Skip to content

How to turn off Gemini on Android — and why you should

Technology
32 24 6
  • VMware’s rivals ramp efforts to create alternative stacks

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    77 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    71 Aufrufe
    B
    I don't use any GUI... I use terraform in the terminal or via CI/CD. There is an API and also a Terraform provider for Proxmox, and I can use that, together with Ansible and shell scripts to manage VMs, but I was looking for k8s support. Again, it works fine for small environments, with a bit of manual work and human intervention, but for larger ones, I need a bit more. I moved away from a few VMs acting as k8s nodes, to k8s as a service (at work).
  • 55 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    52 Aufrufe
    D
    Except AI would break everything so just watch the digital fires that are about to get started. They already figured a method to put malicious code in AI crawlers. Imagine you tell AI to code and it uses malware in the code.
  • 13 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Millions of websites to get 'game-changing' AI bot blocker

    Technology technology
    28
    1
    149 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    163 Aufrufe
    D
    How would you legally enforce robots.txt? It's not a legally sound system.
  • Linus Torvalds and Bill Gates Meet for the First Time Ever

    Technology technology
    222
    787 Stimmen
    222 Beiträge
    970 Aufrufe
    M
    Hmm, you kind of lost me with these metaphors. No offence, I'm just not sure what is supposed to represent what here.
  • 376 Stimmen
    51 Beiträge
    31 Aufrufe
    L
    I believe that's what a write down generally reflects: The asset is now worth less than its previous book value. Resale value isn't the most accurate way to look at it, but it generally works for explaining it: If I bought a tool for 100€, I'd book it as 100€ worth of tools. If I wanted to sell it again after using it for a while, I'd get less than those 100€ back for it, so I'd write down that difference as a loss. With buying / depreciating / selling companies instead of tools, things become more complex, but the basic idea still holds: If the whole of the company's value goes down, you write down the difference too. So unless these guys bought it for five times its value, they'll have paid less for it than they originally got.
  • 559 Stimmen
    99 Beiträge
    362 Aufrufe
    N
    In this year of 2025? No. But it still is basically setting oneself for failure from the perspective of Graphene, IMO. Like, the strongest protection in the world (assuming Graphene even is, which is quite a tall order statement) is useless if it only works on the mornings of a Tuesday that falls in a prime number day that has a blue moon and where there are no ATP tennis matches going on. Everyone else is, like, living in the real world, and the uniqueness of your scenario is going to go down the drain once your users get presented with a $5 wrench, or even cheaper: a waterboard. Because cops, let alone ICE, are not going to stop to ask you if they can make you more comfortable with your privacy being violated.
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    15 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 ?