Shut down Social Media (except D1P, naturally), update: Facebook to shut down its facial recognition program

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

 

Okay. So instead you're taking a completely different scenario and using it to say we were wrong about the original scenario. Smart.

Thank you.

[legend]

21 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Well lookee dere! Ford just patented a system for cars that does exactly what the D1P brain trust of mensa members is telling me isn't possible! 

 

Access Denied

WWW.MOTORTREND.COM

 

 

 

No one told you this.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

No one told you this.

Ok.

[Jason]

Next we're going to find out skillz thought the Obama spy microwave was real too.

[Spork3245]

1 minute ago, Jason said:

Next we're going to find out skillz thought the Obama spy microwave was real too.

WTF, you mean my popcorn isn’t being buttered by Obama’s silky smooth voice?

[GeneticBlueprint]

I cannot stress this enough: I will never buy a car with this functionality if it can't be permanently, irrevocably disabled once and once only and I never have to think about it ever again. No notifications asking me if I'm sure I want this off. No "reauthorizing" my turning it off. Nothing. Or else

 

[skillzdadirecta]

48 minutes ago, Jason said:

Next we're going to find out skillz thought the Obama spy microwave was real too.

[TwinIon]

I think it can often be useful to look at things that these companies have had leaked that they didn't want to. Like when TikTok got caught spying on us journalists. In that case Bytedance employees were leveraging all the data that they had on these journalists trying to figure out if they were talking to some Bytedance employees. It mostly revolved around location data, which scans pretty directly with the kind of info you'd expect them to have if you read any of the many security researchers who decompile these apps and look to see what they do. If they had been discretely recording these people, it sure seems to me like that would have been useful and would have come up, but it didn't.

 

I feel like that spying story is a good benchmark for the privacy implications of these apps. If anyone is shady enough routinely spy on users it would probably be Tiktok, and when we see what kind of motivated spying they can actually do, it's using the information that we know they're collecting. This story verifies 3rd party indicators of what info is being collected, and shows us that they don't do a very good job of protecting the data that they do collect, all of which scans.

 

Hell, if I remember correctly, even PRISM wasn't collecting real time voice from people, though our knowledge of that program is limited and pretty old at this point.

[Kal-El814]

3 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Well lookee dere! Ford just patented a system for cars that does exactly what the D1P brain trust of mensa members is telling me isn't possible! 

 

Access Denied

WWW.MOTORTREND.COM

 

 

 

Again nobody is saying listening technology doesn't exist or that it is not possible to be used to deliver targeted ads... merely that there's no evidence that Meta is always listening and ignoring device settings.

 

This link ALSO says it won't just use audio but also data from other sources (location data, weather data, etc.)... which is exactly what we're saying is most likely happening?

 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills  

[chakoo]

[BloodyHell]

On 9/4/2024 at 8:50 PM, Uaarkson said:

With that said, I also totally and completely believe in aliens 

So do I, I just don’t believe any are on earth 

[mclumber1]

7 hours ago, BloodyHell said:

So do I, I just don’t believe any are on earth 

 

Of course aliens have visited Earth - and continue to visit this planet.

 

Just because humans haven't been able to cross vast distances in a relatively short amount of time doesn't mean other civilizations haven't been able to figure it out.  We probably can't even properly comprehend the technology at play here.  A civilization that is thousands or even millions of years more advanced than humanity is surely capable of unimaginable capabilities.  

 

 

[Kal-El814]

8 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Of course aliens have visited Earth - and continue to visit this planet.

 

Just because humans haven't been able to cross vast distances in a relatively short amount of time doesn't mean other civilizations haven't been able to figure it out.  We probably can't even properly comprehend the technology at play here.  A civilization that is thousands or even millions of years more advanced than humanity is surely capable of unimaginable capabilities.  

 

 

 

This is unhinged but also more sane than any libertarian position on anything so

 

[BloodyHell]

8 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Of course aliens have visited Earth - and continue to visit this planet.

 

Just because humans haven't been able to cross vast distances in a relatively short amount of time doesn't mean other civilizations haven't been able to figure it out.  We probably can't even properly comprehend the technology at play here.  A civilization that is thousands or even millions of years more advanced than humanity is surely capable of unimaginable capabilities.  

 

 

Aliens have not visited earth. 
 

You can’t do it sub light, and if you listen to any physicist they talk about how propelling a vehicle to the speed of light would require something all all of the estimated energy in the universe combined, as would folding space/time. 
 

I’d have an easier time believing that humans from an alternate earth had crossed over (which I also don’t believe) than aliens getting here in a ship. 
 

I definitely believe there are aliens across the universe, but I don’t believe they are visiting Earth, or even probably know we’re here. 

[Keyser_Soze]

On 9/6/2024 at 5:20 PM, Kal-El814 said:

Again nobody is saying listening technology doesn't exist or that it is not possible to be used to deliver targeted ads... merely that there's no evidence that Meta is always listening and ignoring device settings.

 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills  

 

You are just taking "can't articulate my statements properly pills"

 

Many of us said, "Companies are listening because this specific thing popped up about something I was talking about."

 

But everyone else said, "not possible because whatever"

 

Now the story has switched to, "We believe it is happening (Although we said the opposite) but we were just saying it can't happen because of something else."

 

[SuperSpreader]

46 minutes ago, BloodyHell said:

but I don’t believe they are visiting Earth, or even probably know we’re here. 

 

fuck

 

we're on Gilligan's Island

[legend]

10 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Of course aliens have visited Earth - and continue to visit this planet.

 

Just because humans haven't been able to cross vast distances in a relatively short amount of time doesn't mean other civilizations haven't been able to figure it out.  We probably can't even properly comprehend the technology at play here.  A civilization that is thousands or even millions of years more advanced than humanity is surely capable of unimaginable capabilities.  

 

 

 

While I think it's fine to be open to the possibility that aliens visited, you have to make a lot of assumptions to reach "of course they have." Alien life existing doesn't really require new assumptions: we are the evidence that life can form in the universe, the universe is big -- like really big -- and our star system doesn't seem all that special, so it's much more plausible it happened more than once.

 

But the speed of light may be a hard limit of physics. It's possible we just haven't learned enough, but this is unlike many other now existing technologies that could have been surprising because we don't often bump up against possible physical limits and then surpass them. E.g., people doubted we'd have planes, but birds existed -- there was nothing we knew against the rules of physics that said it might not be possible in the same way the speed of light is.

 

Then we have other assumptions we have to make: that FTL is far in excess of the speed of light, cheap (in energy), that alien life would have a motivation to travel the universe, and that intelligent alien life not only exists but is fairly common.

 

I don't think you can land at "of course" with all these questionable assumptions you have to make.

[SuperSpreader]

2 minutes ago, legend said:

 

While I think it's fine to be open to the possibility that aliens visited, you have to make a lot of assumptions to reach "of course they have." Alien life existing doesn't really require new assumptions: we are the evidence that life can form in the universe, the universe is big -- like really big -- and our star system doesn't seem all that special, so it's much more plausible it happened more than once.

 

But the speed of light may be a hard limit of physics. It's possible we just haven't learned enough, but this is unlike many other now existing technologies that could have been surprising because we don't often bump up against possible physical limits and then surpass them. E.g., people doubted we'd have planes, but birds existed -- there was nothing we knew against the rules of physics that said it might not be possible in the same way the speed of light is.

 

Then we have other assumptions we have to make: that FTL is far in excess of the speed of light, cheap (in energy), that alien life would have a motivation to travel the universe, and that intelligent alien life not only exists but is fairly common.

 

I don't think you can land at "of course" with all these questionable assumptions you have to make.

 

You just have to fold space not go faster duh

[legend]

4 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

You just have to fold space not go faster duh

 

It's possible I'm just nerd enough to be aware of the idea of folding space  

[Uaarkson]

12 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

You just have to fold space not go faster duh

Requires negative mass tho (like shitloads of it) which doesn’t appear to exist anywhere in nature unfortunately  

[Uaarkson]

I want to believe that aliens cracked the code though, and a small percentage of UAP events are their drones. I highly doubt little green men are making the journey themselves.

[SuperSpreader]

2 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

Requires negative mass tho (like shitloads of it) which doesn’t appear to exist anywhere in nature unfortunately  

 

[Uaarkson]

Fun fact: if you could accelerate a ship to ~99.9% light speed, any distance traveled would appear practically instantaneous from the reference frame of the ship! Time dilation, bitches 

[SuperSpreader]

6 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

Fun fact: if you could accelerate a ship to ~99.9% light speed, any distance traveled would appear practically instantaneous from the reference frame of the ship! Time dilation, bitches 

 

How many rocks would you crash into. Probably instant death too.

[Kal-El814]

2 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

You are just taking "can't articulate my statements properly pills"

 

Many of us said, "Companies are listening because this specific thing popped up about something I was talking about."

 

But everyone else said, "not possible because whatever"

 

Now the story has switched to, "We believe it is happening (Although we said the opposite) but we were just saying it can't happen because of something else."

 

 

No, the issue is we were talking colloquially and now we’re getting more specific.

 

Again I don’t doubt that “the thing” happened, that being, “I spoke about X, Meta served me an ad about it.” Where it gets tricky is the conclusion that happened due to a specific cause for which no evidence has been provided beyond begging the question. And the circumstances around it are counter to work people have done around network traffic and analysis of the apps themselves in question.

 

The anecdotes also often don’t seem to take into account how cognition works. “I got served an ad about hunting after talking about it randomly with a friend; none of us hunt and none of us ever had, I’d never spoken about it before.” Sure, but… that thought to talk about it came from somewhere. Maybe you passed a Cabela’s and weren’t aware of it enough to notice it (your phone would have realized you were nearby, of course), but did so enough to prompt you to talk about hunting “out of nowhere.” Stuff like this happens all the time, the effects can be reliably reproduced and there is plenty of evidence for it. Maybe a friend of a friend online talked about how it’s the start of hunting season in their feed, your friend saw it, and again, didn’t pay attention enough to find it notable when scrolling, but the app knew they saw it so it put an ad in front of you.

 

Show some actual receipts. Or come up with a reason that you’re not constantly getting ads related to everything you’re talking about. Or explain why network traffic analysis hasn’t shown the apps phoning home. Something other than insisting that correlation equals causation.

 

And by the way, I’d LOVE to be fucking wrong here because if this WAS happening and there was a benevolent god, these companies would get sued, fined, and our phones and apps would be made more secure as a result.

[sblfilms]

We simply are not as unique as we think. Our conversations are not particularly special. A lot of people have the same conversations about the same topics under virtually identical circumstances all the time.

 

The annoying concert thing: everybody think crowds at concerts are annoying, so when Skynet picked up on the high probability you were at a concert just now, she served you ads about a topic that you were statistically likely to notice.

 

We also often forget that there are multiple parties involved in a conversation, and you don’t know what all that person has been looking at before, during, or after your conversation. The ability of these systems to identify the people you are communicating with is also immensely powerful in guessing at the things you may be interested in.

 

It is not an impossibility that these systems are intercepting voice communication, it just isn’t the most likely way to do it, and it frankly is a really inefficient and potentially catastrophic liability for limited gain.

[SuperSpreader]

no

[sblfilms]

Just now, SuperSpreader said:

no

Ok, you are actually special and unique, I forgot!

[SuperSpreader]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Ok, you are actually special and unique, I forgot!

 

Now you get it!

[Keyser_Soze]

I have not seen an ad for Orville Redenbacher Popcorn but if I mention it right now over the phone to @SuperSpreader I will see ads for it all over the place. That is 100% fact.

 

Now what they should do instead of have an ad is give us a coupon for it, then maybe I'll buy some.

[SuperSpreader]

44 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

I have not seen an ad for Orville Redenbacher Popcorn but if I mention it right now over the phone to @SuperSpreader I will see ads for it all over the place. That is 100% fact.

 

Now what they should do instead of have an ad is give us a coupon for it, then maybe I'll buy some.

 

I don't get ads based on things i say since i uninstalled facebook in 2019

[Uaarkson]

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

How many rocks would you crash into. Probably instant death too.

Oh yeah, you’d need a “force field” around your ship. A collision with a speck of dust would obliterate the ship at that speed.

[Keyser_Soze]

15 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

I don't get ads based on things i say since i uninstalled facebook in 2019

 

I've never had facebook on my phone though.

 

[mclumber1]

12 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

Oh yeah, you’d need a “force field” around your ship. A collision with a speck of dust would obliterate the ship at that speed.

 

Gemini to the rescue:

 

If a 1-gram piece of iron were traveling at 99% the speed of light and collided with Earth, the resulting explosion would be comparable to a nuclear weapon. The immense kinetic energy of the iron would be converted into heat and force, causing widespread destruction. The exact size of the explosion would depend on several factors, including the angle of impact and the specific location of the collision, but it would likely be devastating to a large area.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

We simply are not as unique as we think. Our conversations are not particularly special. A lot of people have the same conversations about the same topics under virtually identical circumstances all the time.

 

The annoying concert thing: everybody think crowds at concerts are annoying, so when Skynet picked up on the high probability you were at a concert just now, she served you ads about a topic that you were statistically likely to notice.

 

We also often forget that there are multiple parties involved in a conversation, and you don’t know what all that person has been looking at before, during, or after your conversation. The ability of these systems to identify the people you are communicating with is also immensely powerful in guessing at the things you may be interested in.

 

It is not an impossibility that these systems are intercepting voice communication, it just isn’t the most likely way to do it, and it frankly is a really inefficient and potentially catastrophic liability for limited gain.

Depending on the permissions you give the app, even connecting to the same WiFi of someone who searched or was associated with a certain location or topic within a given timeframe is enough to give you specific types of ads