smartwatch. I just used to create a manual entry of "Morning run" with approximate distance and time. That was good enough for my training stats.
There's no one privacy setting that handles all of this. Whatever setting you use relies on me to manually adjust the activities that don't fit that setting. The problem is that humans are fallible, so remembering to make it private or hide the location data isn't entirely reliable. You're also at the mercy of Strava (or whatever) not doing something stupid and accidentally making private data visible due to some bug, glitch or leak.
Right, requiring human intervention to share a run (other than maybe with eg a specific small circle of mutual friends) seems like it solves all those problems, other than perhaps being annoyed that you forgot to manually share a run.
But at least that's a failure you can fix once you notice, as opposed to making something public that shouldn't have been. Letting people opt in to automatically sharing runs to the public just seems like something designed to get people to share stuff without thinking about it.
I'm saying something a bit different: that even letting people opt in to sharing every run they track publicly is just asking for trouble. It's setting people up for their information to be made public when they forget to turn it off or that they turned it on in the first place.
Maybe "automatically share everything to the globe" should just not be an option for sensitive data like this.
For those that want a broader context on private credit, the Bank for International Settlements has been publishing some great material on the topic, including the connections between private credit and other corners of the financial system. Some examples follow.
Same frustration here. It’s somewhat painful for me to type but using dictation on the iphone is so terrible I prefer the physical pain.
As for names, I an also baffled. Most people in my family have either a Brazilian Portuguese or German name, but my work life is in English, so guess what, no getting anyone’s name right!
One of the (not so many) things about Windows that I loved was the zen simplicity of the Notepad. I saw it through Windows 3.1 all the way to the bloated oblivion it was driven to, and I did not like to see that sad, final chapter. (Broader theme, do I miss the simpler computer times!)
I always preferred money stuff. I feel like the hosts have better chemistry and matt levine is one of the most read/respected financial journalists in the last 20 years. I always look forward to it coming out on a Friday.
I agree with your points about the tone. Money Stuff is definitely more "fun".
I find the content differs between the two, not just the presentation. Odd Lots goes into the broad scale (national, global) backstory a lot more; Money Stuff dives deep into specific businesses, people, or the technical details of a trade. Maybe your circumstances and habits mean you get more from one than the other?
I wish Bloomberg would find presenters for UK or European centric versions of both shows.
Hi, HN! Co-author here (I don't know if own papers are also Show HN, happy to adjust if so). We explored LLM strategic choices in a simple but intriguing game theoretical setting, the ultimatum game.
In this game, a Proposer proposes to distribute a share of the amount at stake with the Responder. If the Responder accepts, both get their proposed amounts; if the proposal is rejected then no one gets anything. This game shines a light on how these models could behave when their payoffs depend on the opponent's choices too.
We document three main findings.
First, LLM behavior is heterogeneous but predictable when conditioning on stake size and player types.
Second, some models approximate the rational benchmark and others mimic human social preferences, but we also observe a distinct "altruistic" mode emerging - in this case, LLMs propose hyper-fair distributions (greater than 50%).
Third, when we calculate the expected payoff, LLMs actually leave a lot of money on the table. They forgo a large share of total payoff, and an even larger share when the Responder is human.
```
autoload -U up-line-or-beginning-search
autoload -U down-line-or-beginning-search
zle -N up-line-or-beginning-search
zle -N down-line-or-beginning-search
bindkey "^[[A" up-line-or-beginning-search
bindkey "^[[OA" up-line-or-beginning-search
bindkey "^[[B" down-line-or-beginning-search
bindkey "^[[OB" down-line-or-beginning-search
```
reply