And the worst part is, I’m not even sure if they believe it, or if they’re just lying to try and pump the value of the coins they’re investing in that claim to be capable of doing that in the future.
And honestly, I don’t know which I dislike more. Deliberate ignorance, or actual stupidity.
Not that long ago. Many still do, although you’ll primarily find them in more niche spaces within the overarching crypto community.
In fact, just a few years back, I used to be one of them. Of course, later on I became disillusioned with the promises of crypto after learning more about socialism, thinking more closely about how the system fundamentally worked, and realizing that it was effectively just a slightly more distributed variant of capitalism that would inevitably fall to the same structural failings, that being capital accumulation.
To clarify the reasoning that was often used, including by myself, the reason people specifically thought blockchains would make microtransactions better is because they thought that it would lead to more user freedom, and open markets. If you can buy a skin now, then sell it later when you’re done with it, then the effective cost of the skin is lower than in a game where you are unable to sell, for instance.
Obviously the concept of selling in-game items isn’t novel in any way, but the main selling point was that it could be tradeable on any marketplace (or peer-to-peer with no marketplace at all), meaning low to no fees, and they items could be given native revenue-share splits, where the publisher of a game would get a set % of every sale, leading to a way for them to generate revenue that didn’t have to be releasing new but low quality things at a quick pace, and could then allow them to focus on making higher quality items with a slower release schedule.
Of course, looking back retrospectively:
There are a small subset of people who legitimately just don’t understand game development fundamentals though, and they actually believe that things would just be fully interchangeable. As in, you buy a skin in Fortnite, and you can then open up Roblox and set it as your player model.
Those ones are especially not the brightest.
To be fair, I do believe their research was based on how convincing it was compared to other Reddit commenters, rather than say, an actual person you’d normally see doing the work for a government propaganda arm, with the training and skillset to effectively distribute propaganda.
Their assessment of how “convincing” it was seems to also have been based on upvotes, which if I know anything about how people use social media, and especially Reddit, are often given when a comment is only slightly read through, and people are often scrolling past without having read the whole thing. The bots may not have necessarily optimized for convincing people, but rather, just making the first part of the comment feel upvote-able over others, while the latter part of the comment was mostly ignored. I’d want to see more research on this, of course, since this seems like a major flaw in how they assessed outcomes.
This, of course, doesn’t discount the fact that AI models are often much cheaper to run than the salaries of human beings.
Ah yes, the “mistake” of deliberately stealing an entire family’s belongings. Easy mistake to make.
Chrome is relatively limited in scope compared to, say, a user on an instance of degoogled chromium just using the same Google services along with all the other browsing they do. The extra data that’s gathered is generally going to be things like a little more DNS query information, (assuming your device isn’t already set to default to Google’s DNS server) links you visit that don’t already have Google’s trackers on them (very few) and some general information like when you’re turning on your computer and Chrome is opening up.
The real difference is in how Chrome doesn’t protect you like other browsers do, and it thus makes more of the collection that Google’s services do indirectly, possible.
Perplexity is still being pretty vague here, but if I had to guess, it would essentially just be taking all the stuff that Google would usually get from tracking pixels and ad cookies, and baking that directly in to the browser instead of it relying on individual sites using it.
The key to making this a lesser issue when it comes to keeping birth rates high is, in my opinion, a solid foundation of community trust and communal childcare.
The phrase “it takes a village” didn’t just spawn out of nowhere, after all. When communities can share the responsibilities of raising children, not only does it lead to a better quality of life for the kids because they tend to get more social interaction time in and better access to their community’s resources, but it also takes the burden off a lot of parents since it stops being a 24/7 job, and more of a shared, common duty to their community that is only sometimes needed, and is flexible in the case of them needing a break.
Of course, to get something like this, you need to fix the fact that we live in a very low trust society, and that is extremely difficult to do.
Is this phone also more secure?
Probably not.
Apple & Google have spent considerable amounts of time building out hardware security infrastructure for their products that I find it extremely unlikely Fairphone would have been able to match.
For example, the popular alternative Android OS GrapheneOS only supports Google Pixels, because: (Emphasis added by me)
“There are currently no other devices meeting even the most basic security requirements while running an alternate OS. GrapheneOS is very interested in supporting a non-Pixel brand, but the vast majority of Android OEMs do not take security seriously. Samsung takes security almost as seriously as Google, but they deliberately cripple their devices when unlock them to install another OS and don’t allow an alternate OS to use important security features. If Samsung permitted GrapheneOS to support their devices properly, many of their phones would be the closest to meeting our requirements. They’re currently missing the very important hardware memory tagging feature, but only because it’s such a new feature”
If even Samsung, the only other phone brand on the market they consider close to meeting their standards, doesn’t support every modern hardware security feature, and deliberately cripples their security for alternate OS’s, as a multi billion dollar company, I doubt Fairphone has custom-built hardware security mechanisms for their phones to the degree that Google has.
While true, it doesn’t keep you safe from sleeper agent attacks.
These can essentially allow the creator of your model to inject (seamlessly, undetectably until the desired response is triggered) behaviors into a model that will only trigger when given a specific prompt, or when a certain condition is met. (such as a date in time having passed)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.05566
It’s obviously not as likely as a company simply tweaking their models when they feel like it, and it prevents them from changing anything on the fly after the training is complete and the model is distributed, (although I could see a model designed to pull from the internet being given a vulnerability where it queries a specific URL on the company’s servers that can then be updated with any given additional payload) but I personally think we’ll see vulnerabilities like this become evident over time, as I have no doubts it will become a target, especially for nation state actors, to simply slip some faulty data into training datasets or fine-tuning processes that get picked up by many models.