Not great. I chose my Chromebook from the ChromeOS Flex USB creator and created the USB.
As near as I can tell, my Chromebook pulled a restore image from the USB drive correctly. But when it was done, I was left with the exact same OS I started with.
Let the market do. If good data is so critical to the success of AI, AI companies will pay for it. I don't know how someone can still entertain the idea that a bureaucrat, or worse, a politician, is remotely competent at designing an efficient economy.
All the world's data was critical to the success of AI. They stole it and fought the system to pay nothing. Then settled it for peanuts because the original creators are weak to negotiate. It already happened.
No they won't pay for it, unless they believe it's in their best interests. If they believe they can free-ride and get good data without having to pay for it, why would they lay down a dollar?
Or, they'll just create more technically sophisticated workarounds to get what they want while avoiding a bad precedent that might cost them more money in the long run. Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute.
Now apply the same logic to laws, except that laws are a lot slower to change when they find the next workaround.
And it's a lot harder to get the law to stop doing something once it proves to cause significant collateral damage, or just cumulative incremental collateral damage while having negligible effectiveness.
I am super curious how far this goes. If, hypothetically, I wore some sort of glasses that kept facial recognition from identifying and tracking me at my local grocery store, would that constitute a civil infringement in the future?
What about extensions that skip embedded ads in a YouTube video? Is that tortuous interference with the view counter that creators use to market their reach?
Giving a second shout out to pangolin. You can also manage a multi site set up quite easily with built in auth and without much command line foo. Super useful if you run something like proxmox and eany go spin up several services without too much configuration on each service to expose to the world. Really happy with pangolin.
In an employment context, do we consider the user to be the employer or the person using the computer? I would think it would be the device owner, which generally would be the employer.
If so, then I would think the previous statement about adblocking being opt-in would still hold. It is just that advertisers are trying to indivually track and monetize employees on company devices and time. On my work machines I am generally not allowed to run software that my employer does not approve, why should ads be treated differently?
Crowdstrike is a recent example that comes to mind. I don't see how paying for CrowdStrike made it more secure or reliable.
I would also argue that you could take all the $$ paying for proprietary software and contribute it to people who are making the open source software, making the reliance on "free" eyeballs less of an issue.
Just curious, but it sounds like this is the ideal use case for Do Not Track. Do you all use that as a signal to not track/remove nonessential cookies?
Yes, we do treat that as a valid signal. But users still shouldn't use it today anyway, since it has no teeth and many companies will use it as part of a composite identifier. If Do Not Track had more regulatory teeth, I think it might have gone somewhere.
Global Privacy Control (GPC) is the modern alternative, and the mechanism by which California's privacy legislation / CCPA is largely handled from a technical perspective. Unfortunately it is not available by default in Chrome, but it is in eg Firefox / DuckDuckGo browser. Because it has legal teeth, it has more power to give you a tracking free experience even if a company had the technical capability to track you.
It can still help you even if you're not in California because geolocation is not perfect, but it does provide the ability to monetize ads that are tracking free. The threat of enforcement has to be real and continue to be demonstrated, though, or it won't last.
iCloud Private Relay also causes tracking companies a lot of real pain (sort of a mini-Tor where Apple and CloudFlare each have only half of your unlock key), but it's a technical bandaid with a variety of flaws that can break many legitimate things.
Ultimately each situation is one that requires judgement, which is why I think a legislative/judicial answer is the only one that ultimately holds up. GPC allows for a little more nuance than DNT. People care about the intent of respecting "Do Not Track." It some cases it may requirement a judgement about whether or not a company violated that request, not whether it was "technically impossible for the company to violate that request (we thought) but oh oops it was possible...I guess that just means we need to make it harder, the company doing the violating was okay because they worked within the bounds of what was technically possible."
A company that violates this privacy, especially when you've indicated that you do no consent, should have to face penalties. And because we expect some companies to go out of business for violating these rules, we should also make sure that their "data assets" aren't simply transferred to some new company in bankruptcy court when an adverse ruling comes down.
I am curious how you are suffering from not having a "white celebratation". I understand why there might want to be a protected space for certain groups that, up until recently, were systematically treated harmfully. Whites don't fall into that category. So, I don't understand how it harms you that you cannot have a white party. Can you explain what harms you suffer?
This is racism. "I know you had it hard, but you're white, so your suffering is less relevant than black person's suffering". You might argue that this is the right thing to do anyway, but it's still racism.
You didn't answer my question. Please outline how being white has lead to your suffering or your ancestors suffering. I am not saying they did not suffer - everyone does - but how did being white cause you or them to suffer?
So far, you haven't given any evidence of that, only called me racist.
> So far, you haven't given any evidence of that, only called me racist.
Because you are racist. You judge people's suffering through the lens of their race. My ancestors were victims of a genocide, but that doesn't count, because it was a white-white genocide. Later my country was occupied with a puppet government but that doesn't count, because it was a white-white problem in a poor country far away. Nowadays neighboring country is literally an active warzone, but again, this doesn't count, because it's white-white war. A coworker coming from said country was telling me how difficult it is for him that he's sitting on his comfy chair in safety while his friends are literally dying, but that doesn't deserve empathy, because it's a white-white problem. The company we work for happens to be American, so instead of discussing the issue, we get "black Polynesian pride month" or whatever, as though I'd ever see such a person in my life.
Average black American earns more money than average white in my country, yet the former ones somehow win The Suffering Olympics with gold medal in being underprivileged. This is ridiculous.
I'll never forget it when I, having grown up gay in some godforsaken conservative village in the middle of nowhere, went to the city to see a pride event for the first time in my life, and some middle-upper-class city woman told me that I'm a white man, so obviously I have no idea what it feels like to be discriminated against. To her, my suffering didn't count, because I'm a white man.
The civil rights act seeks to create a color blind society. If schools or employers racialize people and treat them differently in any way, that’s illegal discrimination. It doesn’t matter if you think that treatment is warranted for certain groups but not other groups. That’s not a proper consideration under the law.
