The worst urinal which I used was in Brussels about 15 years ago, and with that "splash-back reducing" mat. And it covered every part of the inner wall of the urinal. The mat caused the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. It made it worse, and I had to wash my shorts, because it started to smell disgusting the next day.
Yes, but first of all, people make those decisions. And second, unlike those people, you don't need to have dissonant answers, and don't need to lie to yourself.
Google should have been split up into shreds like 2 decades ago. Search wants to have income from ads? Good sell it to anybody who pays the most, just like every single newspaper does. Gmail wants to sell our data, or ad space? Good sell them, and not just reuse them internally. Chrome wants to monetize every single request you do? Go, sell them on the open market. And not this fake, "we're separate companies, but only on paper" way.
This should have been done a long time ago.
Firefox, and the browser market would be much more healthy. Btw, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, now even Twitter/SpaceX and all of these should have been forced the same way. And of course not just in this field, but all of them, like oil companies. They can pivot, of course, with some grace period, but that would mean giving up something at the end.
And if we are there, we can abolish most of trade secrecy too, which exists only to keep up the status quo while hindering progress.
Google is the answer to an Internet that largely blocks ads and uses backdoors to circumvent pay walls. A single massive pillar with enough surface area to carry all the dead weight.
If people want a better internet, they can start fostering one, rather than endlessly complain that someone else should be fostering it for them.
There will probably be upwards of 1000 people who read this comment that have used Google services for 15+ years, never loaded a single ad, and complain about Google ruining the internet. Please, pick-up a mirror. Nobody wants to build a competitor to serve your cheap ass
Google is routinely buying and destroying competitors.
They lower prices to kill competition en-masse. They promote their own products in search and elsewhere over paid ads.
Search Engine have chicken and egg problem, you can only have a good search if enough people use it to tune the ranking and see enough search spam cases.
“Just compete with a monopoly on their own field with one hand tied behind”
Every Google competitor has the problem that 40% of users won't load ads and 99% won't pay a subscription.
They don't need to do anything adversarial, the greed driven mindset of the internet (ads suck, everything should be free) staves off any real competition.
That 40 percent is definitely not true in the general audience. Also they will load ads, just not all of them. Surveys ask that. Especially on mobile, and apps. Also, when we measured on our car rental site, with near perfect precision (it's absolutely not difficult), then the number was around 20%. Also, according to download statistics, there are less than half a billion people who use ad blocking browsers or other solutions on Android. And that's downloads, which is obviously inflated, even obvious from browser statistics (no not 100% of Firefox users are on Android, it's almost the opposite).
It's not nothing, but it's probably around 20%.
Also as others stated. I pay for everything, if they give me the opportunity to pay them for ad free versions. I don't see ads on my Android, and I don't use a general ad blocker on it (except my browser, but I rarely visit sites which would contain ads, and basically all of them from Hacker News). I don't use free search, email, newspapers, I pay for YouTube, and I would pay for Facebook if I would use it. I don't even use Hacker News freely, because I paid for the app which I use to not see ads, and have more features. Heck, I pay even for my torrent, because I support them.
You're in the wrong neighborhood with this sentiment. But yes, the general populace is not like this.
Good for you, now get others to do it. Definitely not the wrong neighborhood though, HN is extremely pro ad-block and every paywall link has an archive.ph link in the comments.
Hell the top story right now is about a tool for backdooring twitter...
But before ChatGPT,, models had already done that, like all the time, and nobody questioned that these types of models (LLMs) wouldn't be next token predictors, since this is just an inference input data topic. This is questioned only since some less knowledgeable people seem to not have the vocabulary to express emergent properties of large next token predictors.
Reading the article, they wanted to convey that the loss function is more complicated... But they are still next token predictors, just not the trivial ones. Unfortunately, that was true even before, because the input data had to be cleared even decades ago, so there is nothing new. This article just butt hurt that some people deny that there are emergent properties with those, and try to sell something trivial in the field for many decades now. Current LLMs are not different because of these. Also, if they try to sell generated data in the training set, then that's also not new at all.
Compared to 2016, it can do a lot of things, but it still fails for example with recommending a setup for my Raspberry Pi to have a 4G connection with some parameters (I want to use as a gateway between VoLTE calls and SMS, and my SIP server somewhere else). It failed miserably. I bought stuff according to its recommendation which was more or less a waste of money, twice. With miniscule knowledge compared to theirs, or even hobbyists', I could figure out all the details at the end, and order something which really works, but only after I sit down for 4 hours, and dig through exactly what I needed, because LLM lied flat out what Sixfab 3G/4G HAT can do. (Of course, not just LLMs lie, SixFab lied about something else too)
Of course, it's a moving goal post, because we have no clue what general intelligence is exactly. But it's definitely not general yet. Now the goalpost is to achieve that kind of level of thinking which I did in that 4 hours. When it reaches it, we will find something else it clearly lacks. Until we can't. Then, and only then we reached AGI. Until you see comments, reviews, etc about things which it cannot do, until then it's not general.
My experience with such problems, is that they stay for this long because nobody cares, not because it's impossible, or even technically too difficult. So hopefully, LLM will improve things, but that quote is a lie.
As several others have already said here, GrapheneOS is not necessarily rooted. So that's a lie.
Also, I've seen such audits internally, and they don't care about security at all. They care about the theatrics of security waaaaay more.
For example, I was at Santander in 2024, during its huge data breach. Here is the list of actions which are supposed to prevent the same kind of attacks again in the future:
-
Yeah, it's an empty list.
But of course, they made our life more difficult. In the end, I literally had more permission than before, because they were even sloppier than before. But of course, I had to change my password more frequently, and I had to type it about 5x more.
Audits are primarily about liability and safe harbors in lawsuits. Companies get audits on record so that if something happens they have someone to throw under the bus and pass damages off onto.
Malwares can possibly do that even on non rooted phones if a privilege escalation attack is possible. And just yesterday, there was an article here about exactly one of those.
Also I highly doubt that there is any real statistics anywhere about whether this is a real threat or not. I guarantee that nobody did such statistics properly. The only known data is from companies which sell root prevention tools, so totally unreliable. And internally I guarantee, that no banks collect such info.
So no, banks lie about this only because they can sell this to judges as safety feature, when they fuck up, which happens continuously.
The stupid rules were imposed by member countries, and not by the EU. There are several countries, like Italy, Hungary who were not imposed that stupid rules, because EU didn't force anybody to have this level of stupidity in these rules. There is a reason why the article mentions only Germany, Austria, et al, they are the idiots, and not everybody or the EU... Also, nobody forced these countries to have incompatible systems. They chose this.
So no, it's not EU's ruling, but their idiot member states. As usual. And of course, everybody points to the usual scapegoat, regardless of the truth. And probably the truth is, that those specific member states wanted this mess.
The EU is the product of the decisions of its members and structure of the coalition. Outsiders have little reason to distinguish the nuance when the discussion has to do with the EU market as a whole.
I'm in EU. But playing the blame game is not getting us anywhere. If you look at this legislation with the most favorable eyes, it still stopped short of making sure it's applicable, and refused to postpone its application as recently as a couple of months ago when it was already clear it'll be a shitshow. That's at EU level, not member countries.
And if you take off the rose tinted glasses, it's the same... um... what's the word? retardedness. when it comes to the environment. In order to... do what exactly? count carboard boxes better? they created yet another bureaucracy.
This is exactly what I meant by not giving a shit about other people's money (or time=money, in some instances).
reply