In 1-2 years, you won't be able to browse the internet without scanning a body part and providing a ID for your ass.
https://www.gadgetreview.com/reddit-user-uncovers-who-is-beh...
[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/1dfea32/drink_ve...
— Sam Altman
....
What do you think a meme is? What function does it serve?
Tangent: I would call a datum the basic unit of information. Not sure if there's an official word, given the prevalence of the Wikipedia article for unit of (digital) information in every relevant search.
I dream that Amazon will lose lots of sales and backtrack, but I don't suppose they will.
That said, the anecdote is made up or important details have been elided to make it sound more interesting than it is. Amazon doesn’t depend on whatsapp for 2fa. You can configure amazon 2fa to send an SMS and it’s possible that the poster’s mother has misconfigured her phone to claim that it needs whatsapp to read the sms 2fa message but I highly doubt even that. When I look on amazon it allows passkeys, regular TOTP like with DUO authenticator or google authenticator or whatever or SMS with a backup of sending the TOTP code to the registered email on the account. Whatsapp isn’t even an option.
Tat meanwhile, like gunny, refers to a kind of sackcloth. These words are both from Hindi. The concept is of some cheap filler material. If you want to rush something out, you can wrap it in sackcloth, bag it up in sackcloth, sell it to them in sackcloth, make it quickly out of sackcloth. Or maybe it was left over and has been sitting in a corner for years, at the bottom of a sack. That is "some old tat".
Grot I've never heard of in terms of buying stuff. Grot to me just implies something dirty
My first encounter with "grot" was a BBC comedy, apparently " The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin", wherein a gentleman suffering a mid-life crisis tries to fail at business. However no matter what he does, everything he touches turns to money! At the end he sets up a series of shops named "GROT" which, of course, sell grot and also become enormously successful.
anything that looks cheap, is of low quality, or in bad condition:
* Like most souvenir shops, it sells a lot of old tat.
* I'm not spending fifty quid on a piece of tat.
GP clearly said she doesn't have WhatsApp.
It seems like something you have to specifically choose, on the amazon account side.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeI...
I also chose their presumed first hand statement than your unrelated experience with unrelated third parties.
Your point re: having to subscribe to WhatsApp notifications, if we're staying in the realm of "what ifs" and looking for the awkward but possible ways to discredit the claims, I can believe that she was enrolled without being asked. I've seen at least one person complaining about that exact scenario.
Cheers!
GP of the post or actual GP.....
It's not about being thick. I had a old person ranting at me once because all these Ukrainian girls were emailing him wanting dates, and didn't they realise he was too old for them.
The one recalling an event with their mother.
Your experience with a old person is not their experience with their mother.
Can you not project your own experiences on someone's else's?
You claim someone's else's reasoning is wrong based on *your* opinion and past, without anything that would support the relevance in *their* case.
Your experience is valid but irrelevant in that case. Don't project.
How should I engage with young children? Should I talk to a 2 year old like an adult? Or should I use my experience other 2 year old to inform how I should engage with other 2 year olds?
Older people can be surprisingly tech illiterate to a degree many would be surprised by. That is my experience, that is others experience. Yes there will be exceptions. But I don't think that invalidates the generalisation.
Personally I would hope that people would make an extra effort to educate those needing extra help in spotting potential fraud, rather than doing nothing to avoid 'projecting'.
UK, where WhatsApp is absolutely mandatory.
In the Amazon app, the same I normally use, on my normal account, I used Switch Accounts option, and proceeded to create a separate, additional Amazon account.
I entered a different, new email address and my real name.
Amazon happily sent me a verification email, I entered the code. I was then prompted to enter a phone number, I did so (it's a number I never used with Amazon (to my second phone)).
Amazon then requested me to enter the code it sent over on *WhatsApp*. I tried to take a screenshot but it came out all black.
I don't have WhatsApp account with this number.
There was an option to resend it through a normal text message but first it sent out a code on WhatsApp. That should never be a default.
the fact this is something to be distinguished says a lot about where we are now and none of what it says is good
The only service I’ve used which does offer WhatsApp as a form of identification is PayPal. But even that is just one of many different authorisation options.
I don’t have WhatsApp either and never once found that to be a limiting. So I wonder if the experience your relative was having is more nuanced than suggested.
(*That are new of course, used and open-box still come from the seller as I expect.)
("Please drink a verification can.")
When do you think the last time the average Joe talked to their representative to communicate their interests, as is their democratic duty? The answer is, unfortunately, half past never. A representative cannot represent someone who keeps their interests a secret.
Starting with the premise that it's impossible won't improve society.
You've pointed out something real, but it does not appear to be within the scope of our discussion.
That bogus number came from a complete AI slop Reddit post that was later removed.
That’s why the only references you can find to it are from sites like your gadgetreview.com link that repost clickbait without fact checking anything.
If the number didn’t matter then the comment above wouldn’t have led with it to make their point.
The flaw in the original study was that someone started with a premise that Meta was at the heart of this and all spending could be traced back to Meta. They made Claude generate a report but they didn’t read any details, so they didn’t notice that Claude couldn’t access the actual documents. So it started guessing and hallucinating until it came up with the scary number that Meta was spending $2B on lobbying.
The entire premise that Meta is driving this with $2B of lobbying is an AI hallucination.
Reddit obviously is adding login gates to combat AI scrapers.
I guess the $2B is hallucination. But it makes sense for them to do the "think of the children" lobby.
Why? It seems more like that’s baseless speculation with an agenda.
It is shocking what politicians will do for just five or six figure donations to their campaigns.
Yes it does. Let's not misrepresent the figures just because it doesn't suit our narrative. There's already way too much of that in the world
Times change, so does certain expectations.
Given all the astroturfing from companies and governments, this would give a bit of trust.
All the verification process does is making astroturfing and propaganda campaigns even more desirable.