It doesn't have the annoying scroll behavior of the dadaviz website, so you can actually see the visualization. Perhaps the mods should change the submission link to this.
Indeed, I think that's what Miller is referring to when she writes in the 2nd-to-last paragraph:
Just this weekend, we learned of a tool that replicates YBB+'s efforts without violating Yale’s appropriate use policy, and that leapfrogs over the hardest questions before us.
This is a semantic misunderstanding. When describing freedom of speech in the context of Yale, I meant it in a moral sense rather than a legal sense. Dean Mary Miller also used the term freedom of speech in her open letter to Yale, so I decided to use the same term. You're right though; saying 'academic freedom' would have been more clear.
I agree with this revision. It's important to frame your fight in terms of intellectual freedom within the academy, which is perhaps a conceptual framework your faculty can comprehend. Yale does not have any de facto obligation with regard to your free speech, legally or contractually speaking. Unfortunately, our society generally permits speech to be legal cause for termination/dismissal in private institutions (e.g. employment at a company), except in cases of discrimination and failures to adhere to equal opportunity laws.
The best advice I can give is to ensure you have open-minded faculty members at your back. If you have professors you feel you can talk to, I would try to have a casual conversation with them as soon as you can. Their advice and backing will be invaluable, if and when a formal situation arises.
> legal cause for termination/dismissal in private institutions
In the US, under at-will employment, an employee "can be dismissed by an employer...without having to establish 'just cause' for termination..." [1]
If you'd prefer a different standard because this rule sounds harsh against employees, think for a moment from a company's standpoint: If you know the law won't make it easy for you fire someone, you'll be really picky about who you hire, how you hire them, and how many people you hire.
I think at-will employment helps everyone by making the job market more liquid and reducing the size of the class of "unemployable" people.
I would just like to point out that it can also have a negative affect on job liquidity. For instance why would I move, at expense to myself, for a job if there is a reasonable chance of being fired for something unrelated to my work and with little recourse. It also means I'm less likely to disagree with the boss because something going bad for the company is not as bad as me getting fired from my point of view.
Fair enough to say 'that these show bigger issues with the company and you'd be better off elsewhere' but it doesn't stop companies like these existing and minimising the cost to them isn't something I particularly support.
Sounds good. And sorry for the snarky tone in my original comment. I try to avoid such things, but, alas, the HN edit period is over, and I am now chained to that comment forever.
P.S. I think the reply to your comment by lvs has some good thoughts.
Cite it, then. I went through the slide deck. It talks about aggregating and selling "retargeting personas" based on check-in markers (e.g. "checked in once at a resort in the last year"), but nothing about selling your personal check-in data.
Self-control, also, might be partly genetic[1]. Regardless, both obesity and self-control are influenced by environmental factors, so it's a noble effort that Rob is trying to do something about it.
FYI, you can find out the owner of a locked iPhone by opening Siri and asking "Whose phone is this?". Still, so few people know about that you're better off keeping your phone unlocked.
Unless it has changed recently, I think anyone can receive Snapchats until disabled. At least, that's how it was when I opened an account a few weeks back. That was discovered when I received an unsolicited snapchat from a name I didn't recognize (I have no friends on the service aside from the default teamsnapchat).
Rather than risk viewing something regrettable, I deleted the "message" and quickly found the setting to disallow unknown users from messaging me. :)
This looks great guys! I especially like the tutorial flow.
Some criticism:
You should show JS syntax errors instead just showing a generic error message. I understand you don't want to scare newbies away with compiler errors, but your solution just makes debugging more difficult.
You should show syntax errors, but translate the default JS error messages into something friendlier. Codecademy does this for their intro lessons.
It doesn't have the annoying scroll behavior of the dadaviz website, so you can actually see the visualization. Perhaps the mods should change the submission link to this.