Skip to content

A Researcher Figured Out How to Reveal Any Phone Number Linked to a Google Account

Technology
54 40 29
  • New "subguides" on my guide to Pocket alternatives

    Technology technology
    1
    5 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Signal – an ethical replacement for WhatsApp

    Technology technology
    235
    1
    1k Stimmen
    235 Beiträge
    185 Aufrufe
    V
    What I said is that smart people can be convinced to move to another platform. Most of my friends are not technically inclined, but it was easy to make them use it, at least to chat with me. What you did is change "smart people" with "people who already want to move", which is not the same. You then said it's not something you can choose (as you cannot choose to be rich). But I answered that you can actually choose your friends. Never did I say people who are not interested in niche technologies are not smart. My statement can be rephrased in an equivalent statement "people who cannot be convinced to change are not smart", and I stand to it.
  • Is Google about to destroy the web?

    Technology technology
    65
    1
    193 Stimmen
    65 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    S
    Or validating source, making sure it isn't AI content which usually regurgitates the same talking points. Homogenizing the entire query and removing actual information variance of personal experience.
  • 2 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • You are Already On "The List"

    Technology technology
    2
    47 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    M
    Even if they're wrong. It's too late. You're already on the list. .... The only option is to destroy the list and those who will use it
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    42 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 141 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    P
    The topic is more nuanced, all the logs indicate email/password combos that were compromised. While it is possible this is due to a malware infection, it could be something as simple as a phishing website. In this case, credentials are entered but no "malware" was installed. The point being it doesn't look great that someone has ANY compromises... But again, anyone who's used the Internet a bit has some compromised. For example, in a password manager (especially the one on iPhone), you'll often be notified of all your potentially compromised accounts. [image: 7a5e8350-e47e-4d67-b096-e6e470ec7050.jpeg]
  • Microsoft Bans Employees From Using DeepSeek App

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    121 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    L
    (Premise - suppose I accept that there is such a definable thing as capitalism) I'm not sure why you feel the need to state this in a discussion that already assumes it as a necessary precondition of, but, uh, you do you. People blaming capitalism for everything then build a country that imports grain, while before them and after them it’s among the largest exporters on the planet (if we combine Russia and Ukraine for the “after” metric, no pun intended). ...what? What does this have to do with literally anything, much less my comment about innovation/competition? Even setting aside the wild-assed assumptions you're making about me criticizing capitalism means I 'blame [it] for everything', this tirade you've launched into, presumably about Ukraine and the USSR, has no bearing on anything even tangentially related to this conversation. People praising capitalism create conditions in which there’s no reason to praise it. Like, it’s competitive - they kill competitiveness with patents, IP, very complex legal systems. It’s self-regulating and self-optimizing - they make regulations and do bailouts preventing sick companies from dying, make laws after their interests, then reactively make regulations to make conditions with them existing bearable, which have a side effect of killing smaller companies. Please allow me to reiterate: ...what? Capitalists didn't build literally any of those things, governments did, and capitalists have been trying to escape, subvert, or dismantle those systems at every turn, so this... vain, confusing attempt to pin a medal on capitalism's chest for restraining itself is not only wrong, it fails to understand basic facts about history. It's the opposite of self-regulating because it actively seeks to dismantle regulations (environmental, labor, wage, etc), and the only thing it optimizes for is the wealth of oligarchs, and maybe if they're lucky, there will be a few crumbs left over for their simps. That’s the problem, both “socialist” and “capitalist” ideal systems ignore ape power dynamics. I'm going to go ahead an assume that 'the problem' has more to do with assuming that complex interacting systems can be simplified to 'ape (or any other animal's) power dynamics' than with failing to let the richest people just do whatever they want. Such systems should be designed on top of the fact that jungle law is always allowed So we should just be cool with everybody being poor so Jeff Bezos or whoever can upgrade his megayacht to a gigayacht or whatever? Let me say this in the politest way I know how: LOL no. Also, do you remember when I said this? ‘Won’t someone please think of the billionaires’ is wearing kinda thin You know, right before you went on this very long-winded, surreal, barely-coherent ramble? Did you imagine I would be convinced by literally any of it when all it amounts to is one giant, extraneous, tedious equivalent of 'Won't someone please think of the billionaires?' Simp harder and I bet maybe you can get a crumb or two yourself.