amf12

> I think its fair to say that RTO is not about data,

What data do you have to support this, other than a personal anecdote?

Because we let Apple get away with it?

https://httptoolkit.com/blog/apple-private-access-tokens-att...

Anecdotally, some part of it is also the hype which makes people who use a mediocre Android switch to the iPhone. Once in the ecosystem its significantly harder to switch back. All of my friends who use a high-end Android haven't switched and don't want to.

> Are you sure? Why would a build machine need access to GMail?

Because some people like to use remote desktop with it. And because some people's "build machine" is a VM, or a physical desktop in the office for some others.

/> Maybe they should just give their employees two computers, one air-gapped for accessing internal systems

And why do you think that may not already be the case? Even other big tech companies already give out two computers.

> or some reason the RSU brokerage doesn't report the cost basis

This is because the employer doesn't tell them the cost basis, right?

Public libraries are awesome! I regularly borrow eBooks and Audiobooks, with the option of borrowing physical books. For people who read a lot of books this is much cheaper than buying a book that you might not like and never read again.

> How about Google actually pays people who report bugs/vulnerabilities.

That's exactly what Google did. They paid the person who reported it and not discovered it. You can just follow the issue comments to get all your answers.

> So why is Google pushing a presser about Apple "not reporting a zero day"

Google did not release any "presser", they clarified the situation because there was some confusion about who discovered/reported it - and it didn't even mention Apple: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=142786...

In fact, Google is still going to credit the Apple employee for finding it, because they reported it (1451211) after it was fixed: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=142786...

> Are people in prison allowed to sign into their Google accounts?

If it's so important to them, maybe their partners or family can login - or they can do a takeout and store their data in a hard drive. Who knows if Google services will be around when they get out, right?

"The simplest way to keep a Google Account active is to sign in to the account at least once every two years."

Not a terrible requirement. If they are so important to you, why can't you login once every 2 years. Why is it bad news?

Every Software role employee at Google has two computers, a laptop and a cloudtop. I have no idea what this pilot is about but I suspect it affects the instance you ssh into and not the laptop, which is perfectly acceptable. The VM does not require "internet" access for the work done.

Brave does some shady shit too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36735777

> Instead of blocking, it would be neater to present and alternative version to the crawlers

IIUC, if a site presents different (view of) content to the crawler than users, the site can get de-indexed.

> It's a bit different because the AI is reading it with the intent of reproducing (certain aspects of) it for other people to later

It could be illegal if the AI reproduces vast portions of it. If you could ask the LLM over a course of prompts to generate a significant portion of the content (as the copyright law defines it), then yes.

As long as the AI isn't reproducing it, then I am not sure if it would count.

Isn't the solution to it -- use Google product if it's superior and won't fuck you if its abandoned? Instead of not using it because it may be abandoned, if those products instead get more users, it is less likely to be abandoned.

I mean, purely considering this product, isn't it also likely for some ChatGPT extension which provides similar feature to also be abandoned, or to have privacy or quality issues?

That's exactly what LLMs are good at. Cross-referencing information from across the training data.

The response could contain information that you did not specifically refer to but is relevant and/or related. It doesn't even imply that the LLMs had access to the book's content.

TBF, after reading this chain, your first comment did come across as implying that.

> where a significant portion of internet users were using adBlockers for everything

Just looking up online, the number of US internet users who block ads hovers at around 27% in last few years. That's not significant enough.

Take a look at Instagram's Threads. They had 100M users in a few days. Do you think people around the world really care about data being used?

On a related note, I am sad about the state of HN comments, which resembles Reddit more and more.

The blog post specifically mentions the data is private and won't be used to train models, which can't be said about the ChatGPT based tools which do this, but yet, here we have people not bothering to read and just write a cliched comment about "collecting user data".

So is internet and rapid copy-sharing of books.

I personally feel our copyright laws are too rigid, but that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist.

After x years, any book should be free to read, after y years, it should be free to be incorporated into AI models, after z years it should be in the public domain.

That paper is by Meta AI. Where are you getting Google from?

The lawsuit doesn't even mention Google.

> Tell that to someone when their kid dies because some chatbot hallucinated the wrong diagnosis or treatment.

MedPalm seems to be accessible only to healthcare facilities. If the chatbot hallucinated the wrong diagnosis or treatment, the doctor will still be liable.

Sure, I was emphasizing on the "however personal" part in the original comment. I am ok if my de-identified data is used for research.

FWIW, healthcare has strong regulations around data. If your provider uses an approved chatbot (vs using public ChatGPT), there is more or less a guarantee that your data won't be sucked up by a corp.

I'd rather my doctor use a negotiated and approved model/tool than an unapproved one.

How is it illegal in the US? For one, it seems that it does conform to HIPPA. As per lawsuits, if the doctor is using it, they can't claim the chat bot gave them incorrect information - they should know better.

Yes, it can be ported.

It may be in the browser's interest when the majority of their userbase is non-tech. I'd rather my mom use such a browser than one which does not enforce it.

It's not just for sites which handle user data. MITM attacks are real. Non-tech people don't know what VPN, HTTP or HTTPS are.

Here's an example: a person goes to say Reddit, and clicks on a HTTP link about a new recipe. It's possible for a link to a malicious site being injected in the page. These were pretty common in developing countries.

Have you moved to another country across the world, made it your home, and had to choose between doing stupid things for a corporation bought by a new CEO or uproot your life and go back home? As much as it's sounds like an easy decision, most people won't uproot their life for Twitter.