eks391

What I'm saying is the car doesn't have a method to track you, and if you want entertainment, you have to bring it.

If you don't want your phone to track you, just don't bring it, but most people will have their own phone on them when they travel anyway. It's unfair to blame Slate for the invasiveness of whatever phone you choose to have.

This seems to be a dual concern: do they collect driver data during vehicular usage, and/or during web browsing?

For the first, my argument is they simply cannot, even if they wanted to, in the same way I can't track my friend if I supply him with a toothpick. There simply isn't sufficient technology in a toothpick by itself for me to violate their privacy, so I would need other methods, like agreements with businesses or a backdoor to his phone.

Regarding web usage, their privacy policy says

> To contractors, service providers, and other third parties we use to support our business.

> If you do not wish to have your email address or phone number used by Slate to promote our own or third parties' products or services, you can opt out by changing your communication preferences in your Slate account.

I have read a lot of privacy policies, and this verbiage suggests that they don't sell your data (even in aggregated form), but they do sell access to a customer base. This is similar to youtubers getting sponsored - only assumptions of the customers can be made based on the youtubers content, and no YouTube telemetry itself, since that it owned and processed by YouTube, not the youtuber. Otherwise the policy would have mention of selling data. This is further confirmed by the language that you are opting out of emails to not receive third party stuff, not opting out of selling of data. Since data being sold is required to have an opt out method (in most US states), it is further safe to infer no data is sold. Just access to the reader base.

I hope this answers your questions on whether they are worthwhile to use. Personally, I think this is honorable and I'd be confident to say that these cars don't have the problem being discussed in this forum.

What you described sounds to me like slate. It doesn't have maps or a sim. It doesn't even have a digital dashboard at all[0].

I barely looked it up so I'm no expert, but that's what I'm interpreting from their site.

[0] https://www.slate.auto/en/faq

I haven't heard about slate till just now, but based on their specs, it doesn't seem like they are capable of collecting or selling data. The dashboard is your personal tablet or phone. It literally seems to just be a battery, motor, chassis, and trunk, with climate control and required safety features

I didn't think of that, but that makes complete sense, as it is https. I think my info was sold by my registrar as well because solicitors call or email me on occassion because they "accidentally came across my site" and want to provide the design/js/etc help.

You've gotten several comprehensive responses so far and I want to add a niche corner that people might assume might not have the bot problem but still does.

I run a website that hosts tools for my family: games and a TV interface for the kids, remote access to our family cloud and cameras, etc. Sensitive things require log in and have additional parameters required for access of course.

I specifically blocked bots from search engines so my site is never indexed, as I'm not selling anything nor want any attention, as well as some other public non-malicious bots in case they communicate with Google, just to be safe there, and my robots.txt doesn't allow anything.

I assume then, that the only way a bot could even find my site is to do what the indexers do: brute force try every single possible ipv4 address hoping to hear something back, as my domain should not be known (and isn't simple enough to be quickly guessed), and most traffic must be malicious, or indexing (AI overview and other scrapers won't be finding it via web search).

Since it isn't indexing, and keeping everything in simple black and white boxes, my remaining traffic is family or malicious bots, and 99.9% isn't family.

I currently have the most strict bot-blocking setup I could come up with, which nicely cut down on quite a bit of traffic, but I do still receive ~2k attempts per day, which as you can imagine, still is around 99% not traffic, as I have fewer than 20 kids, and my kids aren't using the site nonstop.

Conveniently, my setup has never accidentally blocked a family member, so I'm pleased with the setup.

> I get that I’m in a movie, and I have to always create the next step. Nothing surprises or horrifies anymore.

I haven't lucid dreamt since a child, but I recall everything about the dream continuing to be autonomous as before becoming lucid, but if I wanted to do something, I could add that element. I definitely could still be surprised, as the dream fulfilled wishes like a genie would, meeting it technically but perhaps not as I meant when I willed the change. The few times I reigned my subconscious so I had full power and there were no longer any surprises, I would wake up.

This annoys me to no end. I have an old phone that I boot up occasionally because it holds all the apps that I only need once per year for a niche feature that is only accessible in their app. I don't need 200 apps on my main that I would otherwise never open.

So would you say that the value of Apple products increases as you have more of them (higher than just the linear benefit of more products)? I've used them, but always as one offs.

For example, Ive had a Mac(book? The one that you connect periphery to use) as a work computer at a previous software job, the iPhone because of a girl I dated who wouldn't be with a green bubble man, and iPad also in a previous job, so never together or actually adopted in personal life, so I didn't get sold.

RCS is proprietary so it only works on GrapheneOS if you have Google's Messages app. At least, that was the case a year ago, but I'm assuming it hasn't changed.

On the bright side, Messages works without linking to a Google account

GrapheneOS user here, on my only phone, aka my daily.

I love my phone and when I replace it, I will be flashing GrapheneOS again. This is my second phone with it so far, and roughly year 4 or 5.

With that said, it isn't for everyone. I definitely remember some issues upon first install, a learning curve if you want to call it that. I also introduce intentional obstacles in certain "workflows" in my life that dissuade certain usage, like excessive social media use. With that said, I no longer remember what I introduced myself and what was an OS characteristic. I do remember having frustrations with most banking apps IF I didn't log into the play store mirror. Since I'm "hardcore" and am not willing to sign into a Google product on my phone, they just don't work. However I don't think they would be an issue for most people.

If you are on the fence, you can make a backup of your phone, try it out, and if you don't like it, you can reinstall the default Android and restore your backup. I've done it before when I used my previous GrapheneOS phone for store credit for my next phone, and figured they'd want a factory reset default OS on there.

I think you and your parent have great arguments. Your pizza deliverer chose his battle, which was to only deliver pizza, not materiel, and is commendable. Your parent seems to want to delegate death from humans to AI, which seems to me like a simplification that won't turn out exactly like that, but the premise of deciding whether that is a battle to pick is valid. If you want to start blurring the lines between the analogy and literality, if you choose to pick every battle to fight, there's not enough human bandwidth to do it all, and delegation to AI could be helpful. That last sentence is more loose, so I won't defend it, but I couldn't help not making a tie between picking your battles and literal battles. Perhaps a form of dark humor there.

Yes ;)

I agree with the intent of your rhetorical question, so I'm jesting with you. I'm justifying my "yes" with the hopefully humorous distraction that every person, including American taxpayers, has at some point made a nonsustainable/selfish (my definition of immoral) decision.

As I read your comment, I was thinking "Really? Is it that surprising?" Then I remembered you said "someone technical", and no longer am surprised. Although I work with some technical people, I'm also surrounded by fools. Just the other day, I watched someone at work open a new tab to Google search, type "Google" and then click on Google search in the results, bringing them to the same page they had just left. With how quickly they did it, I can only imagine it is muscle memory and they haven't noticed yet that their new tab is Google search, or that this is better somehow.

Which LLMisms are you seeing in their post? Their grammar, word choice, thought flow, and markings all denote a fully human authorship to me, so confidently that I would say they likely didn't even consult an LLM.

My story isn't digital, but similarly required so many variables to coincide.

My friend got promoted and wanted to celebrate by going to a bar. His peer/colleague was also invited, and she had been hit by a bus only days before, totaling her car, but she wanted to come and convinced her neighbor to drive her to the bar. I came late, and sat far from my friend, as he invited several people, and the seats near him were taken. My friends colleagues neighbor was also at the end because she is shy and wasn't going to get into the main convo. She was cute, but I wasnt trying to pick her up, mostly just pity-chatted with her since she was clearly uncomfortable being there. And it turns out we really enjoyed chatting with each other. We meshed so well in fact, that we ended up marrying later. Obviously I skipped detail, but a lot happened for us to meet, and the window was tiny.

What if I or the peer had been busy, or my friend didn't get the promotion, or the peer's car hadn't been totaled? Or my wife, who didn't drink, had refused to go to the bar?

That is not how statistical calculations of risk are made. If the crew has 1/30 crew mortality rate, and there were 30 crew members, that does not mean there is a 100% chance that one dies. While there is negligible chances that only a portion of the crew were to return, the outcomes are closer to black and white of nearly 29/30 full crew return and 1/30 no crew return.

That sounds like it is working as intended, not a false positive. A false positive would mean it blocked you whereas a challenge means more information is needed. You aren't noticing all of the times it correctly decides you are human, only the times when it needs to "inconvenience" you for more information because you prioritize privacy, a key similarity with some bots.

I also like privacy. I use GrapheneOS. I compartmentalize my credit cards, emails, and phone numbers. I don't use Google products, and the list continues, but I don't complain about Cloudflare because it is painless and I understand the price I pay for privacy.

I also have home services accessible via my home website, running on my home server(s). I chose to have cloudflare to host my domain specifically for the easy bot blocking, and it blocks more than 2000 bots/day that otherwise would be trying to find vulnerabilities on my servers, which contain a lot of sensitive things. I've never had an issue personally accessing my services through cloudflare. Sometimes I have to do captchas to access my own things, and that's barely an inconvenience (I am aware the domain isn't necessary to access services, but it makes more sense for my setup and intents)

Yup this is it, and it is incredibly cool! Thanks much

Awesome, just wanted to make sure you weren't fooling yourself with a security posture that was less than what it seemed you were going for. I misread x1 as only having one alternate.

What is the URL for x1? I tried to check it out but am finding lots of unrelated things.

Also do you have a recommendation for unique numbers? Quackr.io has bulk public ones on rotation which is okay for some needs, and private ones for a fee. Ironvest similarly has private ones, but with any private ones, there is friction with getting new ones. I suppose that may just be the cost of privacy, but I'm interested in comparing.

What you described is aliasing, not compartmentalization. To effectively compartmentalize requires a different email, phone, and CC for every service. By only having one alias of each, the ad networks that are sharing information about you with partners have no obstacles tying together your habits when they see the same proton email, etc across several vendors, even if you have a different name on your alternate products. After these have been matched enough times, there enough of a profile on you to effectively know who you are, even if it is just probable instead of proven. You mention proton, which allows several emails on a paid account, and there are several competitors offering a similar service with varying success, so this should be no problem to implement. There are also companies that offer anonymous CCs, although they are slowly not working. Privacy and Ironvest are two that used to work but I'm not sure if they still do. I'd be interested if you know of CC companies that still work most of the time at vendors. Regarding phones, there are several sources for this as well, depending on whether you want long term or just one time use numbers, but these likewise have been failing as security measures increase.

It only takes a little bit of energy once a day (or per week if you haven't realized yet how eventful your life actually is). The highest energy first day making it is a fun date with your spouse, or parent child time if you are separated.

Every new successful tool doesn't start by trying to meet every need or edge case. They perfect the main case, and then edge cases in priority of likelihood.

Car washes are automated even though they haven't answered the edge cases of how to wash your car when your car is rolled on its side or a terrorist is actively blowing up the equipment. They simply only operate when your car is right side up (and other conditions, like in neutral, wipers off, and a driver who is willing to not exit the vehicle) and when there aren't active bombings on the building. And other "edge" cases.

Just because there is a possibility for something to not work, doesn't make it useless. Automated tire replacements could start with very rigid cases where they are applicable, and expact the scope slowly to allow more cases, like a bent wheel or poor weather.

I wouldn't be so sure. I have been impressed by several things that seem to be complex but a way to be automated was found. Sure a no controlled environment is not conducive to automation, but who said a tow truck wouldn't be a part of the process? Washing a car has been automated with the precursor that the car is brought to the controlled environment first.

I have even replaced car tires before and yet still have this opinion.

Same. It was such low quality video and audio, but I stayed for the same reason you continue listening to a comedians story

As someone who is not versed in real estate, I don't see why your comment and parent couldn't both be true. Is Dr Horton building homes in Austin? Are the margins in Austin pulling down their average margin? That could explain high profit while dissuading new construction in Austin. *I don't know the answers to either of these questions, but of you do, that could provide some "proof" for either side of the argument, depending on what the answers are.

This is neat. I had a conversation recently basically concluding that "it would be nice if an identity solution existed where [everything you just said, consolidation of identity, but only providing the minimum for regulation, like age, location, or is-human, depending on the law a site is trying to follow], instead of [all the gross examples of identity consolidation abuse seen today and the source for ID company distrust]". I hope luck for you, so your product both maintains the vision long term, sustains market share for longevity purposes, and sets a standard for others to follow.

Most people are "really dumb" by your standards then. Not only are most people not going to check the URL, but many people don't know how password managers work, and the only reason they use the browser password manager is because it is on by default, and it is saving their collection of 3 reused passwords they manually type at each site when it doesn't auto populate.

I had a legal appointment recently to update my Will, Medical Directive, etc. The lawyer had gemini opened up on the left half of her screen and the legal docs on the right, which did not instill confidence. Every time she showed lack of confidence in an answer to a question of mine, I was extra paranoid, although I tried to make sure I wasn't going to discount her strictly for having the LLM open, as she didn't use it during our appointment, to my recollection. Nevertheless while I usually check and update these forms on a 5yr basis, I plan on doing the next one much sooner in because that appointment did not give me the assurance I wanted.

I'm glad it wasn't for anything pressing or in support of a lawsuit

> In a perfect bureaucracy nobody thinks.

This resonates so well and I love it. I'm stealing this