Seems to be working for me.
My profile photo is set to “My Contacts” and I was able to view the Signal logo on my wife’s WA account.
Both of us are on the latest iOS version.
923 karma · joined April 30, 2014
My profile photo is set to “My Contacts” and I was able to view the Signal logo on my wife’s WA account.
Both of us are on the latest iOS version.
Seems like it would be much better to let people decide what quality they want from their doorbell rather than mandating it as part of the integration.
I don't want to store 1080p 30fps video all the time and have it consume the entire 50gb that I buy with iCloud.
Bold prediction: Apple will increasingly turn to services to maintain revenue growth as people don't upgrade their hardware as frequently because hardware innovation is also slowing down.
On a similar note, Apple will find it hard to move into VR because it'll never be a big enough business for them but a make or break for Meta.
1) We cannot solely rely on Apple's selective definition of privacy to resolve these. As an example, what if your health insurance company offers an app and you use that app to search for cancer? Should the insurance company be able to use that data? We need very strong legal protections as a more comprehensive solution that works across all types of data companies can gather to make medical decisions.
> What happens when it learns that you have a gambling problem? > What happens when it learns that you have a retail addiction?
2) You need to consider that (1) advertisers don't need to learn this! People willingly give them this data (e.g. by signing up for a sports betting app), and (2) this also opens the door to reach people to help them. No targeted advertising does not mean that these societal issues just disappear. These are still there but just harder to see.
> What happens when your ad profile identifies you as somebody who has had an abortion in one of the states where it's illegal? Can the ad company be subpoenaed?
3) While I abhor the decision on Roe vs Wade, let's flip this to: what if the ad profile identifies you as a seller of fentanyl? Would you want the ads data to be eligible for use in prosecution? I would. Saying that banning targeted ads protects women's privacy is security through obfuscation. That is not a solution.
What do I get in exchange for what I share. To me, learning about new products and services from companies that I don't already have an existing relationship with is far more valuable than the data shared. I want the inventor of a better mouse trap to reach out to me and let me know of their product.
It is similar to: car manufactures can’t guarantee that their cars won’t kill people therefore their products are flawed and shouldn’t be sold. In this case, the user is held liable for ensuring that it is safely operated.
By your logic, we would stop building roads or ask car manufactures to stop selling cars because people cause accidents that kill other people.
The condition “service providers must moderate content and adjudicate disputes” is what’s flawed.
There is no stopping.
What a great line.
Imho, social media's contribution to society is making it possible for anyone to extend the number of people they reach. Like it or not, this is/was the promise of the internet - make it easier to connect with people across the world. All social media companies (Twitter, FB, IG, TikTok) simply build a common platform and define the parameters of the media. The usage of it is manifestation of who we are as a species.
Alternative narrative: Google and Facebook are directly threatening news media while DataLogix isn't and therefore doesn't get the attention that it ought to get.
People and media get riled up about Google and Facebook but the data that they have on me is pretty coarse and pales in comparison to what DataLogix, which is a company that Oracle acquired, and other companies have been able to build. We are not rational when it comes to these arguments.
My primary reason for sharing it was to avoid other (reasonable) people from walking away with some false belief that there might be something to the noise issue. There isn't anything to it.
I'm not trying to convince this person. However, there might be others who don't have the time to do the research. This comment is for them.
The first video has pretty sound (pardon the pun) methodology.
Findings: Unless you're within 200m of a turbine, the background ambient sounds are louder than the sound of the turbine.
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Clearly, they think that these are important sovereignty issues such that they’ve clamped down or disallowed these services entirely.
The ability to manipulate people via state sponsored algorithmic tweaks to TikTok’s ranking algorithm is a powerful tool.
You don’t need to do much to sour US’s support for Taiwan in the eyes of just a minority. Or you don’t need to do much to tweak the algorithm such that content about politicians friendly to China is ranked higher than others.
Do you think that the answer to this question will be the same post Covid and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
And, in the same light, China’s increasingly threatening rhetoric against Taiwan?
It is surprisingly that simple.
While the US and the western governments have their issues, they are still largely law abiding. China, however, is not. Additionally, under Xi, it has become more authoritarian and more willing to undo the rules based order that has someone kept the world somewhat sane since WWII.
I don’t know why anyone would be afraid to say this.
Bold claim, Cotton. I personally have a hard time imagining a world where if Facebook didn't exist, something like it wouldn't either. There were plenty of companies vying for the same idea. Or is the suggestion that all usage of the internet to allow people to connect with each other are bad.
There's also a sort of an unsaid quid pro quo here. News media highlights things that it thinks are important and if the FTC chairs decide to act on those, news media praises them which, in the end, helps them get the recognition that they need for their future aspirations.
Half of this country (US) denies that Sandy Hook happened, they deny that the election was fair, they think that every mass shooting is staged in an attempt by the government to seize their guns. Why would these people want to join a social group and only post through that group? Also, why would it limit misinformation? Aren’t there already communities of these like minded people who are even more extreme?
Why limit this logic to just social media sites and not other things that kids can be addicted to?
A future enhancement that might make it even better is if it did craigslist-like relaying so that I could reply from my gmail account but that's a pretty niche use case, I'm sure.
Snark aside, why is this a recurring obsession of HN posters?
OP: I don't use Google products because Google collects a lot of data. Also OP: I use Amazon Echo instead.
Setting aside whether or not OP even works at Google, did you ask yourself: what basis does OP have to suggest that Amazon or Apple don't collect similar amounts of data?
Feel free to ignore me and not let confirmation bias get in the way of your pitchfork!
I had an email *junk*@gmail and it was sometimes flagged.
Also, you seem to be making two contradictory points: 1) Facebook and Google pushed hard for verified accounts 2) Some parts of the internet make it optional to reveal your true name
Verified accounts, as I understand them, on the social platforms are only for people who publicly want to build a brand around their identity. While people have to use a "real name" on Facebook and Google, there's nothing requiring to get verified.
/s
While the reaction on HN has been pretty level headed, that isn't the case across other sites (e.g. see Reddit).
This is the kind of coverage that undermines meaningful progress on privacy regulation and data usage. By purposely conflating valid access (i.e. through a permissions framework) with unfounded and unsubstantiated rumors, the press does more harm. IMHO, I don't think they care about privacy -- only about brow beating social media companies and tech in general.