Every AI-forward dev I know is worse at their job than the ones who don't like it. They all think they're doing something smart, but their output sucks and they end up being deadweight that people who actually think and work have to carry. Maybe its not that way everywhere, but it is undeniably the reality at my employer.
At least for right now I would trust one that had the backing of the Graphene devs. Them and Signal are probably the two most rock solid trust sources right now. (Of course this must constantly be reevaluated)
I love graphene, but I hope they're planning to also roll out some very strong stock software - or else this will make for a very rough first impression on a large audience of normies and hurt graphene's long run chance of success. The camera, gallery, and app store in particular will not come up to many users' standards.
Both this post and your last one have been entertaining to look at the comments for. It's like people don't understand that there isn't a single canonical fried rice recipe decreed by Mr. Fried Rice himself in 3000 AD. When it comes to Chinese food this is especially ridiculous.
I think it's great to give criticism and feedback on food. If I was posting food here, that's what I'd want. But, of course, it's a little bit fruitless since you really have to taste the thing to say for sure. But feedback and criticism should always be given with respect to what the dish is intended to be.
Eesh, you don't have to keep quoting me at myself. I'm not saying I dont see a red flag, I'm not saying I assume the habits aren't being sold... I came up with that example, after all!
First off, I can be privacy-minded while not being an absolute binary thinker on it. If I go to a local coffee shop and the owner there starts to recognize me, and recommends my usual drink - in some sense, yes that is surveillance and a compromise of my privacy. I accept it and even welcome it in return for what I get out of it. Doing that at scale, electronically, is IN ITSELF not a problem so long as the data is handled ethically. That's why this article is weak. Because it doesn't do any real investigative journalism to prove how this data is used badly. It merely alludes to it. The people who already understand the problems with that are already in agreement with the point the article is trying to make and the people who don't understand the problems with that aren't going to be swayed by this profoundly unspooky dossier of what McDonald specials you like to eat. I can't send this to my dad to make him care more about privacy. The article inadvertently makes it look like McDonald's isn't doing anything bad with this data because it can't muster up even a single concrete sentence about those harms, because that would require too much budget (I guess?). And hence why Wired is lame compared to 404media for example. The 404 version of this piece AT LEAST would cite clear harms from similar cases (not just link to a lengthy document about it).
I believe a better world is one where being super hardcore about privacy isn't necessary because we have strong enough governance to prevent abuse of our information. I don't want to wear a mask when I go outside - I want cameras taken down. But I can be realistic and practical and see both sides. I understand why a restaurant with outdoor seating might want to put up cameras, especially if people keep stealing their nice decorations. I understand my face might get on those videos. Me personally, I think that's just fine as long as there are good protections around how those videos are used, retained, etc. There are actual benefits to surveillance, it's childish to deny it. If there were no benefits it wouldn't be so easy to get people to sign up for it. We should find a compromise that gives us benefits of both things, and that compromise is orchestrated through governance. Good governance is how we would enshrine an absolute lack of surveillance in the first place. So if we're going to presume solutions that rely on good governance, then I see no reason not to use that good governance to have reasonable data usage. For example, primitive red light cameras that only capture speeding, to me are fair game, whereas Flock is obviously insane and evil and despicable. I fucking hate Flock, but a well-programmed red light camera is to an acceptable tradeoff. I hope you won't think this means I'm not "truly" privacy-minded. I am absolutely mindful of the privacy consequences of the red light cameras. Part of being privacy-minded is about realistically weighing the costs and benefits of what data you give up. (Surely you have areas where you welcome less privacy in exchange for some convenience, even if its simply not wearing a face mask on a hot day)
I know to a lot of people it seems like a slippery slope and its better not to even take the first step. Again to that I would say: Only very good and truly representative government could ever prevent that first step from being taken. And if you have that kind of government, then you would also trust that government to just enact laws that allow reasonable gathering and use of that data to begin with.
It does? There's a line near the end about how it can paint a scary accurate picture of where you're going to be and when, but again that in itself isn't really a problem for McDonald's to know if they aren't selling it people. If they're just using it to figure out when I'm going to buy burger, then I think that's fair game. I know that they're trying to sell me burger. That's why I go there. But of course the real potential problem is what else they use the data for.
The actual journalism equivalent of this article would include investigation into who they sell this data to, and for what purposes do the buyers use it, etc. Sure we can probably assume they are selling this info to health insurance companies, but if I'm doing the presuming then this article is doing nothing. You know what I mean? Without info on where the rubber meets the road it's just airy speculation.
Weak sauce news tbh. I consider myself pretty privacy minded. But McDonald's using my username or even my credit card to track.... What McDonald's items I purchase... From which McDonald's.... I dunno. I don't mind it tbh. It's who they sell it to (health insurance, maybe?) that may be a problem. But this report doesn't include that anyways.
Incredible that the site creators have such powerful future predictive abilities. One would wonder why they don't turn their genius minds to the stock market and make billions rather than making fearmongering websites citing like 70 studies to look legit and begging for reposts on Twitter
There was a time when I would have been intimidated by a lot of those sorts of profiles, but the more experience I get the more I recognize that most of it is bullshit. Don't get me wrong. There are some legitimately very impressive resumes in there. but it's not the ones that think that they're impressive. That's for sure. Just my personal take as someone with only middling experience and skill.
Yeah idk how the investors could be so dumb. Well, I mean, I do. But still. Exactly as you said, AI companies can just... Steal the data they want. Sooo
First off, that's a difference of 0.8M, not 1.8M. So you've got that significance overestimated by more than 100%.
The stock dropped 22%, which a metric missed by 1.48% does not at all explain. I don't think it's substantial at all. They essentially hit the target. Meanwhile revenue was $70M more than expected, which would be the main value of users anyways (aside from data selling, but then of course we get into the other factor...) So how does that possibly equate to 22% price drop? It could only be because the AI partnerships were essentially the only concern. Hence why I said the only value was human UGC. Because AI corps aren't willing to pay for that UGC, Reddits value plummets.
I'm talking about the annoying trend of stock market articles to try to explain things that hardly make sense. It's trying to make it sound like reddit's user count is in trouble when it's clearly not.
"What's behind the move: The user discussion platform company's latest earnings report did not announce any new artificial intelligence data licensing agreements, disappointing investors who were expecting more revenue opportunities from AI partnerships.
Revenue of $804.9 million beat estimates of $731.8 million. However, US daily active users came in at 53.2 million, just shy of expectations of 54 million. The company's total daily active users grew by 18% to 130.3 million versus estimates of 130.07 million. "
Lmao. 53.2 vs 54, and the headline says that's why it's tumbling? Nah, it's gotta be just the AI. I bet most of the reddit investors were also invested in AI stock and wanted to use reddit to pump the others. Hilarious. The entire value of Reddit is human UGC.
It's so crazy that this came out and is widely known and even people who know about it keep using his service while he is still CEO. Some segments of the masses are truly beyond saving. I guess Zuck wasn't wrong about them being dumb fucks at least
Same with my vizio!