ShakeThatYam

joined 1 year ago
[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Samsung had my favorite version of the slide phone with the Samsung Epic 4G Touch Galaxy 2.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I'm willing to bet that the people who switch to Firefox for ad-blockers and ad-free YouTube aren't the kinds of people who are donating much to Mozilla. People in online forums talk a big game about wanting to pay for products and not be the product. But it seems like people don't really want to pay any meaningful amount of money for a browser.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Me: As long as you leave an hour later why do I give a shit.

Probably why I'm not the boss of anything.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What are you talking about? Google does not give law enforcement information without a warrant or valid subpoena.

https://support.google.com/transparencyreport/answer/9713961?hl=en#zippy=%2Chow-does-google-handle-government-requests-for-user-information

You clearly have no idea how any of this works and are fear mongering based on sound bites you may have heard. I work in this field and I know that Google (at least in the US) won't just hand over data without a valid warrant or subpoena. Now this can be a FISA warrant where the defendant (imo) doesn't have proper due process rights, but it is still a court order requiring them to comply.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, I realize it's worse than that... When did I say otherwise? I even started off the comment by stating that Apple and Google's privacy features were made for anti-competitive reasons, not to benefit the consumer.

Your type of fear-mongering isn't really helpful though. It just makes people feel powerless to large corporations and makes people try to address the wrong issues. It's important to accurately state what they are collecting and how they are using that data. We spent a decade complaining about Google not respecting privacy and selling data and what we got was Google gaining even more power. Because, that wasn't what Google was doing or their end goal.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

To say they are part of it kind of implies they even had a choice. When Yahoo tried to fight being a part of the program they were going to be fined $250k a day.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

Only for things that are on Google's servers. If you have something that's on-device police will use something like Cellbrite to access it.

The vast majority of stuff Google has on their servers isn't really all that useful to law enforcement anyway and Google requires a search warrant before handing it over. And they generally notify the user when it happens (when legally allowed to do so). Most useful would probably be location data, but law enforcement can also get similar information from cell phone companies (who are much more carefree about handing over subscriber data).

Google and Apple are both actually kind of a pain to deal with for warrant related stuff. In my line of work, I most often see subpoenas for cell phone providers and social media records as those are much easier to get.

People often act like Google is just handing out user user data to the highest bidder, but that really misunderstands their profit model. They are very protective of user data. Google does not like to give it out so that only they can be the ones to profit off of the data.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (12 children)

From what I've heard it's been harder for law enforcement to get into Android phones now.

Also, the whole privacy features only make Apple's data gathering more valuable because they become the only ones that can access that information. Google caught on and is doing the same thing with their privacy features. Privacy features are nice, but it's naive to think that Apple and Google don't have other ulterior motives with implementing them.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Excellent take, but in defense of the AB PR team, I don't think they were expecting so much backlash from giving a 6 pack of beer to a trans person. I think it was just a small promotion they were doing and they were not anticipating this blowing up into something big. Right wing Twitter caught wind of it and made it a much bigger deal than it was.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No thanks. If this is remotely successful these fucks will next use it to Minority Report us.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Me too, but it brings me great joy to make the process as tedious as possible for the questioner and go through every single city I've ever lived in.

Most give up by the third or fourth city that isn't my country of origin.

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)
 

As I understand it, superconductors work best at temperatures approaching absolute zero (-273.15C). For example, Google tells me that the superconductor in an MRI operates at -269C.

There has been a lot a buzz lately about room temperature (25C) superconductors being discovered, but why is room temperature the focus? Why not focus on superconductors that work in reasonably cold environments? For example, we can easily get temperatures to -15C in a freezer. Why not create superconductors that work in that temperature range rather than 25C?

view more: next ›