Hirom @ Hirom @beehaw.org

Posts

162

Comments

1,149

Joined

3 yr. ago

Refuse apps that require Google Play Services or trackers and tell it to your bank / utility provider... when they invite you to install it.

A bank employee was confused when I refused their app because of trackers from Google and others, telling me they're not big fans of Google themselves. I showed an Exodus privacy report about their app to that employee to show that they integrated Google tracker.

Archived on Sept 5, 2025: https://archive.is/6aUFn

Either it's dependable and useful, or it's not.

When they realize there's (a chatbot giving) unreliable info on their website, they should scrap or replace it. Not add fine prints explaining it's unreliable and people shouldn't rely on it. Stop wasting everyone's time.

NSFL

I wasn't familiar with Drop Site News and had a quick look, seems legit:

• Jeremy Scahill is co-founder of this outlet. He's a well known investigative journalist. Also co-founder of The Intercept. Author of Dirty Wars.
• Lee Fang is co-author. He's also investigative journalist, formerly at The Intercept.
• Media Bias / Fact check assessment rate the outlet Mostly factual, with a Left bias.

He should at least have "DO NOT DEVELOP MY APP" tatooed on his forehead.

The video has more details.

24 types of trees, bushes, shrubs

Nice. He did his homework and made sure to not plant a monoculture.

Neigh

Is there a TL;DR which are more trustworthy or privacy friendly?

I had a quick look, it's a pretty long writeup of different ways in which all those apps are bad.

Some simple actionnable recommandations would be nice.

It's an opportunity to switch to an alcohol-free beverage.

Les assurances complémentaires privées augmentant les coûts pour les patients vu qu'il faut payer en plus le marketing, les dividendes, le système d'échange entre sécu et complémentaires, ...

Ces surcoûts n'existent pas si la sécu gère tous les remboursements obligatoires. Comme c'est le cas en Alsace-Moselle. Il ne s'en portent pas plus mal.

Because it's cheaper to buy.

It's also why people keep buying from third party sellers on Amazon/Temu/Shein. Even after a report revealed most toys bought this way fail to meet EU safety standard, meaning they're likely dangerous and illegal to sell in the EU.

https://www.inkl.com/news/temu-shein-and-amazon-to-be-held-liable-by-the-eu-for-dangerous-and-illegal-products-they-sell-report-says

J'ai déjà vu quelqu'un repartir d'une pharmacie avec une portion de sa prescription faute de pouvoir payer la totalité du reste a charge.

Dans cette situation des gens sont forcés de choisir ce qu'ils vont traiter plus ou moins arbitrairement.

Requirements do specify a number of ~8x18 ft cat parking spaces. The regulation mention the space needed to park a car, rather than the word "car", to make things precise and consistent. See https://www.munistandards.com/ca/los-angles/parking-requirements/

Good point on the overall transport infrastructure. Parking is necessary but not sufficient. Parking requirements and urban planning should work in pair to make the city human and bicycle-friendly. It won't happen overnight, so better start soon.

Requiring car parking space around a building means there's more space between building, ie buildings are further part. So the parking requirement itself contribute to city sprawl.

I assume this is about eliminating car parking requirements.

What about changing the parking requirements to be vehicle agnostic? Require construction projects to have parking for X people, rather than X cars, and consider the requirement met if it's a mix of bicycle parking, cargo bicycle parking, and car parking.

Bicycle parking takes less space. So that'd be an incentive to deliver projets with more bicycle parking, and should help reduce housing cost.

California may not be bicycle-friendly, but it has to start somewhere to be. A colleague of mine used to commute to work in that area using an electric bicycle, it helps cover more distance than a classic bicycle.

A well informed, technicality litterate, reasonable person wouldn't.

Many reasonable people start/keep using those products. All of this is somewhat obvious for tech hobbyist. Others may not be fully aware or the risk, or don't consider they're particularily at risk. The norm is to use those services and apps. There is strong peer pressure to use those service to stay connected with people and organisations.

There's a need for more or at least better education around being safe online, and protecting personal data. An education that's free of big tech influence/sponsoring.

The AI made mistakes, according to the humans, flagging an estimated 350 publications as questionable when they were likely legitimate. That still left more than 1,000 journals that the researchers identified as questionable.

That's quite a large error rate.

This is an interesting example of narrow-AI working well on a problem it was specifically trained for.

Too bad people are going on wild goose chase trying to build AGI using LLM, creating more problems than they're solving. Narrow AI are easier to build, people know how to build them, and they typically give better results, but they don't get as much attention or money. It'd be willing to pay a subscription to access a collection of decent narrow AIs that works well for specific tasks, but not LLM that do many thing poorly.

The US is sidelining itself at the moment by alienating and making unreasonable requests to trade partners.

The point is not to permanently unweave relations, but to resist unreasonable requests, since giving in to Trump only embolden him.

The door need to remain open, as the US may one day became a more reasonable partner.

Everyone hate quacks.