|
I think if you have any type of recording device in your home and the output goes to the cloud, you should just assume that creeper motherfuckers are listening to or watching the recordings.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Isn't all that poo poo a scam anyway. If you can afford something like that you're in an area where you don't need it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Why the blazes would you willingly install cameras inside of your house that are connected to a third-party service?  edit: Groovelord Neato posted:Isn't all that poo poo a scam anyway. If you can afford something like that you're in an area where you don't need it. Getting a strict-minimum system (e.g. door sensors, a breaking glass detector and an outdoor sign) to lower homeowner insurance costs can be worth it, but that's pretty much the extent of it. Aramis fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jan 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
It's schizophrenia, and the rest of a global conspiracy of criminals out to kill you specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Aramis posted:Why the blazes would you willingly install cameras inside of your house that are connected to a third-party service? The husband is convinced his spouse is/would cheat on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:I think if you have any type of recording device in your home and the output goes to the cloud, you should just assume that creeper motherfuckers are listening to or watching the recordings. https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/10/18177305/ring-employees-unencrypted-customer-video-amazon Ring as a program has had a gently caress ton of these issues. For a long time Amazon would give video for any law enforcement requests without a warrant or the doorbell owner's knowledge. Now it's an opt-in setting. Groovelord Neato posted:Isn't all that poo poo a scam anyway. If you can afford something like that you're in an area where you don't need it. There can be some value but often expectations are much higher than the reality. For alarms, it can depend. An audible alarm seems to produce results where *sometimes* there are signs of a break in but nothing is taken. But people tend to have an expectation that it will be a 100% deterrent. They assume all criminals are completely rational actors who won't take any risks. It's a lot like the belief that when there is a pandemic, everyone will wear their masks and not be dumb asses. From a design perspective alarms aren't generally classified as a deterrent. They are more forensic in nature, drawing attention to something. Knowing when a break in happened has some value for an investigation. And in some rare cases even drawing police to the crime scene in a reasonable period of time. For home users, the level of help probably isn't worth the cost. Mostly because cops don't give a gently caress about home break ins. The national closure rate (when the cops feel like they know who did it) is 13%. For home users, making it harder to get through the doors and windows is probably going to be a better return on investment. For commercial users, the math works out a little differently. The closure rate for commercial robberies is higher. The value of items taken tends to be much higher, it draws more attention from people with influence, and so on. For a lot of this, it's about risk assessment. What you need, and what is helpful depends on the problem you're dealing with. For theft it tends to be more about making it harder to break in. If you're looking at forensic stuff, then focus on documenting your poo poo before you look at cameras. But for other situations like concerns about a stalker or neighbors who engage in harassment then cameras tend to have much more value. Most people do a poo poo job at risk assessment and thus tend to do the wrong thing. Or they assume things that are to provide forensic info are deterrents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
Aramis posted:Getting a strict-minimum system (e.g. door sensors, a breaking glass detector and an outdoor sign) to lower homeowner insurance costs can be worth it, but that's pretty much the extent of it. Groovelord Neato posted:Isn't all that poo poo a scam anyway. If you can afford something like that you're in an area where you don't need it. I remember reading an article several years ago (I think it was in Bloomberg but I can't find it now) that statistically the best money for burglary prevention is spent on things that add to the burglar's risk assessment of your specific house vs other potential targets. A monitored alarm system with a sign, window bars, etc. all reduce the likelihood of a break-in for a specific home but the effect is neutralized as those things become more common in the neighborhood. The article's conclusion was that across all neighborhoods, housing types, and income levels, evidence of a dog being in the home was the single best deterrent to break-ins happening in the first place and I remember them speculating that it's because it's hard to assess the risk presented by a specific dog vs other types of deterrents where an ADT system is an ADT system and window bars are window bars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
The old joke was that all you really needed was the sign in your yard, so steal someone else's and you'd be good. The would-be burglar was either willing to risk it being off or not, the actual system would barely come into play except in edge cases. And yeah, it's all just making yourself less inviting. You don't need to outrun the junkyard dog, just one of your friends. About 40 years back when my parents' fairly well-off neighborhood had a series of break-ins (including their house getting cleaned out), the development got some cop to do a neighborhood meeting where he was weirdly straight with them. Get a good deadbolt and anchor it right to make it hard for the lazy ones, but note that a dedicated person who wants to get in will get in. In their case, the area's developer had a house design that hid the front door from the street. Some group figured that out and just went through the development robbing that design over and over again, since they had plenty of time to peek around the house and get past the lock without anyone from the street being able to see them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:The old joke was that all you really needed was the sign in your yard, so steal someone else's and you'd be good. The would-be burglar was either willing to risk it being off or not, the actual system would barely come into play except in edge cases. And yeah, it's all just making yourself less inviting. You don't need to outrun the junkyard dog, just one of your friends. You can't have a perfect defense on the physical security side. The goal is to get to the point where you make life hard enough for someone trying to break in that they don't bother. And maybe be able to present evidence to law enforcement. If it's a crime they give a poo poo about. One of my favorite stories is about the break in that happened at Eli Lily. The thieves went in through the roof into a master control room and disabled the security system. Then they drove up a semi to the loading dock and started filling the semi with drugs. Up until a string of warehouse heists that were related, the roof wasn't viewed as a likely entrance route. Cutting through it is loud, it's a pain but hey they did it. Security stuff generally is on a sliding scale but people tend to view it as binary. Either it provides perfect invincibility or it's a scam. The reality it depends on how bad someone wants in. Hardening access to doors is great. You can make it really, really hard to kick in a door. This will deter a lot of basic thieves. But if your windows are unlocked, then the hardened door can be bypassed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 04:57
|
|
|
This was entirely predictable and nobody should be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 11:06
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Breaking news, spyware spys
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:You can't have a perfect defense on the physical security side. The goal is to get to the point where you make life hard enough for someone trying to break in that they don't bother. Or just obviously more difficult/risky than something else similar in the vicinity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Or just obviously more difficult/risky than something else similar in the vicinity. To add to this: it's also worth it to make it less tempting, which is why police say things like "don't leave valuables in plain sight in your car." As others have said, there's a certain point where, if people want in, they will find a way in. The less motivation they have to break in, the less effort they will put into it, which is why security practices in certain businesses have to be much more stringent than others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/25/22243138/google-union-alphabet-workers-europe-announce-global-alliancequote:Google workers across the world are coming together to form a global union alliance. The newly formed coalition, called Alpha Global, is comprised of 13 different unions representing workers in 10 countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, and Switzerland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
Oh good, I’m sure this will work great and not be manipulated in any way https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1353769888767238144?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:The old joke was that all you really needed was the sign in your yard, so steal someone else's and you'd be good. The would-be burglar was either willing to risk it being off or not, the actual system would barely come into play except in edge cases. Back in the my electrician days I did ADT installs for piece work, mostly in upper-middle glass cul-de-sacs. The sign is the most valuable part of the system. As with all security, nothing will stop a particularly motivated individual from taking from you. The goal of security is to demotivate them, not stop them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Oh good, I’m sure this will work great and not be manipulated in any way Pretty sure if you tried to start wikipedia today it would be immediately inundated with too many trolls and coordinated bots before any community-based moderation could even decide on internal communication rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Good loving luck on forming a community not filled by the very people that make Twitter 'Reddit, but with shorter posts'. Which is to say, people more concerned with hiding negative press or scandals on their favorite game/brand/celebrity/city name sports team than actually confirming if it's factual in the first place. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jan 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
It truly blows my mind that Wikipedia works as well as it does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Good loving luck on forming a community not filled by the very people that make Twitter 'Reddit, but with shorter posts'. You are right, it would be more effective to get the trolls and bots into the moderation community then go from there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
Sundae posted:It truly blows my mind that Wikipedia works as well as it does. It helps that it isn't as "anyone can edit" as they claim, most of the edits are done by a terminally online cabal of objectivists
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
Sundae posted:It truly blows my mind that Wikipedia works as well as it does. The internet was extremely different when Wikipedia came of age, I think that probably has a lot to do with it. There was still a measurable amount of internet gatekeeping, for better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
withak posted:You are right, it would be more effective to get the trolls and bots into the moderation community then go from there. My point is that if Twitter tries making the community from within Twitter, they're just going to get the people that spread disinformation, regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
xtal posted:It helps that it isn't as "anyone can edit" as they claim, most of the edits are done by a terminally online cabal of objectivists and bots that revert anyone else's edits
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
withak posted:Pretty sure if you tried to start wikipedia today it would be immediately inundated with too many trolls and coordinated bots before any community-based moderation could even decide on internal communication rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Wikipedia was started at a time when there were still articles being written about how this "internet fad" will pass, but many people were actually starting to treat the internet as more than a novelty. There were clumsy attempts at political manipulation, but the biggest visible headache for anyone was spam about c1alis and pop-unders. Goatse.cx hadn't been taken down yet. There was a lot of doom posting about how anyone would manipulate it and make it nothing more than monkeys screeching at each other and reverting people's articles, but it was still a time where the worst thing you had to worry about was some trolling brigading. Another big difference is that Wikipedia was specifically started to be a repository of the world's knowledge. This is Twitter trying to outsource moderation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Conservatively 70% of Dutch Wikipedia seems to consist of obsessively detailed articles on all trains that were ever built or have been driven on Dutch rail tracks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 21:40
|
|
|
Sagacity posted:Conservatively 70% of Dutch Wikipedia seems to consist of obsessively detailed articles on all trains that were ever built or have been driven on Dutch rail tracks. My favorite Wikipedia story: https://www.boredpanda.com/american-teen-scots-language-wikipedia/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic tl;dr - a 12 year old kid averaged 9 articles a day on the Scots language for eight years, despite not speaking a word of it, and being American  It is said he's responsible for a minimum of a third of all articles on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
Remember the whole Crucifixion in Anime fiasco? SA was even involved in ridiculing wikipedia editors enough that they finally somehow got the weirdo responsible for making the 'in anime' section of the crucifixion article twice as long as the entire non-anime article. EDIT: start here at archive 7 and work your way forwards (i.e. 6, 5, 4...): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crucifixion/Archive_7 a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jan 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:My favorite Wikipedia story: There's a new contender for best Wikipedia editor: he’d quietly created thousands upon thousands of new redirects, each one a chaotic, if not offensive, permutation of the word “tits” and “boobs.” For example, he created redirects for “tittypumper,” “tittypumpers,” “tit pump,” “pump titties,” “pumping boobies” and hundreds more for “breast pump.” In fact, for seemingly every Wikipedia article related to breasts, he did something similar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
The trial of 80,000 titties
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Remember the whole Crucifixion in Anime fiasco? SA was even involved in ridiculing wikipedia editors enough that they finally somehow got the weirdo responsible for making the 'in anime' section of the crucifixion article twice as long as the entire non-anime article. That's a blast from the past. I remember it was through the SA thread also finding out about the many weirdos who inhabit Wikipedia. At the time, not sure if it's still a thing, but there was voyeuristic men uploading pics of their junk and trying to insert them as examples into any article that made mention of the male genitalia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Remember the whole Crucifixion in Anime fiasco? SA was even involved in ridiculing wikipedia editors enough that they finally somehow got the weirdo responsible for making the 'in anime' section of the crucifixion article twice as long as the entire non-anime article. Anime crucifications are more relevant then rome anyway, seems bad this was changed
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:At the time, not sure if it's still a thing, but there was voyeuristic men uploading pics of their junk and trying to insert them as examples into any article that made mention of the male genitalia. If you go over to wikimedia commons, people are still uploading their genitals for "informative" purposes
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new...-can-comprehendquote:Gabe Newell spoke to 1 NEWS about the future of brain computer interfaces (BCIs) — an area he and other Valve staff have studied for several years now — and talked about how Valve is working to put BCIs to use in the gaming sector.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 03:35
|
|
|
The brain is a two-way street. Who knew?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
Cicero posted:https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new...-can-comprehend Same, I'm glad that we can continue to expand as a species on why computers were a mistake
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 04:03
|
|
|
quote:"You're used to experiencing the world through eyes," Newell said, "but eyes were created by this low-cost bidder that didn't care about failure rates and RMAs, and if it got broken there was no way to repair anything effectively, which totally makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is not at all reflective of consumer preferences. In what way is this nonsense distinguishable from Elon Musk on weed rambling to Joe Rogan about Neuralink or whatever*? * No I don't know if he actually talked about it in that interview that I am not masochistic enough to watch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
eXXon posted:In what way is this nonsense distinguishable from Elon Musk on weed rambling to Joe Rogan about Neuralink or whatever*? At least there is a bit of method to the madness here. The big difference is that this is being positioned as an upgrade to an existing product that people are already willing to pay for: VR headsets. If you read between the lines, the pitch seems to be (for me, at least): 1. This is getting included in something people are already buying. 2. There are some guaranteed marginally useful features. Boredom detection is the big one here. This is absolutely believable, and legitimately interesting. 3. A bunch of Elon Musk-styled hyperbolic nonsense that are super long shots at best, but generates a lot of buzz, and there is very little downside to throwing that out there. Aramis fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jan 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
Luckily Valve is fundamentally incapable of following a long term plan through
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2021 09:08
|
|
