dzikimarian

Most of it behind cgnat. I had to ask isp to disable ipv6 to get incoming traffic at all.

Why should I recognize that as valid interest, when it's straight out hostile to me? I know why they are doing that. It doesn't oblige me to accommodate their selfish interests.

What if they use this data to target kids in your family in their vulnerable moments, like they did in the past?

Have you actually looked at one?

I opened Google News. First site I've seen is t3.com - some review of pebble wearable.

I was greeted by cookie dialog. I clicked "more info" -> "partners" -> "legitimate interest".

131 vendors, including among other "Adform - agentic advertising" who wishes to store laundry list of my data for 10 years.

That's different setting.

Typical "legitimate interest" section is about sharing data with 40 "trusted partners".

It's working way better than original client. What does it say about Spotify devs?

Because it currently has best support for their stack. Being tech-savvy means also you understand, you can't move entire plugin ecosystem of vsc to notepad++ and call it reasonable.

They don't work fine. I run lot's of TUIs because they are snappier. You may bury this problem with money buying 64gb laptop, but that facade falls as soon as you launch local LLM and discover there's no space left for Spotify.

Obviously Meta as social network has more opportunities to show "evilness". But also it has more opportunities to show good side.

And yes in the end it's always people. What makes a difference is that some of those people sit on the Meta's board and they consistently show, they aren't humanity's finest. To the point, where I don't think any technological stunt can make up for harm they're doing, therefore making their existence net negative for humans.

Of course one can argue on cynical/real-politik level something like Meta was unavoidable due to "how the world works", but that doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism, as honest public discourse is one of the ways to push Overton window.

Happy to see appreciation on your part :-)

Google and Apple while far from saint weren't caught multiple times directly monetizing violence, political polarization or vulnerable minors and directly lying about what they do.

What I'm arguing is that if Meta ceased to exist some years ago, there would be less bludgeoning to film to begin with, as social media-driven hate is source for a lot of them.

In the EU you also cannot just get a token to open banking.

It doesn't. There was a plan, but Microsoft abandoned it.

You're dealing with the same objection, because, in the thread about Meta glasses, you're trying to argue about smart glasses in the vacuum.

Is easy access to private camera positive for people disadvantaged against the system? Likely yes.

Would the benefits be largely eclipsed by negative impact like perpetuating violence, depression and polarization if Meta is main vendor? Also yes, because they are careless enough to extract private data and offer it to people benefiting from vulnerable individuals.

Hardly surprising your comments are discussed in context of Meta if you comment in thread about Meta.

Your arguments sounds just like their internet.org pitch. Also advertised as great equalizer for the poor. Facebook used it for data extraction and political plays, with no regard for actual people using it. Meta should never be involved in any matters of public interest.

I wouldn't ever buy anything with camera from Meta. Or to be honest any device. It's pretty much guaranteed to steal your data.

Meta was caught so many times on stealing user data and bypassing privacy controls that I don't even know how can you suggest believing them with straight face.

I think it's because it was just engineer responsible for the thing, not someone pr-trained. Hopefully it was sobering experience for him.

Well corporations tend to push their worldview on the employees. I remember guy from Google who decided to defend their device attestation, they planned to put into Chrome (likely they still plan). His whole reasoning line was: "obviously advertisers have right to be sure real eyeballs are seeing their ads, so Google doing just that with some regard for the users are actually good guys" (because they could rip us from the privacy entirely, but they didn't)

Why that part is most irritating? This is very hard job as evidenced by huge percentage of failing companies.

Did leaving the EU actually fixed anything for the UK?

Fix what? They setup LLM with access to private data and ability to read public comments. That's simply misconfiguration.

I have instance for couple of years. No issues for now. Never had a feeling it's going to fall apart. I host it via docker image, pull new version from time to time and that's mostly it.

Only two problems I can think of: it's bit slow - even our company instance which has reasonable resources could be bit faster. Also they could use a better UI designer.

None of it is major problem for me. As self-hosted Dropbox/calendar/cospend it's perfectly fine.

Honestly - shouldn't one assume that train already departed when they decided to work for company that is basically data mining operation with no ethics?

Maybe don't apply to Meta in the first place? With their track record it's pretty obvious that you'll be part of building something morally dubious.

Except they have Flash & Pro labels too for another level of complexity

I don't ever say "Antigravity", because it's not worth getting invested into tool, that will be dead in two years, when "Google Harness" or whatever they will call it, will replace it

Well, consider typical dev team - how many members usually are able to and want to jump to the staff level?

Following Boeing example you given below - it's not like the guy was given offer to become a CEO out of the blue & had to endure year to be set for life.

He was slowly climbing through the ranks of huge organization over the span of almost 30 years. Given later revelations I certainly wouldn't call it easy or calm - likely even morally challenging sometimes (not admiring anything here - simply any position of power comes with this kind of issues - no matter you're playing for good or bad guys).

Taste of Boeing shareholders for execs is whole other discussion, but I really don't think there's huge crowd of people both willing and capable of filling those shoes.

I was part of CEO recruitment process (sadly not FAANG-like, so maybe it wasn't "so much"-level yet).

Amount of people who are both seriously willing to take the job(considering pressure) and have necessary skills is not very high. Tbh same is truth for any management job - a lot of competent people prefer calmer life.

Obviously for the very top compensation is bonkers and there's fair share of frauds that ended in the position for various reasons, but if you want someone reasonable pool shrinks quite fast.

Market is two companies who do not compete in this area at all, because Google literally earns on monetizing attention and Apple since Jobs era uses children as part of the strategy to lock you down in their ecosystem (see emails they had to make available to the court). There are zero serious disruptors and chance they'll appear gets smaller, because of push for device attestation being required for more and more apps.

Making children do an hour of Duolingo before they access open internet is hardly the goal. It's more about limiting their exposure to brain rot content. Existing tool would require you to block it domain-by-domain.

Honestly I can't see less invasive solution for that tool to work than page broadcasting age-rating with http response and device being aware it's owned by minor and refusing to display it.