Skip to content

AdGuard is yet another app to block Windows Recall

Technology
57 29 635
  • 85 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    internetcitizen2@lemmy.worldI
    Pumped up kicks is still relevant
  • 181 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    291 Aufrufe
    S
    And the rest of the world are not petulant children ready and willing to remove any semblance of cooperation, appreciation or decency.
  • 154 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    438 Aufrufe
    O
    That is still isolated because they do at least a million times more business
  • Secure Your Gmail Now As Google Warns Of Password Attacks

    Technology technology
    9
    1
    53 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    92 Aufrufe
    J
    I tried to but they wanted to force me to give them my phone number. Fuck them, they don't need it.
  • Inside the face scanning tech behind social media age limits

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    25 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 310 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    344 Aufrufe
    S
    Same, especially when searching technical or niche topics. Since there aren't a ton of results specific to the topic, mostly semi-related results will appear in the first page or two of a regular (non-Gemini) Google search, just due to the higher popularity of those webpages compared to the relevant webpages. Even the relevant webpages will have lots of non-relevant or semi-relevant information surrounding the answer I'm looking for. I don't know enough about it to be sure, but Gemini is probably just scraping a handful of websites on the first page, and since most of those are only semi-related, the resulting summary is a classic example of garbage in, garbage out. I also think there's probably something in the code that looks for information that is shared across multiple sources and prioritizing that over something that's only on one particular page (possibly the sole result with the information you need). Then, it phrases the summary as a direct answer to your query, misrepresenting the actual information on the pages they scraped. At least Gemini gives sources, I guess. The thing that gets on my nerves the most is how often I see people quote the summary as proof of something without checking the sources. It was bad before the rollout of Gemini, but at least back then Google was mostly scraping text and presenting it with little modification, along with a direct link to the webpage. Now, it's an LLM generating text phrased as a direct answer to a question (that was also AI-generated from your search query) using AI-summarized data points scraped from multiple webpages. It's obfuscating the source material further, but I also can't help but feel like it exposes a little of the behind-the-scenes fuckery Google has been doing for years before Gemini. How it bastardizes your query by interpreting it into a question, and then prioritizes homogeneous results that agree on the "answer" to your "question". For years they've been doing this to a certain extent, they just didn't share how they interpreted your query.
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    339 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • 0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.comA
    The enshittification continues, but it doesn't affect me at all. Piracy is the way to go nowadays that all streaming services suck. !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com