71–80 of 135 posts
I really found google a liar and cheater. My privacy is mine. Now I don't have scare google to delete my accounts anymore..
Google and facebook are sad old players who should be replaced long time ago.
> They don’t just want to remake the world in their image. They want to remake our individual lives. Each Stack — bar Facebook, for now — offers the same awkward bargain: commit wholly & wholeheartedly to our ecosystem, and we will better your life. And it just might work, if any of the newer Google experiences worked on all Google accounts. My experience as a Google Apps / G Suite user, is that few to none of the ne…
I'm developing a web app that can be installed via the G Suite Marketplace. They also have an 'Integrate with Google' button that we can put on our website so users can just install/grant permissions from there - sounds great - in principle. Except the users don't have any way of choosing which account it uses. So if they happened to log into their personal Gmail account before their work G Suite account, well, then…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> filter bubble That just means you've got to proactively seek out new ideas you're uncomfortable with, and be mindful that not everything can be found on Google. It's not a reason to use a crappy search like Yahoo or Bing (which only indexes 1/10 of the pages Google does: http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/ ). > a for profit company becoming the arbiter of truth Wikipedia is more of an arbiter of truth than Google; so…
> so far Google has limited itself to indexing information rather than summarizing or categorizing it Apart from Google's Instant Answers. Which have, in the past, captured misleading or flat-out wrong information. > predatory pricing etc See Firebase's recent price hike. [0] Not all Google products are free, Google is not just a search engine. Some start off reasonable, you get invested, and then they suddenly becom…
How exactly is what I think is best summarized as "we had a bug in our pricing system that was undercharging a miniscule number of users by an order of magnitude, and when we fixed the bug, they were informed of the price increase and we even gave them ways to mitigate, but their app architecture was terrible which made it difficult or impossible, and then after they raised a stink about it we reduced the cost/credited them enough to be mutually agreeable" as predatory?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, how do you see technology advancing to the Star Trek-esque voice-activated computer interaction without always-on microphones?
This is not a technological issue. This is a policy issue. The total size of Wikipedia text is 12 GB. The total size of a state-sized chunk of maps.me is under a GB. The total memory of an iPhone is 32GB - 256GB. I can store the entirety of Wikipedia + the entire geographical data of my state and neighbouring states on my mobile phone and have a Star Trek-esque voice-activated computer interaction without ever upload…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's more of a general Luddite / anti-tech paradigm. Historically, strange things were dangerous and/or poisonous. Tech people probably recognize these devices from science fiction books / movies / stories, so they don't get scared, but the rest of the world has no context to place them in and hence treats them like unexploded ordnance.
Yes, but there are two problems with this particular company: 1. they have grown this mentality where they gather any data they can get their hands on - apologize only when/if caught red handed. (remember google street car password gathering?). 2. the more you use their services the more dependent you become. but google have shown zero care for individual consumers. (who do you call if gmail craps out on you?)
When was the last time gmail crapped out on you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't trust Google to broker your data, you can definitely build your own system to do it. You are then merely faced with two challenges: 1) You'll be recapitulating years of work by dedicated, paid teams to do the sort of data-brokering Google will give you for free. 2) If you want your work to be useful (because as we know, the real value of shared data is in the sharing), you'll need to convince your friend…
As you just pointed out, the latter thing is, in fact, exactly what prevents you from simply building your own system: The network effect. It's why it's very unlikely anything but large governments like the US and the EU are capable of restraining Google's behavior. (Smaller governments are not able to, as Google would simply refuse to operate in those localities until the government caved to public pressure to stop…
I suspect it's pretty close to free for me.
Is this guy quoting his own tweets in the article?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a technological issue. This is a policy issue. The total size of Wikipedia text is 12 GB. The total size of a state-sized chunk of maps.me is under a GB. The total memory of an iPhone is 32GB - 256GB. I can store the entirety of Wikipedia + the entire geographical data of my state and neighbouring states on my mobile phone and have a Star Trek-esque voice-activated computer interaction without ever upload…
It is a technological issue. Without the real-world audio samples to use as training data, the system cannot be improved enough to work reliably.
For a company that supposedly is employing the best minds in statistics, the inability to effectively use statistical samples is, uhm, intriguing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a technological issue. Without the real-world audio samples to use as training data, the system cannot be improved enough to work reliably.
"We need real-world audio samples" does not entail "let's collect audio [and behavioral] data from one billion users". There are less intrusive ways to collect data. How about paying specific individuals for their data. For example, there are about 5000 Nielsen families, http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question433.htm . For a company that supposedly is employing the best minds in statistics, the inability to e…
Even if Google is using statistical sampling, it's still something they'd want to collect directly through the app, not via a third-party.
As for paying individuals for their data, Google does that too. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and.... But if your argument is "They should be paying everyone they collect passive samples from during use of their products," that's an argument over price-point, not over whether the collection itself is right.
The rightness question seems to me to look a lot more like "If you can collect data from a billion users without doing any harm to the users, and that data is going to be more useful than a statistical subset of that data, why should you not collect it?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but there are two problems with this particular company: 1. they have grown this mentality where they gather any data they can get their hands on - apologize only when/if caught red handed. (remember google street car password gathering?). 2. the more you use their services the more dependent you become. but google have shown zero care for individual consumers. (who do you call if gmail craps out on you?)
>(who do you call if gmail craps out on you?) When was the last time gmail crapped out on you?