InternetPerson @ InternetPerson @lemmings.world

Posts

0

Comments

96

Joined

1 yr. ago

it wasn’t in secret

Did I misread something? It even says in the title of the linked article, that it was a "secret project".

The evidence is: among other things, facebook has repeatedly violated user's privacy. It would be no surprise if they would also monitor conversations via the microphone. Sure, currently there seems to be no evidence for that. But I wouldn't be so naive to just trust them on that.

Yes. Just another malicious thing facebook does. Surely, they are totally trustworthy in all other regards. /s

Security researchers can and probably have tested for this and found no clear, verifiable evidence, otherwise we would have known.

Facebook snooped on users’ Snapchat traffic in secret project, documents reveal

Thanks for sharing!

As far as I know, there is no such list (yet).

What should be done:
Escalate it to the people responsible for IT administration & security in your company or institution. They'll deal with it.

But the default step if you suspect of being infected is not to use the device at all until you got a green light for it from the security/admin folks. Power down, disconnect from any networks, either via physical cables or wireless, unplug external storage devices and wait for further info.

I'd say give it a try and see for yourself.

I can just recommend using Firefox for a multitude of reasons. However, I am biased as I have been using firefox for almost two decades and did not have many reasons to complain.

I understand that you made such an experience, but I can't share it though. I've been a Firefox user for almost as long as Firefox exists, which is almost two decades. (I think I joined somewhere between 2005-2007). I've tried other browsers, sometimes I had to. However, I didn't notice any benefits compared to Firefox. Especially not in performance. Even though benchmarks have always shown clear differences, they weren't significant enough for me to consider switching, as the difference really didn't impact my browsing experience.

Regarding the memes: That was just a random annectode which I found suitable here. I don't claim it has been that way since the beginning. (Can't relate to that anyway.) But given that it has been around for a while, I don't see how performance can be an argument in favour of Chrome in this.

I've been a loyal Firefox user for almost as long as Firefox has existed. So I'm probably a bit biased. However, when I used other browsers, and if it wes just to try them out, I didn't notice any benefits in terms of loading websites and executing their scripts. This includes Chrome. In benchmarks there are obviously differences visible, but to me as a user they didn't matter. I wasn't so short on time that I needed those microseconds. So I really don't get how performance could be an argument in this.

Restore Privacy – Alternatives to Google Products – The Big List (2024)

How was it more performant? As I remember it, Chrome was loading websites not noticeably faster than Firefox, as website loading speed depended and still depends mainly on your internet connection and hardware anyway.

As I remember it, Chrome exploded because it was pushed onto users at every possible opportunity while Firefox depended (and still depends) on users actively looking for it.

Used Google or Google products? Get ads for Chrome. Wanted to download Google Earth? You had to activly uncheck a box such that Chrome wasn't going to be installed as well. Meanwhile no ads and not the same amount of exposure for Firefox.

That way they achieved a critical mass and snowballing did the rest. There were so many users using it that it was considered a good choice just because it was used by many people.

Regarding the performance aspect, if there even was a noticeable difference, it was worse than Firefox. Where else did the "Chrome eating RAM" memes come from?

Sadly not just the USA.

This becomes even more ridiculous if you consider that we wasted about 1.05 billion tonnes of food worldwide in 2022 alone. (UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2024 Key Messages)

But no. Supermarkets will miss out on profits if they ban people from their stores who can't pay.

Seems illogical? Because it is.

That's a good way to use it. Like every technological evolution it comes with risks and downsides. But if you are aware of that and know how to use it, it can be a useful tool.
And as always, it only gets better over time. One day we will probably rely more heavily on such AI tools, so it's a good idea to adapt quickly.

Moderate drinking is not a problem.

From a health perspective, it certainly is.
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health.

And it does assist with socializing

Which is a cultural thing. If people grow up seeing how alcohol is a social catalysator, they don't learn that it's perfectly possible to socialize without alcohol.

which seems like it would be beneficial for most people on here.

Idk, if that comes from a well-meant place, but it sounds kinda condescending.

The idea that people here are afraid of/resistant to drinking, yet will use cannabis and other materials seems very strange.

There are not just two kinds of people. From my experience those, who use cannabis or other drugs, are inclined towards alcohol use as well.

Critical thinking courses would indeed be very great to have.

Mere factual knowledge transfer is not effective in forming mature and responsible minds if critical thinking is not a focus of education as well.

What is "dumb"? What is "intelligence"?

I think, as long as people have normally functioning brains, it is possible for them to understand. And I think nurturing critical thinking is an important aspect of how to approach this.

You can absolutely present a complicated topic to someone who isn't educated in that field, or even has low education at all, if you are being humble about how you explain it and try to meet them at eye-level.

You don't need to give definitive answers, you may give recommendations, but you can always explain a bit and note that there is also a lot more to it than what you explained and that one must take care before making some further conclusions.
Interested people in your audience then have some first basis and grasp of a topic and can take it up on themselves to dive deeper; for example, by asking questions or finding further sources (you might refer them to these).

Sometimes a common error, as people just have a rather ordinary interpretation on the meaning of the word "theory" and sometimes it's an intentional attempt of discrediting.

Words can mean different things in different contexts. A scientific theory is not the same as the general or ordinary every-day meaning of "theory".

Classic example and mistake by followers of creationist religions: "evolution is just a theory".

Well, what if I told you, that, for example, our modern electronic means of communication are part of the wide field of "information theory"?

I am absolutely with you on that one.

But I think it's tied to how we do business and less a problem which is very specific to the movie industry. Or in other words: it's our fucked up capitalism in action again.

The workhorses of such shows get almost neglected while the shiny poster people and producers get most of the share.

And that's basically everywhere the case. CEOs, managers, superiors are making insanely more money than those who are contributing a lot of work. It's an unfair system which is holding the movie industry tightly in its grip as well.

Socially or ethically, I think I know what you mean.

I am being pedantic now and say that it can even be bad socially and ethically as a consequence of that or as a consequence of health concerns.