The differences observed are at the population level. That means there is HUGE overlap between the two populations and you can’t distinguish any data point as being a girl or a boy. Only that the populations have a different average or range. For a visual representation check out [1].
This kind of thing shows up all over the place in all fields of research. It’s why for example although you can see immune system differences at a population level between patients with disease X and healthy controls, you can’t in any way use it as a biomarker for an individual who might have disease X.
> An engineer checked progress twice a day and reviewed every proposed change.
It doesn’t sound like that much changed. If one engineer can really review all the changes in under two weeks, the original estimate of 5 years of engineering work has to be waaaaaaay off.
I think the genesis was the Panama papers release way back. Turns out the US is one of the better places to launder money through.
I don’t understand though: Why would any company find it difficult to register their owners? That seems like a pretty basic thing any company should know and it’s a perfectly normal thing in most countries.
Most countries have work arounds, because of a combo of;
1) stalkers
2) hiding money from divorce proceedings and angry ex’s
3) hiding money from lawyers looking for a payday
4) hiding money from various tax authorities
well, often there is a lot of overlap among all of these.
Note: for all these groups, it can be fun to kinda act like you have hidden assets in classic places so they spin their wheels thinking you are a genius hiding things there, until they get in trouble with their bosses for wasting their time being creepy stalkers.
> There IS value being created, or people wouldn't use the tools.
But for who and where is it realized? Ireland’s massive data centers aren’t there to serve Ireland’s tiny population. The value is exported overseas and profits realized overseas.
So what really matters for Ireland (and any country/region hosting these data centers) is whether the benefits in terms of capital spending + the few ongoing jobs created outweighs any increased electricity and environmental costs faced by everyone else.
> So what really matters for Ireland (and any country/region hosting these data centers) is whether the benefits in terms of capital spending + the few ongoing jobs created outweighs any increased electricity and environmental costs faced by everyone else
Exactly, which is WHY IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland have been a data center first policy in Ireland since the mid-2000s.
Heck, the only reason Microsoft and Google ended up in Dublin was because the IDA clubbed employment creation with data center construction in the 2000s.
Ireland in the 1990s and 2000s was roughly comparable to Greece developmentally back then and also suffered a Greek style economic meltdown from 2008-13. The only reason Ireland didn't stagnate like Greece was because of how business and tech FDI friendly Ireland was.
I think that you might have some details wrong here.
Like, Ireland supplied basically all of the English docs for windows 95, and Apple have been in cork since the 80s.
More generally, the reason tech companies came to Ireland since the 2000s was for tax purposes, which ironically enough lead to us getting bucket loads of corporate tax after the OECD reforms.
And no, Ireland in the 2000s was not developmentally the same as Greece, you may be thinking of the 80s and 90s.
But yeah, the only reason we don't look as indebted as Greece is due to our ludicrous GDP figures.
> Ireland supplied basically all of the English docs for windows 95,
Yep, but the bulk of R&D FDI and the expansion of Ireland's tech scene only arose after Google opened it's campus in Dublin, which itself was in large part to help coordinate Google's data center expansion - especially after acquiring Colt.
> More generally, the reason tech companies came to Ireland since the 2000s was for tax purposes
Not really from personal experience - the tax incentives were nice, but Netherlands also provided a similar tax regime to Ireland during that time period.
It was the data center buildout and incentives by IDA and Enterprise Ireland that were the foundation of Ireland becoming the "Silicon Republic".
Google wouldn't have expanded without the Colt acquisition. Microsoft wouldn't have expanded it's footprint in Ireland without the Data Electronics partnership. Amazon, Vodafone, EMC, Yahoo, and other early 2000s tech companies that helped seed much of the tech industry in Ireland today.
> And no, Ireland in the 2000s was not developmentally the same as Greece
At least with regards to HDI and other developmental indicators, Ireland and Greece both overlapped well into the 2000s. The divergence between the two only kicked in after 2008.
> Apple have been in cork since the 80s...
And was limited to assembly before shifting that to China in the 2000s.
Apple would have entirely left Ireland around then as well if IDA and Enterprise Ireland didn't incentivize Apple to hire support and supply chain staff in Cork - heck, Apple employs around 3% of Cork as a result now.
> But yeah, the only reason we don't look as indebted as Greece is due to our ludicrous GDP figures
It's not just about being indebted. Ireland's median household incomes now significantly exceed those of the UK despite similar CoL - which wasn't a guarantee in the 2000s.
------
Ireland becoming what it is today was not a given in the 2000s - the IDA and Enterprise Ireland pushed boulders to seed the data center ecosystem which helped build the DevOps and Infra ecosystem which then helped seed the domestic ecosystem that exists today.
All the major foreign players in Ireland's tech scene had the option to open in the UK, Netherlands, and Germany as well, but it was the IDA's hard work and foresight in recognizing that data centers and DevOps would allow Ireland to leverage the cloud hyperscaler boom and climb the value chain which allowed Ireland to reach the point it is at today.
Kneecapping an industry that is the bedrock of Ireland's economy will not help Ireland's existing issues - it will only make them worse by incentivizing the industry to shift to competitors like Czechia, Poland, and Romania (all three of whom have adopted Ireland's playbook). Even the UK has begun to use Ireland's playbook to retain it's tech scene.
Well, speaking as an Irish citizen, the actual problem here is that we haven't built as much wind and solar as we were expecting to when many of those data centers were being developed.
They get paid a rounding-error amount, and only during the brief construction and setup phase, compared to the total amount of money the thing is making for its owners.
Honestly kind of yes. The world is burning, and we can't keep growing like this. Tech optimism made some sense 20 years ago but a lot of us who have been here in that time are feeling pretty jaded.
It’s not your property they care about. They usually want this because it includes liability insurance if you damage their property or someone else’s, or your negligence causes harm to someone.
In Australia we have very strong consumer protection law, here it’s expected (by the bank usually) the landlord has at least a minimum “landlord insurance” that covers all that stuff.
For anything not covered, where a tenant does damage thats what the bond is for.
Renter insurance should be optional.
Actually I’m surprised that landlord insurance is not already occurring, imagine a building with 100 apartments, I’m sure the bank would ask the landlord to have a single cover over 100’s of little crappy policies.
If renter insurance is required by regulations, this is likley another good target for policy change.
The answer to every question like this in the US is "because the wrong people would benefit".
In the past (and still today but less so), that literally meant black people. Now it mostly means poor people of all races.
It's been shown over and over that it's practically an American cultural value to accept lower benefits to yourself in trade for denying benefits to what you see as an undeserving group.
I’m pretty sure EVERYONE is covered under the public system, a levy is added in the car rego fee that is the funding mechanism. You don’t need to be a driver to be covered.
Same here. This has only been a thing recently when landlords figured out they could make money selling the insurance. When I was a renter, insurance was never required from me.
It was required in all my boilerplate leases going back to the late 90s. Just rarely if ever enforced or even asked about.
You’d just end up with some giant uncollectable judgement against you if you ended up burning down the apartment complex via negligence. Landlords insurance company would potentially come after you, but probably not since it would not be worth their time for most tenants.
The liability limits on most renters insurance policies are low $100Ks, because most renters don't have many assets they need to protect. This would be pretty inconsequential in the scenario of "burning down the apartment complex."
Landlords/owners have their own fire and liability insurance (ultimately paid for by the tenants as part of their rent); it's unnecessary to demand that the tenants provide their own. Renter's insurance is for the tenant's protection, not the landlord's.
My leases always point out that the landlord's insurance does not cover the tenant's personal property or liability, and recommend renter's insurance. But it's not required.
> My leases always point out that the landlord's insurance does not cover the tenant's personal property or liability, and recommend renter's insurance. But it's not required.
I generally agree, obviously for a "burn the place down" incident the renter's policy is going to be rather inconsequential, and likely not even actionable.
But for more "medium" stuff like "flood the unit below me because I left the bath on and left for work" where the liability is in the low $10k's, that's where I see landlords (and their covering policies) wanting the renter's insurance to kick in and cover.
I personally find it a bit slimey - if you're a landlord this is just part of the risk of being a landlord. If you don't have the capital to cover such incidents, then you should simply not be a landlord. Sorry.
Trying to squeeze an extra few dollars per month out of tenants is ridiculous, but seems to be the way everything is going when you get hyper-financialization and PE type firms buying multiple buildings.
Plenty of places have required renters insurance going back the last two decades I've been an adult. My parents were landlords in the hood when I was a kid and they required it (as a lease provision, never enforced).
Then they should include it in the rent. My landlord wants a Porsche too, he doesn't get to add a separate Porsche Fee or mandate me to pay a Porsche payment, he has to take some of the money coming out of the rent and put it towards his Porsche.
If you’d rather pay $500 for the landlords insurance rather than $200 from your own policy, that sounds like a great plan. You’re paying for the Porsche either way.
That’s a legal requirement though. If I rent a car and the rental company requires me to also insure it or they won’t give me the keys, surely that should be included, even if the insurance money isn’t going to the rental company.
Why would they? Would they not just sue you for the damages if you break the car? Why would they care? I never leased a car but I thought they checked that you have enough money for the lease to prevent people from defaulting.
But even if it is true, I think the price of the insurance (or at least some reference value for comparison, assuming there are multiple competing offers) should be included in the sticker price.
First, legal proceedings are expensive and may cost more than the car is worth. Second, the lessor may not be solvent enough to pay the damages all at once (“you can’t squeeze blood from a stone”). Third, the money to take the car off the lot in a lease agreement is fronted by a third party, a lender. The lender is likely calling the shots here. See https://lessee.cula.com/documents/CULA-Lease-Welcome-Brochur...
For the same reason, purchase-money lenders (in a buy-vs-lease situation) typically require the debtor to hold a comprehensive insurance policy until the vehicle is paid off. It protects their interest.
Good question, I’m curious too. 911 services and cell providers come to mind, as well as subpoenaed data from law enforcement? Perhaps?
Third party commercial entities like cell providers are collecting and sharing it out of necessity but I’m guessing not selling it?
But that opens an interesting loop hole it seems where you could open a share agreement and then through other mechanisms recover the fee you’d otherwise charge for.
Provider A wants to sell data to provider B and provider B wants to buy from provider A but they legally can’t. So instead provider A just tucks the cost in some other unrelated contract with provider B with a wink wink, handshake, nod, their “relationship” then just makes them want to share the data at “no charge.” Both know the fees are tucked in other agreements, although only provider A knows the itemized cost, provider B just wonders if the cost of the other package + their friendship handshake sharing of geolocation data is worth that total cost.
To be fair, until money comes into play people tend to be less nefarious about their uses of information and intentions. Not always, but on average.
Companies who want to use this data should gather it themselves, and transparently. Insurance companies do this, my dad had a little tracking unit in his car that I assume allowed him to pay a lower rate.
It is not gathering or using the data that is a problem, it is gathering or sharing it without awareness and consent. To be fair, even sharing/selling it would be fine assuming it happens with awareness and consent. Not buried in some ToS, but active consent.
Unless they're disclosing exactly how the location data is being used to measure driver risk, my assumption is that it's a form of redlining. Filing my racial discrimination lawsuit nnnnnnow.
Cry me a river, insurance companies have managed to do just fine without massive privacy violations and creating a data trough for police and other pigs, ever since car insurance became a thing.
How can we know the IRA “won”? The country changed a hell of a lot over the course of the Troubles and by the time of the GFA in 1998 I don’t see how it is so clear that the reforms wouldn’t have also been achieved via other peaceful and democratic means.
What makes it giving up sovereignty? I understand it creates the potential for separation in future but not yet. The devolution of Scotland and Wales happened peacefully a couple(?) of years later, and Scotland may also separate in future.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines badly. You can't post things like "No you fucking idiot" here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48432385), and that's just one example of many.
(This is not about the current comment I'm replying to - this one just happens to be the most recent comment by the account, so I'm putting the information here.)
It also looks like you've been using multiple accounts to comment in the same threads, which is abusive and not allowed.
Calling someone a "fucking idiot" is far kinder than falsely accusing them of being a LLM poster, but I don't even see a flag on the comment which I was replying to.
Do you just have a preference for better disguised insults?
>It also looks like you've been using multiple accounts to comment in the same threads, which is abusive and not allowed.
maybe don't build systems that only serve to encourage behaviour which you would seemingly prefer to discourage?
You’re extremely confident about this just based on your experience of it not happening to you. It’s good that it hasn’t driven you into a house but that doesn’t mean it can’t fail in a way that does drive someone else into a house.
Well, I’ve seen it very confidently and correctly navigate rural unmarked roads, and drive around rocks and logs across the road and things like this. I find it hard to believe it would drive through a huge stationary object like a house, which I imagine is definitely in the training data.
I guess I’m not saying it’s impossible, but I think at this stage it’s improbable.
Your example would call more to create an "information technology" subject in schools, that updates its curriculum to include changes like the development of AI. Thus, you go to that class, some of your coursework in the year is going to involve learning about AI and how it works, what it can and cannot do, using it for some project, so on. Not using AI for doing your homework in every other subject.
This kind of thing shows up all over the place in all fields of research. It’s why for example although you can see immune system differences at a population level between patients with disease X and healthy controls, you can’t in any way use it as a biomarker for an individual who might have disease X.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13293-026-00976-9...