They need to make it eligible for Class Action lawsuits to be filed if these are ignored. I wrote a script to routinely test opt out on websites and was stunned to see almost 50% had it implemented incorrectly. This includes high-flying tech companies that went public recently.
Under California’s CCPA / CPRA, most enforcement power lies with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and the California Attorney General, not private individuals. This limits the actual downside to a company vs. an unbounded downside of class-action lawsuit threat.
Widespread pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements with class-action waivers and bans on mass arbitration kind of put a damper on that, and the Supreme Court has upheld those nationwide in ways California can't easily override.
But sure, there are still other legislative tricks they could do, like making it mandatory by default for CPPA / CA AG to do the enforcement when they're made aware of a qualifying situation, overriding any NDAs which prohibit any California resident from informing CPPA / CA AG about such a situation, and allowing California residents to sue CPPA / CA AG for a writ of mandamus ordering them to proceed with the enforcement if they're stonewalling - with an award of attorneys fees if the writ is issued, so as to make such lawsuits financially affordable to ordinary plaintiffs. (I say "mandatory by default" to allow for exceptions which the legislature thinks appropriate, but at least those would be subject to democratic disclosure and debate.)
On topics such as this one, I think the CA legislature and governor are more interested in ineffectually making it seem like they're solving the problem than in effectively solving the problem.
There’s actually a more powerful legislative tool available: citizens can be empowered to sue on behalf of the state for what is effectively class relief, and to partake in the recovery (with attorneys fees). This creates a market incentive to prosecute claims like this, and it also circumvents arbitration. PAGA is such a statute.
PAGA can be, and sometimes is, explicitly waived by name and/or by description in arbitration agreements which purport to compel arbitration of even those claims. The Supreme Court recently upheld such a waiver with respect to the individual plaintiffs' claims, but it left open the possibility of a representative PAGA claim; the California courts are still working out whether PAGA still allows such a "headless" claim, with disagreement among different California couts and no ruling yet from the California Supreme Court.
The problem with PAGA in this context is that the citizen is also a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore can be bound by the arbitration agreement, making the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Federal Arbitration Act applicable. My proposal avoids this problem since the FAA doesn't prevent citizens from notifying government agencies and doesn't prevent government agencies from suing (except in the rare context of any arbitration agreement to which the government agency is itself a party).
But if you want citizens to have a financial incentive with my proposal, then sure, legislatively give the first person to notify CPPA / CA AG a cut of the eventual proceeds (to be split with anyone else who is the first person to successfully sue for or enforce a corresponding writ of mandamus), and create a way to track who that first notifier is.
It’s weird that laws exist where private individuals can’t take action. We need a constitutional amendment to make it so that laws can be enforced more easily. I’m not sure how it would work but I’m sure someone more legally minded could come up with something.
This is what Texas did for abortion. SB8 allows private citizens who have nothing to do with an abortion to sue the of said abortion. Since the state isn't involved I don't believe it can be challenged in federal court.
I think this is dangerous and not worth the benefits in this case
Like many things where what constitutes base data changes and hence graphs change pretty radically, this can be cleanly explained by diagnostic drift. Here's a detailed breakdown: https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/how-to-end-the-autism-epidemic
While it's true that parents and schools have a weird relationship with ASD, with some parents doing anything to refuse the label no matter how apt, at other times with officials and parents going out of their way to do things like label kids with symptoms of severe trauma as having ASD, along with a long tail of higher SES parents who see claiming various special ed needs (not just ASD ones) as a way to get more resources for their children, particularly in states where they can get additional vouchers or payments with a label, these things don't really change a ground truth: severe autism is not easy to hide or easy to fake, and cases are increasing.
IMO diagnostic drift is maybe a fine thing hem and haw about when it comes to mild cases.
But it's basically a form a bike shedding because the severe cases are so incontrovertible and so much more common than they used to be. You can't claim that kids with severe cases are okay and just out to get money because they're so obviously and clearly not well. And schools have gone from maybe having none to a couple per grade to needing whole classrooms or even schools to safely handle high severity autism over the last 50 years.
You could maybe instead claim that "when achieving any semblance of normalcy is impossible, society shouldn't spend so much effort," but that is usually not a well-received message because it sounds like the forced institutionalization or incarceration of the mentally ill or locking them in bedrooms to be forgotten.
Similarly, there are some situations where the repercussions of severe early childhood trauma get diagnosed as autism, but these are also situations where you'd still have a massive service need, so there's no cost reduction to be had, just a proportionally small chunk of misdiagnosis.
I will ask someone more knowledgeable than me about this when I have a chance, but I think it became common to look at the severe cohort under the label of "profound autism," a few years ago, but I think has a tendency to be listed as a % of overall ASD cases rather than a separate rate.
But also noted that they find a lot of the research lacking - they view research, even that using the "profound" label, as not doing a sufficient job of mapping severity bands: the DSM now has three levels of severity, but research going back decades is hard to map to the evolving buckets. And they view the profound label as probably too narrow for fully encompassing kids who needs high levels of support in the educational setting.
Friend also says the way they would probably look at it in their school district is by label and support level: ASD, and then whether they need para pro support, or require a self contained classroom (IE a specialized classroom environment), and in terms of the ASD labels needing para pro or self contained setting going up in quantity even while district overall enrollment declines. And those support levels pretty much guarantee that either kiddo has severe behaviors or parents have lawyers, and the vast majority of parents don't have lawyers.
They attribute some of this to non-exceptional-education kids being drawn off to charter schools (which despite theoretical obligations basically do a good job of not providing real services for special needs kids to get them back to publics rather than reducing profits), but not remotely all of it.
Separately, one of my relatives has kiddos with what I'd colloquially call severe autism (like I don't see their kids ever living independently) and their district tried to move a big chunk of their elementary high support kids to a middle school because they "ran out of space" for elementary self contained / autism classrooms.
The reason isn't technical. This isn't implemented because the entire card-processing ecosystem is hooked on the chargeback fees (min $15 to $100). It starts becoming a lucrative revenue stream for Visa/Mastercard/Stripe/Adyen/WorldPay/Fiserv and the entire ecosystem.
Merchant's end up getting the short end of the stick in most cases.
It is quite popular in testing circles to write e2e tests that are easier to maintain.
However, in practice I have found it to be quite useless due to the time it takes to write good page objects. QA teams usually rely on a complete POM before writing tests on it. I used to joke that by the time my team was done shipping a page object model, our product team would have changed the entire product again.
I used to be in-charge of homepage getting over 1.5M views a day. I would really be curious how this converts. I am assuming Posthog has a lot of metrics.
If I were to bet, while this is fun, it will be a disaster for conversions once the launch hype goes away.
Yes an electron app helps tremendously, especially for managing lifecycle of tabs independently. We use that for creating our AI browser automations at Donobu (https://donobu.com). However, we do have the luxury of just focusing on a narrow AI QA use case vs. Browser-Use and others who need to support broad usecases in potentially adversarial environments.
2011 were definitely not the dark ages!! I used to use Selenium for everything back in the day. I was able to scrape all of Wikipedia in 2011 entirely on my laptop and pipe it to Stanford NLTK to create a very cool adjective recommender for nouns.
Chewing plant twigs to clean teeth is an ancient way of tooth cleaning in many cultures[1]. I wonder if the Lignin or Suberin in plants acts the same was as Keratin in this study.
Just make sure to identify the plant first, and ensure it is suited for that (unlike the poison oak twig which the naïve city kid picked on one training deployment when trying to impress the country rubes with his knowledge of woodcraft --- fortunately a medic was able to perform a tracheotomy when the allergic reaction swelled his windpipe shut).
Yes! I've seen people with some very striking white teeth in India which is a place where people often do have horrible teeth (often from betel nut use). So the twig users sometimes really stand out. The Wikipedia article has a good point about frequent use though - some people clean their teeth with these twigs almost like a nervous habit and are very intense about it.
What the article doesn't mention is the salivation that Neem twigs cause! Neem trees also produce a biocide called azadirachtin and although the concentration is low in twigs maybe it helps clean the teeth when used a lot?
I used a Neem based shampoo for a short period, but my wife complained that it had an atrocious smell. Guess Neem based oral hygiene would take this to the next level...
Under California’s CCPA / CPRA, most enforcement power lies with the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) and the California Attorney General, not private individuals. This limits the actual downside to a company vs. an unbounded downside of class-action lawsuit threat.