21–28 of 28 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uhm? just tried with incognito mode and I can view it without signing in.
If you've got expired google login cookies, a lot of google resources will prompt you to reconfirm your account state. Kind of a pain for otherwise public resources.
I’m convinced that any project named Titan will fail to ship (or fail immediately after shipping, as in the most famous instance). Apple’s car project was Titan, Facebook’s gmail killer was Project Titan, I think Activision Blizard had a Titan. Google has this, but I don’t even think it’s their first Titan to not ship, I’m blanking on the other. (Edit: Google’s defunct internet drone project was Titan)
I’m convinced that any project named Titan will fail to ship (or fail immediately after shipping, as in the most famous instance). Apple’s car project was Titan, Facebook’s gmail killer was Project Titan, I think Activision Blizard had a Titan. Google has this, but I don’t even think it’s their first Titan to not ship, I’m blanking on the other. (Edit: Google’s defunct internet drone project was Titan)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook had a titan that definitely shipped
The project shipped, but it did not live up to the “GMail killer” ambition and was shut down after a few years. https://techcrunch.com/2010/11/11/facebook-gmail-titan/
I’m convinced that any project named Titan will fail to ship (or fail immediately after shipping, as in the most famous instance). Apple’s car project was Titan, Facebook’s gmail killer was Project Titan, I think Activision Blizard had a Titan. Google has this, but I don’t even think it’s their first Titan to not ship, I’m blanking on the other. (Edit: Google’s defunct internet drone project was Titan)
Let's not even talk about all the projects named Phoenix. I am convinced that out of all extremely superficial things, there is nothing more hurtful to a project than naming it Phoenix.
As an aside, this was published last week, Imagine how much they could of done if they didn't have to do blackbox fuzzing, and how many holes in the device would of been closed. "Attacking Titan M with Only One Byte" [0] > ...Titan M, a security chip introduced by Google in their Pixel smartphones, starting from the Pixel 3. In this blog post, ...we show how we found this vulnerability, using emulation-based fuzzing…
I've talked with security professionals who have told me they prefer to not have source so that they don't get lazy. The bugs you find via black box methods aren't always the same you would find through scanning the code. Assuming the attacker also lacks source, you're better off finding the bugs they would find through similar methods. I don't work in security so I don't know if this is a commonly held belief.
Eg. Instrumenting memory allocations.
I'm curious if this is a legally binding promise in any major jurisdiction. E.g., can someone on the U.S. sue Google for specific performance to uphold that promise? I'm not talking about suing for monetary compensation, or accepting an out-of-court settlement. I'm talking, full-strength, possibly precedence-setting, fulfillment of that promise in federal court? I would so contribute to a legal fund for that, especia…
(IANAL) I wonder if there's a truth in advertising case here. Titan M is a security product, and is not meeting one of its promised security statements: > With the Pixel 3, we’ve increased our investment in security and put industry-leading hardware features into the device, so you can rest assured that your security and privacy are well protected. In the coming months, the security community will be able to audit Ti…
Also, Google could just offer a refund for the one customer who started the lawsuit.