271–280 of 317 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in your rassberry pi nas. Can it be done with a pi0? I've got one laying around and would love to put it to good use. I'm familiar with syncthing so it doesn't sound too much trouble for me right now.
not OP, but I tried to setup a NAS with my older B+, and it was really unreliable. The disk went to sleep every few minutes even when there was a file being read/written.
I have a question (to everyone) that is a bit off topic. How are you housekeeping your photo library? I'm hosting mine in iCloud, and its size is increasing year after year. I'm close to the 150-200 GB of photos/videos. Deleting photos or videos manually would take a lot of time. How do you do it?
Obviously it's more manageable if you do it regularly.
Seriously. This way you're at least owning your data, more or less. Yeah, it costs money, but you own your data. You can always keep backups just in case the hosting company you picked first sucks, but there are tons of good hosting companies out there.
Hey, over the last year we've been building ente[1], an end-to-end encrypted alternative to Google Photos. We have shipped open-source[2] web and mobile apps that have preserved 180,000+ files. Apart from cross-device sync, you can share your albums end-to-end encrypted, and filter photos by location and time. We recently had a "successful" launch on r/degoogle[3]. We wanted to Show HN after incorporating the feedbac…
Hey, over the last year we've been building ente[1], an end-to-end encrypted alternative to Google Photos. We have shipped open-source[2] web and mobile apps that have preserved 180,000+ files. Apart from cross-device sync, you can share your albums end-to-end encrypted, and filter photos by location and time. We recently had a "successful" launch on r/degoogle[3]. We wanted to Show HN after incorporating the feedbac…
Why is every string in all lowercase? It reminds me of tumblr..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 seems unlikely to me - why would Google do that? It would always be in exchange for something, which is pretty much selling. 2 seems more plausible.
FB effectively gave data away to app developers (e.g. Cambridge analytica). They got something in return - as they do with all their partners - but this is not generally considered a sale, and often not even a trade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm British and to me "quite" here means "mostly" i.e. not entirely. Could well be a misunderstanding but it should be made clearer as this data is priceless.
>as this data is priceless Personally, I'd never trust the only copy of something important to a service provider--especially one that isn't a "big name." (Though even in the case of big names there can be issues with account access, etc.) ADDED: Curious why people find this a controversial statement. I understand if you have AWS set up with various redundancies but even a service like Backblaze I consider a belt and…
Our current setup includes primary backups to BackBlaze[1], and eventually consistent replications to Scaleway's cold storage[2].
We would like to offer an extra replica as an addon in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What kind of datamining? I suppose we have no way of actually knowing if it's true, but Google does say they don't use Photos data for ads: As always, we don’t sell your information to anyone, and we don’t use information in apps where you primarily store personal content—such as Gmail, Drive, Calendar and Photos—for advertising purposes, period. https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/keeping-priva...
> As always, we don’t sell your information to anyone, and we don’t use information in apps where you primarily store personal content—such as Gmail, Drive, Calendar and Photos—for advertising purposes, period. As always with privacy policies, the information is in what is NOT said. 1. They don't sell to anyone. But what giving away for free? 2. They don't use personal content for advertising purposes. But what about…
The distinction is that 3rd parties only have access to Google UIs or APIs based around ad targeting selectors. There is no API for 3rd parties to just download raw user data from Google.
This is in contrast to Facebook, which used to allow “apps” on their platform to suck down raw user profile data in large quantities.
It seems very likely that Google is using their user data for non-ad purposes, for example using Google Photos data to train ML image recognition engines, or using Gmail data to train conversational AI systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if I browse using the PhotoStructure app it will guide the dupes Yes: out of an abundance of caution, the unique (by SHA) variations of each asset are copied into your library. There are heuristics that pick which is the "best," and although those heuristics seem to be robust for most beta users, I didn't want to be the source of want data loss. > datestamp info in the filename? The metadata in the file is trusted…
The metadata for some of my filew is total junk. If I used another tool to strip that bad metadata would it then use the datestamps in the filename? I think this was defeating the de-duplication also. In an ideal world I'd be able to configure everything from a particular source folder to use filename datestamps.
Adobe Lightroom (Classic). Yes, you pay real money for the stupid cloud model, but — I can add gradient and circular filters, correct for the lens distortion with profiles for most major cameras and lenses (including your iPhone), get one-click perspective correction so a building facade is square against the image plane ... and it's all lossless editing. You want a map of your photos over time? Of course we have the…
For the record, I don't think Adobe is ever moving away from Lightroom Classic. I think the naming is a bit of a mirage, or more specifically a way to push consumers towards a more valuable (charge for cloud storage), less demanding (objectively less capable), product. A customer paying for Classic and CC, and only using CC is a better customer for Adobe. But the problem is Adobe Lightroom CC has effectively zero pen…
Pros who need Photoshop will still need Adobe. There is nothing remotely close to replacing Photoshop. And AFAIK, every Lightroom competitor ships with an “open this file in Photoshop” button.
Apple did this with Final Cut. After years of being proud that Real Hollywood Films were edited with Final Cut, they gave up Hollywood and pivoted the product firmly toward prosumers. It has not hurt Apple at all, and probably saved them some money and heartache along the way.