Skip Navigation

Posts
0
Comments
127
Joined
8 mo. ago

  • Most "name brands" have long been acquired by large umbrella corporations, and shortly after doing so, the "brand recognition" is often leveraged to market white label products; which is increasingly the only differentiator between it and off-brand products. That, and the price-difference: simply paying more for a meaningless "name brand", on an equally inexcusably poor quality product; besides a slightly less shitty customer experience, hopefully.

    I really think it's poor design to purely filter on appearance of brands, rather than actual brand reputation. Yes, it might serve as an overgeneralized indicator for questionable reputation, but marketable brands shouldn't be treated as reputable either.

  • Excellent video, and very applicable indeed! :)

  • But it naturally skews the results, especially when baby boomers and gen X alone constitute 57% of all respondents: which are typically less digitally literate, and therefore even less considerate of downstream consequences. Am I missing something? Because I cannot find any reference to another study, if that is what you mean. I've seen my share of pseudo studies that governments desperately cling onto, and by all means, this appears to be another one of them.

  • The statistics appear to originate from from this pseudo study. All of the questions related to supposed "protection of children", are framed within this context, without concretely considering the possible downsides; which strongly biases participants' views. I also like how it typically reduces ages 18-54 to a single bracket (while statistics on page 18, demonstrating a trend of younger respondents, responding with reduced strength), and especially how it doesn't consider minors to be Canadians (18- being asked absolutely nothing, at all...).

  • I despise Alex Karp and Palantir, but this feels like a pathetic attempt to discredit him, for reasonably throwing shade on grossly over-valued AI products, unsuitable within the context of critical infrastructure and enterprise. His Berkeley faculty member argument simply seems to be an analogy, for other models being capable of performing the task, but it simply not going to happen in his belief. This article appears to serve stakeholders of the AI bubble.

  • Got to keep shoveling that minimum viable product slop, but heaven forbid a label which might serve as an indication for it.

  • Yeah, maybe in a different context, as in a scuffed AI-slop The Onion clone haha.

  • that asserts a given browsing session is being run by a human or bot with legitimate intent

    How? If an agent browses the web through that session, then how can you reasonably "assert" that?

    websites "with strong knowledge of 'personhood'" issue anonymous tokens that browser users and designated bots can present at other websites

    What does that mean? Some creepy website that forces one to verify their "personhood" (by scanning one's face for instance), that issues "trust me bro, it's anonymous" tokens to a specific browser. And then the user is expected to present these unique identifiers at other websites, like there's no possibility these can be passed back onto the issuer, and therefore re-identify the session-user?

    the way people interact with the web is changing and increasingly may involve autonomous agents.

    Yeah, and who is pushing for this change? Right, Google among other AI companies. You just got to love companies creating "solutions" for problems they themselves are, at least in part, responsible for.

    Mozilla is committed to defending openness and user privacy on the web

    Ah, thankfully we can trust Mozilla to protect the privacy-community's interests... I mean, they certainly haven't made controversial decisions is recent times.

  • I generally don't really mind clusters, although the clusters on Atlas Obscura don't seem to dissolve and instead remain visible, which did throw me off initially. But I do strongly dislike some implementations, where (de)clustering happens very frantically, when switching between zoom-levels. However, rendering all points does looks quite clever, but effectively also creates clusters in high-density areas; which is ironic. Perhaps that in such areas you might as well cluster, to create some sort of middle-ground: with either a count or heat signature to more clearly discern density.

  • My tinfoil senses project a not so distant future, where most computing happens in the cloud, and consumers only having a low-powered terminal to the essential mainframe. I know from Genetec customer stories, organizations (including public authorities) love using fiber-optics for surveillance systems (to be able to scale said systems, and/or reduce the compression-ratio of the feeds), and similarly the increased bandwidth provided by 5G (convenient for live-streaming the increasing numbers of cameras inside busses for example; but also other modern vehicles like cars, which increasingly share sensory data to update a map in real time: used as the primary means of navigating autonomous vehicles, instead of solely relying on machine vision.

  • One memo reportedly described releasing it during a “dynamic political environment,” when privacy and civil liberties advocates would be distracted.

    This line says it all...

  • That shouldn't be acceptable either.

  • It's almost as if it's all by design...

  • Just because the reporting is in Dutch doesn't mean only Dutch naively contributed to the database. It seems individuals all over the globe, having interacted with this in-game mechanic, have done so. But generally speaking, as a Dutch person myself, I cannot really argue with the rest of the comment haha...

  • @Passerby6497@lemmy.world @driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br If you install multiple gates side-by-side, and let students leave any metal objects in their lockers, I don't think it's that restrictive. But in my country of residence these cases are so rare, considering these systems is a first for me, so I'm by no means an expert.

  • Why is this any better than a metal detector?

    Asking the real questions here. My guess would be: they didn't have metal detectors, the metal detectors they had reached end-of-life, or preexisting metal detectors failed to integrate into a modern, unified surveillance system. And so the use of AI analytics tools, atop (preexisting) camera systems seemed more hassle-free (a subscription-based software integration) and cost-effective in the short term; that is if the unproven compromise bares any trust...

  • Privacy is another obvious challenge ... Google suggests that on-device processing and face authentication could help address those concerns

    So create the misconception the data remains local (as the processing happens locally), while incentivizing users to use face authentication (enabling the 8-second selfie cam video clip upon unlock: used for heart rate estimation through skin changes), and the EULA roofying of course serving as the "explicit consent".

  • That's the spirit! We're only as weak as they can make us feel weak.