Lvxferre [he/him]

I have two chimps within, Laziness and Hyperactivity. They smoke cigs, drink yerba, fling shit at each other, and devour the face of anyone who gets close to either.

They also devour my dreams.

  • 10 Posts
  • 775 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 12th, 2024

help-circle

  • Before I even read the article, let me guess:

    1. it keeps Google under control of everything, giving it power to kick out competitors on a whim
    2. it claims it’s “to protect those disgusting pieces of shit called users from causing themselves harm”
    3. it claims Google did nothing wrong

    Now, reading the article…

    • “Google has denied any wrongdoing throughout the closely watched litigation.” - that’s #3 right off the bat
    • “Under the new proposal, Google would allow users to more easily download and install third-party app stores that meet new security and safety standards.” - who decides those standards? If Google itself, that’s #1
    • Sameer Samat, Google’s president of Android Ecosystem, said, opens new tab on Tuesday the proposed changes maintained user safety - #2.

    *Yawn*


  • Yeah, the terminology is currently a mess. Not just due to language changes, but also synchronic variation - different people using the same words for different meanings, at the same time. But for me, it’s a mix of motivations, methods, and morality:

    • hacker strictu sensu - like a kid who dismantles toys to see how they work. Sometimes they break things, but they want knowledge the most. Usually grey hat, sometimes white hat, only rarely black hat
    • cracker - like a kid who bashes toys with a hammer. Not interested on the knowledge itself, except when it allows them to bully other kids. Almost always black hat.



  • My guess:

    Coverage roughly follows money, and that money comes the top of the hierarchy. However, the top is too far from the production to actually get that 1) automation is nothing new, and 2) AI won’t help as much with it as advertised.

    The middle of the hierarchy is close enough to the production to know those two things, but it’ll parrot them because doing so enables the inefficiency they love so much, under the disguise of efficiency.

    Then you got the bottom. It’s the closest to the production, but often suffers from a problem of “I don’t see the forest, I see the leaves”, plus since it has no decision power so it ends as a “meh who cares”. So it’ll parrot whatever it sees in the coverage.

    As such, who’s actually going to get screwed here? The answer may surprise you.

    All three. However not in the way people predict, “AI is going to steal our jobs”. It’s more like suckers at the top will lose big money on AI fluff, and to cut costs off they’ll fire a lot of people.

    Setting aside “and how will it do that?” as outside the scope of the topic at hand, it’s a bit baffling to me how a nebulous concept prone to outright errors is an existential threat. (To be clear, I think the energy and water impacts are.)

    Ditto.



  • More like an Autumn/Spring thing than a Summer one, but…

    If you live in a place where temperature varies a lot across the day, you’ll want to wear a jacket at some hours, but not others. Then you need to choose between three options:

    1. Wear the jacket through the day. You’ll feel hot at ~noon.
    2. Don’t bother with the jacket. You’ll feel cold at ~early morning and ~early night.
    3. Take off the jacket at ~noon. Now you’re carrying (and potentially forgetting) yet another item.

    All three suck. But people disagree which one sucks the least, and for some it’s #1. So you get people wearing jackets even when it’s too hot for that.




  • Yes, this should be illegal, but it’s already common practice. I’m just hoping that enough of this will eventually get people to stop buying these products, and hopefully we can start seeing some real legislation against it in some countries.

    Problem is, people won’t stop buying them. Often “smart” products are sold comparatively cheaper, because the business expects additional profits through ads; and if Samsung is going this way (ads on your fridge), it’ll do it.

    The “crackers” part of this confuses me. Samsung is a Korean company. The chairman’s name is Lee Jae-yong (이재용). Samsung NA’s CEO is Yoonie Joung. Maybe I’m misreading this?

    By “crackers” I mean “black hat hackers”. The sort of people who’d love to drop some ransomware into your fridge and then say “if you don’t want me to brick your fridge, pay me a few bucks”.

    (After some websearch, apparently Americans use it as a derogatory term. I wasn’t aware of that.)


  • However, Samsung is giving users the option to turn off ads.

    For now, like the author herself mentions later on (“The bigger issue is that of trust. […] that’s today.”)

    [Higby] “This pilot further explores how a connected appliance can deliver genuinely useful, contextual information. The refrigerator is already a daily hub, and we’re testing a responsible, user-controlled way to make that space more helpful.”

    What Shane Higby is saying here boils down to “we’re trying to help the user”. But if he said so, in clear words, every bloody body would call it bullshit, because it’s common knowledge companies smear ads on your face for their own sake - not yours. But if you hide it behind fancy words, like “further explores” and “deliver” and the likes, it’s harder to call the bullshit.

    I’m getting real tired of this shit.

    [Higby] "…future promotions will depend on the feedback and insights gained from the program.”

    Translation: “we’re just testing the waters now. Let’s see if the suckers swallow it or spit it.”

    This is similar to the justification Panos Panay, Amazon’s […] He said it was looking to be “elegantly elevating the information that a customer needs.”

    Emphasis mine. You can always trust Amazon in one thing: belittling the user.

    The problem here isn’t just the ads themselves (although they are a problem); it’s that they are being added to the device after it’s in my home.

    [Warning, IANAL.] Fight this shit. Seriously, fight it. On legal grounds. What they’re doing should be outright illegal in most countries; it’s equivalent to changing a contract unilaterally after both parties signed it.

    Additionally, I’d strongly advise against buying any sort of “smart” device, unless you’re pretty sure the benefits of connecting your toaster to the internet outweighs all the risks. Including corporations and crackers taking control of it, harvesting your data, spamming you, building kill switches into it, etc.





  • Apparently I’m a human raised among the smurfs, but still unable to use their language.

    It gets worse. They often start saying something, drop it before the critical part, then talk about something else. “I need you to buy something for me, can you… ah, I need to clean the cat’s litterbox.” style. To the point I’m often saying “finish the sentence”.

    But wait, there’s more! One of them is most likely autistic. And she still does those family things all the time, but now with messier and over-detailed explanations. Full of “things thinging things”.




  • “What I can tell you is that over the years, conservatives, libertarians, were just pushed out,” Sanger said. “There is a whole…army of administrators, hundreds of them, who are constantly blocking people…that they have ideological disagreements with.”

    “Oh noes, people in Wokepedia aren’t willing to accept my opinion that gravity doesn’t work on Fridays!”

    “Wikipedia is losing its objectivity @jimmy_wales,” Musk posted in 2022.

    If you’re really, really invested on 2+2 being five, then 2+2=4 becomes “subjective”.


    In my opinion Wikipedia being hosted in USA is a liability. Or even being hosted in a single place, whichever it is.