How does this argument come up every time? If I can't have absolute privacy, I should just give up? The same way I'd love to give up every last bit of dependence on Google, I'd love to get decentralized fintech. But the popular one is a bad word that starts with B and I fear has spoiled the well. (Though it's been interesting traveling through Europe and seeing Bitcoin signs all over Prague, the ticket machine offering bitcoin top up at the Bern train station, and a tradesman/construction worker wearing a Bitcoin advocacy shirt while walking to the beach in Bern today. And don't get me started on how much time I've spent triple-re-verifying my identity with Mastercard or waiting 5+ days for critical ACH transactions.)
No but there's a good argument there in terms of priorities.
What is more likely to impact you negatively: Google building an internal profile based on your information and targeting ads based on it or your card information being stolen from insecure smaller vendors?
Obviously those 2 choices are picked arbitrarily but they may explain why the OP chose to prefer the former over the latter. I would think every time we decide to share some of our information we do so because we stand to gain something (otherwise why do it) and it's up to us to decide if what we stand to lose is worth it. As technically minded people we tend to be more focused on technical problems and what we consider more dangerous may be more related to our familiarity with the subject matter rather than the objective potential negative impact it has.
I mean, "my card information being stolen" is literally only an issue because credit card companies won't force US retailers to accept proper chip and pin. It just is not an issue everywhere I've been in Europe because it is categorically impossible for them to steal my card information with contactless payments.
As for the magnitude of privacy invasion regarding financial transactions, I feel very safe in saying the data Google has about/from me is far more revealing than relatively opaque transaction logs.
Google is worse without question. Having your card number stolen is a minor inconvenience whose danger is inflated by services offering to protect you from it. Happened to me once, they charged $1500 before my credit union called me. I had to spend a total of an hour on the phone with a few different people, and the money was credited back to my account within 48 hours. This is with a debit card, which are constantly subject to FUD on this issue from the vendors of credit cards.
Note that you provided reasons as to why having debit/credit card information stolen isn't such a big deal, if you get protection from fraudulent transactions, but haven't provided any reasons as to why Google targeting ads based on some profile they built on you is worse than that.
Please understand I'm not excusing anything, it's horrendous it took this long to have user controls. That having been said, in the Android Q preview, Android occasionally lets me know that an app has access to my location at all times and makes it easy for me to immediately revoke that access, or limit it to ONLY when the application is open.
For example, this is what I can see by searching "Location" in settings and choosing one of the first results: https://i.imgur.com/jDF9vq6.png. It was shocking what this list looked like when I first upgraded to Q.
Yeah, that's Android Q, which is in Beta and not widely adopted. The vast majority of Android devices are running on OS's that have way less granular permissions.
I appreciate the move in the right direction, but I suspect that Google is reading the tea leaves to see that they've likely got antitrust on the horizon and they need to start laying the groundwork to fight that.
It's almost like my own comment said I wasn't making excuses and pointed out it was a preview release. I don't know why I bother.
Also, I don't understand what Google being in trouble for anti-trust has to do with a bunch of third-party apps and third-party SDKs accessing and selling my information.
I thought Radicle was cool too, but as I understand it (in its current state), it has a much "larger" SPOF in that changes can only be submitted when the single authoritative repo is online.
how so? If everything is stored in IPSS, then it should always be online. The IPFS daemon is local, so you can commit things without any network connection. Am I misunderstanding what IPFS is?
"Currently the owner of the project must be online in order to receive any proposed RSM updates from a contributor. Once received and processed, these updates will be written to IPFS by the project owner, and made available to all users who follow that project." -- http://radicle.xyz/docs/#faq
What the hell? I get downvoted for linking an authoritative answer to the question I was asked? I'm so god damn sick of participating here in good faith and getting wordlessly crapped on for it. The answer supports exactly what I said, and I provided a link.
Pretty obvious someone didn't like one of my other comments and then proceeded to downvote the others they could since I commented in multiple threads at the same time. Why is this nonsense allowed? It would be easy to detect.
If you are sick of participating, don't, and your problem is solved.
Also, if you've been here long enough to get sick of anything you should have learned that dumb downvotes happen, they mostly get reversed over time, and nothing good comes of reacting to them at all, much less throwing a expletive-laden fit about them.
Fortunately, `builtins.fetchTarball` makes this easier. I do this in my `nixcfg` repo so that I can build my entire machine config (patches and enabling Iris in Mesa, and all) on a stupidly-cheap Packet.net VM: https://github.com/colemickens/nixcfg/blob/master/default.ni....
If you follow the rabbit-hole: `default.nix` -> `lib.nix`, etc, you can see that I pin nixpkgs, have an update script that updates the nixpkgs revs I build against, it supports building against a custom, local `~/code/nixpkgs` if it exists, and I have my machine config abstracted out to where I can build a "GNOME instance of my machine" or by default, my machine with Sway and sway related packages installed. Much of this should be easier with flakes, as I understand it.
It's not the cleanest config, the README needs love, but maybe it can be inspiration in the meantime. :) My latest trick was figuring out how to get the new Mesa Intel Iris Gallium driver enabled without rebuilding the world, and I extracted it to what I call a "mixin" that anyone can copy and just use: https://github.com/colemickens/nixcfg/blob/master/modules/mi...
(And technically I still use mozilla/nixpkgs-mozilla to pull the latest Firefox Nightly which is impure and thus not always perfectly, perfectly reproducable. I do however pin the overlays themselves also - like my nixpkgs-wayland overlay that packages HEAD versions of Sway and other Wayland related tools!)
This is interesting. Sounds like you do this on the system level? I’m interested in doing this on a shell or package level eg I’d love to have system on bleeding edge but be able to jump back to same binary blobs associated with a particular revision of software
`nix-env` can be coerced into pinning a package at a specific revision, effectively ignoring channel updates. However, yes, I do all of my nixos package management in my system configuration and try to avoid `nix-env` at all costs as it leads to drift. However, in at least one case, this is largely un-avoidable (in the case of OBS Plugins, there's no NixOS infra to make sure that 'wlrobs' is available at a well-known spot for OBS to pick-up. We'd need to make a plugin-aware wrapper, or `programs.obs` module probably. This is because nix-env does some additional symlinking that isn't done for system-installed packages).
I'm curious to understand what you're describing. Can you give an example of a Netflix show, the season and political trope, and how it detracted from the show's quality? And I'm definitely curious what you're imagining as you write out "repulsive".
Netflix has gone 'woke' in a lot of their (new) shows. A lot of shows feel very activist now. Entertainment shouldn't be stuffed with identity politics and other progressive nonsense which only caters to a small minority.[1]
Examples: The new show 'Mr Iglesias' where the main character is a history teacher. In one of the first scenes the history of the US is summed up as 'oppression and slavery'. Many jokes about white people that would be considered racist had they been about any other race. And a whole episode about how the word latino is offensive and it should be changed to latinx.
In the children sitcom 'No good Nick' a female chef ignores feedback from her employee by accusing him of 'mansplaining'. The daughter accuses the white dad of 'cultural approriation' when he suggests taco Tuesday for the restaurant. And that was only the first minutes of one episode.
There are many more examples. I'm getting tired of it and leaning towards canceling netflix. I'm European, I want entertainment, not crazy US politics.
> And a whole episode about how the word latino is offensive and it should be changed to latinx.
which is absolutely... absurd. latino comes from latin american languages, which are gendered by default. that's basically colonialism -- americans trying to apply their culture into other people's culture.
(sorry for the rant but i find infuriating that americans are trying to change MY language because of their sensitivities wrt gender)
>Examples: The new show 'Mr Iglesias' where the main character is a history teacher. In one of the first scenes the history of the US is summed up as 'oppression and slavery'. Many jokes about white people that would be considered racist had they been about any other race. And a whole episode about how the word latino is offensive and it should be changed to latinx.
>In the children sitcom 'No good Nick' a female chef ignores feedback from her employee by accusing him of 'mansplaining'. The daughter accuses the white dad of 'cultural approriation' when he suggests taco Tuesday for the restaurant. And that was only the first minutes of one episode.
These are great examples why I don't watch Netflix. Netflix especially is just TV by the political left and for the political left.
Stranger Things is set in the eighties. It's not that much of a stretch to have a local newspaper run by men who don't take a 19 year old female intern very seriously. It also has an obvious function as a plot device, since it would be kinda boring if Nancy instantly figured it all out and succeeded in getting her story published.
I don't see that at all. The sexist component, while definitely there, is quite subtle. Nancy is an intern, and most likely would not have been taken seriously if she were a man either. After all, she's young, has no reporting experience, is not employed as a journalist, and is telling an extremely implausible story.
Stranger Things is not a realistic show. Why should its depictions of the men at the newspaper have to be realistic in any case?
Good Example: Black Mirror episode where man has sex with his friend in Mortal Kombat. Is this really an interesting addition to the Black Mirror world? Accept gay people, alright, whatever; I still don't want to watch 2 people having VR chat sex.
If you're only objecting to gratuitous gay sex, that's just homophobia. And come on, gratuitous straight sexual content has been on TV for a long time.
It's hard to explain otherwise why the poster would (i) choose that example, (ii) explicitly mention that it's a gay sex scene, and (iii) include a dismissive statement that's kind-of-but-not-quite in support of gay rights. A generic complaint about gratuitous sex scenes would make no sense in the context of this discussion. People are complaining about shows being overly woke, not overly sexual. The poster gives the relevant scene as an example of a "political trope".
I don't have any objections to gay sex scenes. But that chapter was kind of... meh? I didn't feel it pushed the edge in terms of futuristic issues that much.
You could be in a relationship over IRC in the 90's with a person of the same sex and not know that until you're too deep into it. The VR thing didn't add much to that narrative. The same way 3D movies don't add much (more often than not, they make the experience worse).
And yet, I would (will?) likely be derided if I complained about every forced show of heterosexuality, in virtually every piece of media produced in the last many decades. I immediately think of the scene in the second Matrix movie, but that stuff is absolutely everywhere.
There was a time where every login was followed by auto-playing trailers for a show about suicide, during a time that I really just didn't need to be seeing that. With no way to prevent it... other than canceling and ceasing usage.
I don't understand the dark patterns and general user hostility. I don't need to watch Netflix 20 hours a day to feel like I'm getting my money's worth. Do they somehow benefit from me utilizing more of their bandwidth, if I'm already paying?
See also: SAP's Gardener. Their website reminds me of a spam landing page more than a valuable, robust project, so I'll link an official Kubernetes blog post about it: https://kubernetes.io/blog/2018/05/17/gardener/
EDIT: per the replies, it does look like a fairly different focus, my apologies, just got excited when I saw the virtualized control plane. (To save you reading the blog, Gardener launches a control plane in an existing cluster to manage workloads on a different, dedicated set of worker nodes.) It will be fun to think about k3v and multi-tenancy.
Gardener project focus is orchestration of multiple Kubernetes clusters on IaaS cloud providers, whereas k3v focus on running a dedicated control plane over an existing Kubernetes cluster.
Some overlaps but different project's goals.
Yeah, Gardener looks like it's meant to address one tenant on multiple k8s clusters, and k3v looks like it's meant to address multitenancy in a single k8s cluster.
Why is this downvoted? It took less than 30 seconds to fire up Orbot, connect, open YouTube and start streaming a video without any issue or fuss.
Sometimes when people talk about Tor, it reminds me of how people talked about Linux up until a couple years ago - often touting very out-dated impressions as if they were current observations. Tor bandwidth is very different than it was 5-10 years ago.
It's not very consistent. Sometimes you get a gateway which is great, sometimes one which is limited to 10kbps, sometimes one running some monitoring experiments which doesn't care if you get any bandwidth (I was running one for a while).
My understanding is that bad/poor gateways are penalized. In my own experience, I've only ever needed to change circuits manually once (but I'm primarily using Tor to NAT punch to hidden services, not sure if that matters ).
While I said less than 30 seconds, it really was about 10 seconds but I didn't want to sound like I was exaggerating. And that was of course including switching apps, the initial Tor connection, switching apps back, waiting for my feed to load, clicking a video.
I just tried again, it took 6 seconds to open Orbot and completely connect to Tor. The rest was business as usual. Maybe a 1, 1.5 second delay getting to YouTube and for the video to start playback. For what Tor offers, that is impressive, and I don't know what could possibly be convincing beyond that point. Not to mention that one can just leave Orbot running as well. And since I'm on Android, I can opt to have specific app traffic sent through Tor, or Orbot can act as a system-wide VPN.
I'd make a video showing how painless it is, but setting it up, recording and uploading would take a hundredfold more time than just trying it out.
edit: I know that it's purely anecdotal, but I just enabled Orbot VPN mode and fired up "Speedtest". It is reporting 7Mbps and 3.65Mbps up. It's not great, but to me that is usable if your privacy needs outweigh need for speed. And a screenshot if it's of interest, you can see that it's in VPN mode and Orbot is running: https://i.imgur.com/UZu4aJs.png
edit2: yikes, I actually just backed up 29 full-resolution screenshots to my Google Photos account without even realizing Orbot was still connected. Convinces me!
How does a company pandering to a consumer group have anything to do with the civil rights struggle of that group?
How am I, as a gay man, responsible for the fact that companies see Pride as a valuable advertising angle? I don't know a single LGBT person that is happy about it, other than it means that society doesn't ACTIVELY, VIOLENTLY HATE US ANYMORE.
>I have actually had many people from different walks of life mention this in the last month, people are taking note.
Ah yeah, Uber made the route a rainbow color, so fuck the people who would like to have basic civil protections from being fired for who they love. I love the absolutely non-existent logic of anti-gay idiots.
How does the percentage of LGBT folks change whether I should have equal rights? How does the percentage of LGBT folks change whether I could be fired because my boss hates gay people?
"more relaxed"? What does that even mean? What is uptight exactly?
> How does the percentage of LGBT folks change whether I should have equal rights?
I'm not making this argument at all, but apparently some people are; they seem to be saying that we should be extremely careful not to underestimate LGBT percentages, or they might be mistakenly regarded as "too small" of a minority to have legitimate "rights".
Which strikes me as deeply weird, given that this whole range of notions of "rights", "agency" and so on and so forth are meant to apply to the individual first and foremost; who is, by definition, the smallest and most vulnerable - and, all too often, the most heavily oppressed minority of them all!
