The national agencies evaluates the complain and take a decision, which I hope will happen before the end of the year. Exactly how it happens depends on the country, as the GDPR leaves room for national legislation also on the section on the Supervisory authority.
No I didn't, you should read it again. The original thread was about GDPR in general until the other commenter started talking about me and my company personally. We're not confused on whether it applies to us, although there are plenty of specifics that lack guidance.
I'd say if you put it on a indoor table, a measly cubic centimetre of sand can make a (small) pile, and a random estimate on the internet states that there are 8000 grains of sand in a cubic centimetre.
What you are describing is what must be done when one embarks on a project of literary study.
If you just want a story, which is what almost all readers actually read for, just read it as it is, and if doesn't make any sense you are perfectly entitled to think it was a shitty book.
Frankly I think a (fiction) book must always be able to be read as-is, unsupported by outside means, else it is no longer a book.
(You hear that Greg Egan?! You wrote a really bad text book or a pretty good fiction book with pointless homework included every now and then.)
In 500 years, Star Trek will require a watcher's guide and come with a bundle of commentaries. Footnotes about 20th century culture will crawl across the bottom of the screen like subtitles. There will be a saying that, "by the time you are experienced enough to play Wesley you will be too old for him." Children will be expected to bubble in standardized Star Trek tests.
GDPR applies to "natural persons", which I think mostly excludes animals (I base this on us killing animals all the time and it doesn't count as murder).
What? Not sure what point you’re trying to make here, but if it’s the point that the HN moderators are not accountable to me, it’s kind of a pointless one. Of course they’re not, but I’m free to leave. The EU is claiming jurisdiction over my business because of something their citizens have done, not anything I’ve done. If you don’t want me to have your citizens’ data, tell them to stop sending it to me.
> The EU is claiming jurisdiction over my business
I think this is a huge strawman argument that you've constructed and hinged your entire line of reasoning on.
The EU claims jurisdiction over EU businesses. The reason very large US businesses are caring about GDPR, is because they are multinational businesses with a significant presence in the EU, i.e. they are also EU businesses. And if you're doing business in a country, you have to comply with local law. There's nothing new or weird or over-reaching about that.
When Facebook constructs a data center somewhere in the EU, the local Facebook subsidiary has to comply with local zoning laws, building codes, and labour laws.
When Facebook gathers personal data about EU citizens, the local Facebook subsidiaries have to comply with local privacy laws.
Note that Facebook isn't extending the GDPR protections to non-EU users, because it doesn't have to! It only has to extend GDPR protections to EU users, if they wish to keep their European subsidiaries.
