Using the terms "telemetry" and "spyware" interchangeably makes the former seem more nefarious and the latter less nefarious. I understand where you're coming from but I wouldn't want to see the term "spyware" diluted to include anonymised data about how users are using product features.
That's not to say telemetry data is fine or that a company might claim to only use telemetry data isn't actually using spyware.
One of my favourite youtubers recently quite his job to go full time on his channel. He's been growing his audience and patreon backers and for a long time using the income from those videos to invest in his equipment and the gear he reviews. Eventually he grew the channel enough to go full independent.
It'd be really hard to do that outside of YT's monetisation model tbh. I think most YTbers start of making videos for shits and giggles and any money they get is like passive income. Then they catch a viral video of find and audience and start the consider the channel more seriously, and explore other monetisation models and opportunities. I get the hate towards Google and YT but a lot of the oddballs I love on YT might not have a platform otherwise.
It looks like this works like Apple watch on iOS: there's an extra security layer as the watch also has to be unlocked. Smart lock just requires a paired device to be within range.
An Apple Watch locks itself when you take it off, so if someone took your iPhone and Apple Watch from you they couldn't unlock either device. I presume this is the same?
Edit: the article implies that this feature allows verification when you initiate the unlock, whereas Smart Lock actually keeps the deviced unlocked the entire time the paired device is nearby, which in practice is very different and less secure.
Why that is in an executive order, honestly, there is no good reason for it,
You got it right here but nevertheless missed the point pretty hard. What he said and how he said isn't the point of the article: what he did and why he did it is what is newsworthy.
Password managers work perfectly well in popups. Calendars, stickies/notes, and other scensrios where the app isnt your focus but you need the utility of that app within another app.
Nope. And the goal of protests aren’t necessarily to force change, it’s often just as much about raising awareness and attempting to change the discourse with those who hold power. So I think these headlines don’t do the movement justice.
Granted, these are all just allegations at this point
Very dubious allegations that they are failing to prove when you consider that their own witness testified that Hunter and Joe Biden would discuss casual, personal matters in the phone and explicitly not Hunter Biden’s business.
Being a republican doesn’t automatically make them an asshole
I've never argued or suggested this. I'm enjoying this thread and exploring this idea, but not a fan of strawman arguments :(
people are probably amenable if you use the right approach
Your original point was that that people aren't responsible for the bad ideas of their party, so lecturing on on how to change people's minds is disingenuous in this context.
your neighbor is throwing dog shit in your yard and calling you names, yeh, direct your protest and activisim towards them
And I think this is the core contradiction in what you're trying to argue. Imagine your dog-shit analogy in another way: if a neighbour discriminates against you because you're gay (let's say makes comments as you pass by), you appear to support the idea that he is responsible for that view and presumably you can tell him to get fucked to his face. But if that same neighbour votes for a party that discriminates against you, while politely waving to you in the morning, you're saying you shouldn't hold him responsible because he's probably a swell guy? The outcome is the same! You're being discriminated against.
For the record I wouldn't yell "Fuck you Bill!" in protest if this happened. But I absolutely have the right to say "Bill, we've been neighbours for 10 years and I enjoy having you around for BBQ in the summer months, but the fact that you support the party that wants to see my way of life restricted in this way is really disappointing and upsets me" and I absolutely would not be OK if Bill argued that he's not responsible for voting directly against my interests. And to be clear, I'm not saying Bill shouldn't be allowed to vote against my interests, I am just saying that I get to call him out on that. It's unbelievable to me that anyone would say otherwise, but circling back to OP:
if you are talking to your neighbor, don’t make his party affliation equal to his personal belief
Amen brother. Everyone should be prepared to be face criticism, because no one is altruistic and never will be if they can’t bear to be challenged about their beliefs.
you might believe this country is fucked up. Every country have people who believe their own country has a lot of problems. It doesn't mean you don't support it.
Agree! Supporting your country =/= being complicit in all the bad shit done by or in the name of your country. That’s why activism exists, that’s why people can and will protest.
So how come this same logic doesn’t apply if the protests and activism is being directed at your republican neighbour?
During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[7] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[7] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health
g0nz0li0 @ g0nz0li0 @lemmy.world Posts 2Comments 154Joined 2 yr. ago
Using the terms "telemetry" and "spyware" interchangeably makes the former seem more nefarious and the latter less nefarious. I understand where you're coming from but I wouldn't want to see the term "spyware" diluted to include anonymised data about how users are using product features.
That's not to say telemetry data is fine or that a company might claim to only use telemetry data isn't actually using spyware.