Phones abaolutely do listen, but not to audio via the mic. When Apple and Google tell you they respect your privacy, they mean they don’t harvest data directly from a live feed of the mic nor camera; they still scan your files in some cases, and they harvest your browsing history, and read your text messages metadata, and check your youtube watch history, and scan your contacts, and check your location, and harvest hundreds of other litttle tiny data points that don’t seem like much but add up to a big profile of you and your behavior and psyche.

So your friend was at a pub quiz with a couple dozen other people, and his phone knew where he was and who was nearby. A statistically significant portion of the people there were not privacy conscious and googled “Lord of the Rings runtime” or something similar. All that data got harvested by Google and Apple, and processed, and then the most recent and fitting entry from some master list of customers’ sites’ articles was pushed to all their newsfeeds.

Humans don’t understand intuitively how much information is being processed through nonverbal means at any given time, and that’s the disconnect large companies exploit when they say misleading things like “noooo, your phone isn’t listening to you.”

But it’s totally not privacy invasive, because at no point along the line did a human view your data (/s)

there’s actually aword for this type of mixed idiom: malaphor

Wait, how does that work? It seems like it should take the same energy to melt it either way.

presumably they mean using something besides your body heat to melt it

That’s more of an turn-of-phrase, no?

Is that a Mark Fischer quote?

“Take the Blue Pill and the gradual slide into fascism stops accelerating for four years while the current hellscape becomes the status quo, take the Red Pill and buckle the fuck up as we hyperspeed into fascism”

Why is Swift bad?

Also, I noticed the project has taken donations from mostly non-foss companies. Let’s hope they stand by their principles

Louis Rossman is my Alex Jones. He’s angry, compelling, and talking about something that makes him seen like a conspiracy theorist to normies. Unlike Jones, though, he’s usually right (if not always, I haven’t fact checked everything he’s ever said). It’s extremely cathartic to see someone use such extreme rhetoric to talk about privacy and software ownership and right to repair; e.g. it’s not “advertiser’s entitlement,” it’s “rapist mentality.”

Ironically, youtube’s inability to completely differentiate between people at the same IP has accidentally gotten my non-techie roommate into him too. I never shared his videos with her, never said anything about him, and one day I hear his voice as she browses the web. I’m so proud of her.

My least favorite thing about the “engagement friendly” slop in youtube’s search results is that it takes up HALF of the results. Because clearly what I expect from SEARCHING for something is to dredge up a bunch of shit that ranges from tangentially related to completely unrelated.

For example, I too just searched a song. Let’s see how that went:

7 results
4 “people also watched” videos
5 results
2 “More from [band name]” videos
2 results
3 “people also searched for” suggestions
2 results
3 “For you” vids (IS IT THE FUVKING SEARCH RESULTS I ASKED FOR??? BECAUSE IF NOT, IT’S NOT REALLY “FOR ME,” IS IT?)
2 Results
3 “From related searches”
2 results

That’s 20 results to 15 irrelevant pieces of ADHD triggering visual clutter. Luckily the results were actually relevant, unlike whatever you’re getting.

To all the commenters saying “I have X, I don’t have this problem”: I have adblock, I don’t have this problem, YOU’RE MISSING THE POINT:

YOUTUBE SEARCH IS BROKEN BY DEFAULT. The largest video sharing site on the internet is BROKEN BY DEFAULT. It shouldn’t require extra software to function properly when functioning properly requires less work on the server’s side

Context:

TLDR: The devs don’t like bugs in released software being assigned CVEs, which requires a special security update instead of a standard bugfix included in the regular update cycle.

:The most recent “security advisory” was released despite the fact
: that the particular bug in the experimental HTTP/3 code is
: expected to be fixed as a normal bug as per the existing security
: policy, and all the developers, including me, agree on this.
:
: And, while the particular action isn’t exactly very bad, the
: approach in general is quite problematic.

There was no public discussion. The only discussion I’m aware of
happened on the security-alert@ list, and the consensus was that
the bug should be fixed as a normal bug. Still, I was reached
several days ago with the information that some unnamed management
requested an advisory and security release anyway, regardless of
the policy and developers position.

And nginx’s announcement about these CVEs

Historically, we did not issue CVEs for experimental features and instead would patch the relevant code and release it as part of a standard release. For commercial customers of NGINX Plus, the previous two versions would be patched and released to customers. We felt that not issuing a similar patch for NGINX Open Source would be a disservice to our community. Additionally, fixing the issue in the open source branch would have exposed users to the vulnerability without providing a binary.

Our decision to release a patch for both NGINX Open Source and NGINX Plus is rooted in doing what is right – to deliver highly secure software for our customers and community. Furthermore, we’re making a commitment to document and release a clear policy for how future security vulnerabilities will be addressed in a timely and transparent manner.