Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poor dogs...
Poor me, I can hear the ultrasonics generated to repel dogs and cats...
Yeah, apparently you're supposed to lose that ability in your mid-20's, but I still hear them loud and clear at 28...
“Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
91–100 of 127 posts
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Nyquist's work, you need a sample rate of 2f to represent a frequency f . So with 44.1 kHz you could only represent audio up to 22 kHz. There are kids who can hear at these frequencies.
I am aware of the Nyquist rate. You're talking about very rare edge cases though. I believe the cut-off for an average young human is 20 kHz.
Yeah, I get that, just saying, if we are going to worry about people with disabilities, I believe that we should care about the psychoacoustic wellbeing of "edge case" humans who can hear ultrasonic tones.
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#93Just because ultrasonics are inaudible doesn't necessarily mean they're harmless. Energy deposited into those little hairs in your cochlea is still energy. What does the research say about the impact of ultrasonics on hearing? I wouldn't be surprised if they're the same as any kind of sound, decibel per decibel. (They're easier to block out, being at a higher frequency.)
Well, if ultrasound was able to produce significant energy input to the cochlear hairs (stereocilia), it would invoke motion in these hairs and thus the perception of sound. So if that was the case, one would be able to hear ultrasound (which one cannot).
Actually, the inability of the human ear to hear ultrasound is because the impedance matching function (mechanical gain) of the bones in the middle ear rolls off at high frequencies. So the energy in ultrasound is dissipated before it reaches the inner ear.
That being said, exposure to >120 dB ultrasound can damage your hearing (I believe this is because response functions of the ear start becoming nonlinear). According to Wikipedia, above 150 dB ultrasound can even start heating your flesh, and above 180 dB it can be fatal.
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a theory that organ donors get worse medical attention and have higher mortality rates in hospitals. From what I've seen it doesn't hold up well against the evidence, but it's still within the bounds of what I'd call "reasonable disagreement".
That doesn't sound reasonable at all. That theory hinges on the idea that doctors would prioritize getting organs over actually saving people's lives, which would be a truly horrific violation of the hippocratic oath.
I wonder if rendering expensive emergency aid rather than harvesting organs is significantly more profitable in the short term?
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#95> all the time, even while they’re running in the background
This is FUD. iOS does not give an app this ability without it being obvious (a banner across the top of the screen).
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whoa, wait a sec there with your example. How would a reasonable person not want to be an organ donor??
>> How would a reasonable person not want to be an organ donor?? Because I have fundamental issues with the economics of organ donation. I do not want my organs used in million-dollar surgeries to save elderly rich people. I would much rather that money be spent more efficiently on younger/poorer people where it can save more lives. How many flu shots could be purchased for the cost of one heart transplant? I cannot…
"No kidney for you, little girl. It might have gone to an old person."
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#97I'm working on an app that passively picks up ultrasonic tones generated by SilverPush and sends out garbled data. The biggest issue with blanket interference across the entire ultrasonic band is that there are some legitimate uses that don't involve cross-device tracking. That's why we need to address this issue by selectively interfering with only known tracking schemes.
Do you have details on the encoding? I'm a bit suspicious of it being actually ultrasonic (device microphones often filter at 20khz or below) - seems more likely it would be audible spectrum noise with a ton of FEC.
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> How would a reasonable person not want to be an organ donor?? Because I have fundamental issues with the economics of organ donation. I do not want my organs used in million-dollar surgeries to save elderly rich people. I would much rather that money be spent more efficiently on younger/poorer people where it can save more lives. How many flu shots could be purchased for the cost of one heart transplant? I cannot…
"No kidney for you, little girl. It might have gone to an old person."
Yes. No kidney for her, but flu shots for 10,000 ... saving many hundreds. The reality is that saving lives is now a matter of resource allocation. Procedures such as organ transplantation take resources from far more efficient treatments that can save many more lives.
I wish I had recorded something I saw at the gym years ago. An old and obviously ill man was bragging about how his firm could hire young interns, pay them nothing, and fire them at the drop of a hat. A young man overheard, walked over to him and said "I;ll never have your money or power, I cannot stop you from being a jerk, but when your liver starts failing you aren't getting even a piece of mine." He then ripped up his organ donation card.
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Opt-out systems are fine for things like organ donation, because a reasonable person could go either way. Building an opt-out system that no one in their right mind would ever opt into just reeks of anti-consumer behavior trying to hide behind a polite face.
> Building an opt-out system that no one in their right mind would ever opt into just reeks of anti-consumer behavior trying to hide behind a polite face. What system are you referring to? If the system is "opt in to being tracked if you want to read this/use this service for free" then plenty of people would opt in. Look at Facebook.
Your example is not completely relevant. Facebook has been known to track people who are not actually Facebook users, meaning they never opted in.
Re: “Ultrasonic cross-device tracking” embeds inaudible tones in advertisements
#100> all the time, even while they’re running in the background This is FUD. iOS does not give an app this ability without it being obvious (a banner across the top of the screen).
Apparently 9 in 10 smartphones today are Android and that lets you do whatever you want in the background.