8 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2020
    1. Click + Add Filter. Select Apply existing Filter.

      I wouldn't expect to find "Apply existing Filter" under the same button as for creating a new filter.

    1. P ⇒ Q

      It may be confusing for a newcomer (or on first read-through) that the variable/predicate/condition that represents the "necessary condition" in this statement P ⇒ Q is the Q.

      One might be forgiven for incorrectly assuming that the P represents the necessary condition. That is because most of the time when one states a statement/relation/implication/etc. about a subject, the sentence/statement begins with the subject. For example, if we're explaining about a "less than" relationship, and we give x < y as an example, one would correctly assume that x is the subject here and x is the thing that is less than.

      So it may be a bit surprising to a newcomer (on first read-through) that the subject of this section — the necessary condition — is represented by the Q and not be the P.

      (Made even more confusing by the fact that the very same implication P ⇒ Q is also used to express the opposite sufficiency relationship in the very next section. I would argue that Q ⇒ P should have been used instead in exactly one of these sections to make it clearer that the subject is different and/or the relation is different, depending how you look at it.)

      Is there any reason we couldn't rewrite this to express the logical relation between P and Q with the subject first? If we let P be the subject (that is, "necessary condition" that we're illustrating/explaining), could we not rewrite this as P ⇐ Q?

      In fact, that is exactly how this relation was expressed below, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency#Simultaneous_necessity_and_sufficiency !:

      that P is necessary for Q, P ⇐ Q, and that P is sufficient for Q, P ⇒ Q

    1. If you’re a controller based outside of the EU, you’re transferring personal data outside of the EU each time you collect data of users based within the EU. Please make sure you do so according to one of the legal bases for transfer.

      Here they equate collection of personal data with transfer of personal data. But this is not very intuitive: I usually think of collection of data and transfer of data as rather different activities. It would be if we collected the data on a server in EU and then transferred all that data (via some internal process) to a server in US.

      But I guess when you collect the data over the Internet from a user in a different country, the data is technically being transferred directly to your server in the US. But who is doing the transfer? I would argue that it is not me who is transferring it; it is the user who transmitted/sent the data to my app. I'm collecting it from them, but not transferring it. Collecting seems like more of a passive activity, while transfer seems like a more active activity (maybe not if it's all automated).

      So if these terms are equivalent, then they should replace all instances of "transfer" with "collect". That would make it much clearer and harder to mistakenly assume this doesn't apply to oneself. Or if there is a nuanced difference between the two activities, then the differences should be explained, such as examples of when collection may occur without transfer occurring.

  2. Apr 2020
    1. the body of law derived from judicial decisions of courts and similar tribunals.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent.

      The way "common law" sounds and is used, I would have thought it meant law that is common (in common between) many countries, laws that can be found on the books in all of these many places. (Kind of like commonwealth.)

      But, although it is common to many countries, that is not its defining characteristic. Its defining characteristic is actually something quite different.

      Since the term is so far removed from what it actually means, I would even go so far as to say it is a mild euphemism.

      Much better names for this exist: judicial precedent or judge-made law are the clearest options. But even "case law" is a better term.

  3. Mar 2020
    1. The <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> tag or directive applies to search engine crawlers. To block non-search crawlers, such as AdsBot-Google, you might need to add directives targeted to the specific crawler
    1. For the noindex directive to be effective, the page must not be blocked by a robots.txt file. If the page is blocked by a robots.txt file, the crawler will never see the noindex directive, and the page can still appear in search results, for example if other pages link to it.