In order to win a libel suit it is my understanding they must prove the claims to be false. So if this goes to court they could end up proving in court that it is a matter of fact provable that Twitter has become more toxic since Musk took over. And then they would win. That would be brilliant.
I guess I am sensitive to over sensationalized media reporting. I want a neutral, even tone in my reporting. A title like “Microwaving plastics may have risks” would be welcome for me. Sensational headlines and an uneven perspective make me think either there is bias or a profit motive to scare you. Either way its bad reporting and I fell like I have to call it out.
Totally makes sense not to microwave plastics, why take the risk?
That said this article is alarmist. It states, “… The human health effects of plastic exposure are unclear…” then goes on to give a bunch scary quoyes to generate fear.
That makes a lot of sense. Not sure how that would work on Windows where users typically run with admin credentials. Yes, I cannot modify the boot loader, but with admin credentials I can do many malicious things to your traffic in between the browser and the OS, up to and including attaching a debugger to your browser process to see kernel memory.
I know it is possible for Linux to pass secure boot in some cases, so in theory it could be possible for there to attestation on Linux systems, but this suffers from the same flaw as Windows since users have root access.
In the end the only thing this will do is prevent someone from using curl or cli tools to access a site that requires attestation. Will this prevent bots? I am not certain. You could in effect guarantee a 1-1 relationship of users to TPM/Secure Enclaves. This would slow down bot farmers, but not stop them.
What exactly is the attestation checking? As far as I can tell it is a TPM assertion possibly that you have secure boot enables and that the browser has not been tampered with. Is there anything else? I looked in the Github page but alls that I saw was placeholders. Is this documented somewhere?
Unless they are also a certificate authority, they cannot read the encrypted content of you communications since today almost all sites use TLS encryption. They can see the names of the domains you go to and the number of packets. You can determine a lot from such meta data and it is valuable. They likely sell this information (hopefully anonymized ) to advertisers and data brokers.
Note this is true of all ISPs and may be more or less applicable in India.
You can avoid ISP spying to an extent by using a vpn.
Yes, exactly. And in order to improve the ability to understand the wake word, they need to occasionally send data to the cloud when there is some indication there may have been a misunderstanding. Also, sometimes humans need to listen when the computer has low confidence.
And of course everything after the wake word goes to the cloud. And sometimes it thinks it hears the wake word when it did not. This goes to the cloud and a human may need to interpret it.
So, some things your phone hears will go to the cloud without the wake word. And humans sometimes listen to them. This is pretty clear. Is this malicious or nefarious? Probably not. But it is complex and hard for unsophisticated end users to understand. And the reality is your phone absolutely does 110% spy on you. Just not by listening to you. It is easy to understand why so many people refuse to believe their voice assistants are not spying on them.
A few things are very clear: 1. a phone with a voice assistant enabled has to listen all the time and 2. in order to train the voice assistant the data sometimes needs to be sent to the cloud and listened to by humans.
What is less clear is does this data ever get used for advertising. As you stated there are a number of reasons that make this unlikely.
Simple solution: disable your voice assistant. I do this today and I do not feel like I am losing anything. That said, with the pace AI is improving I can forsee a day when I would feel like I have to enable my voice assistant or I am losing some key functionality of my expensive smart phone service.
“Being ‘Hitler-like’ is not a verifiable statement of fact that would support a defamation claim,” Singhal wrote in his dismissal. “CNN’s statements while repugnant, were not, as a matter of law, defamatory.”
Well shucks, I thought the judge had ruled that Trump was in-fact Hitler like. Still he took the L here, with prejudice.
I pretty much sort by new most of the time. There is less noise in the system right now so you do not have to wade through so much toxic BS. That also means that you actually run out of genuinely new content pretty quickly. Viewing new posts has some nice side effects in that comments get good engagement much more often and you get to have a real influence on whether something gains traction.
My understanding is that it is that it has a list of sites it knows how to work with like reddit and imgur and for others it does not try to zoom. Images Ihosted on Lemmy fail to trigger the zoom.
In order to win a libel suit it is my understanding they must prove the claims to be false. So if this goes to court they could end up proving in court that it is a matter of fact provable that Twitter has become more toxic since Musk took over. And then they would win. That would be brilliant.