when the average person hears or reads "Elon Musk," they immediately think Tesla.
I wonder why? Maybe it's because Musk himself claims to have the power to drastically alter the financial status of the company without consulting others.
but trying to mitigate the damage by making sure they are aware of it when Facebook pretends they've left their acquisitions running untouched and without interference is not fine?
If he's doing something less than giving all of the money he took to sell out his users to Facebook to fight this, then yeah it's not fine.
If we don't support the act of walking away from a path that hurts millions or even billions of people then we hedge in those who continue to walk that path and make it harder for them to walk away, at the same time we make it easier for those who continue on that path to justify it to themselves.
I support him donating his Facebook $$$ to to charity to fight for this cause. I don't support him badmouthing the hand that fed him under false pretenses because he's got some other startup going that wants to eat part of Facebook's lunch.
Let's not get confused. Whatsapp users had their privacy violated because of Brian Acton. He sold them to Facebook. He knew Facebook's business. I'm happy to hear him say he's sorry for what he did and compensate the people who were hurt by his actions. But this #deletefacebook crap or whatever is just smacks of deflection and self interest.
Good for him - both the selling out and the walking out.
Selling out is fine. Walking out is fine. Turning around and trashing the buyer, not fine. He's the reason his users' privacy is now in jeopardy with Facebook. He sold his users for $19B. Nobody think yet another chat app was worth $19B. He sold the users.
Brian Acton, a founder of WhatsApp, which he (along with the other founder) sold to Facebook for $19 billion four years ago, has grown tired of the social juggernaut. He left the company a year ago, and earlier this year, he surprised many when he tweeted "#DeleteFacebook", offering his support to what many described as a movement.
All good and well after he got his $19B. Will he be donating that to charity?
1. You made a misinformed comment about the nature and purpose of the UA header. 2. I called you out. 3. You responded with nothing other than a completely different complaint that Chrome mobile doesn't allow you to change the UA header 4. I called you out for changing the topic, and pointed out that you are misinformed about your new argument in (3) also.
5. Now, you call me out for... calling you out on the topic WHICH YOU changed to in (3)? Dude, you changed the topic. I'm not calling the kettle black if I respond to what you said.
You are misinformed as to the nature of a UA header. It isn't even sent to Google. Deal, and move on. But if you insist, I'm going to suggest some other out of context cliche phrases you can respond with:
Beggars can't be choosers Takes one to know one I know you are but what am I The early bird gets the worm Time heals all wounds
Well, since I never claimed anything about that, and it isn't even what we are talking about... no, I don't. I guess when you have no point any longer you try to change the topic? But anyway, that does sound like a very serious issue.
P.S., did you know that any Android app on your Android phone can know the model, manufacturer, and version number of the OS you are running? https://developer.android.com/...
Imagine all those Android apps harvesting your device and using that for [fill in evil plan here]. Sends a cold chill down my spine.
how would you defend this pointless privacy violation?
You do realize the UA is sent to the requested website, not to Google, right? I guess Google could be sending the same information to themselves, but the existence of the Android version in the UA isn't your smoking gun, sorry.
But anyway, I guess you are going to need to explain how it's a privacy violation for sites I visit to know what sort of mobile device I use. The website already knows the OS, version of the OS, browser vendor, browser version, rendering engine, rendering engine version. That's in every UA string.
short of sending hardware serials
If that's their goal... allowing third-party websites to track users, why don't they just send serials then? On the contrary, Android has done a lot to try and prevent apps from tracking users. You can read more if you want: https://developer.android.com/...
Why are you surprised? You should assume that when using chrome any website you touch is reported back to google, including page links you hit, something they're extremely interested in.
Do you know what a user agent string is?
The User-Agent request header contains a characteristic string that allows the network protocol peers to identify the application type, operating system, software vendor or software version of the requesting software user agent.
Fun fact, Chrome for Android sends the fine details of the device you're using in the user agent string, down to the device model
So what. The Android version and device type are things that might actually be helpful to a service when rendering a page. You know, the whole point of the UA.
So no. What you're doing is not how we do things in the real.
This is so basic that I have to assume you are not from a western country.
1. If you accuse someone of a crime, or wrongdoing, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
2. If you can point to some actual wrongdoing here... great. Otherwise, you are just hanging onto this abstract, hypothetical injustice that you can't quantify.
All the while... you'll probably not be citing anything... doing any kind of work... or really doing anything to balance out the effort here.
Let me explain how proof and evidence work. It's not up to me to provide evidence that something isn't happening. If you want to make a claim, about anything, the burden is on the accuser. You may not like that but it's how we do law and order in the good ol' USA. You know that whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
We do both know they were doing it. Your argument is blatant time wasting.
Out here in the real, we require evidence. Your evidence appears to be that 2-3 of the 70,000 Google employees were discussing how they didn't like Trump. The shocking revelation in TFA is that "some" Google employees don't like Trump.
But anyway, Google is right there at www.google.com. Show me the bias. We don't have to speculate, just link it. Make me eat my words.
Hold you hat because I'm going to drop a bomb. There are some among the 70,000 Google employees that don't like Trump. Also, some of them talk about it.
and the one after that involves rich people lined up against a wall
rich = able to afford a package delivery by Amazon?
But anyway, do you think scaring people with murder is going to raise the minimum wage? I mean really, if you are working on mass murdering the elite class in the USA, best be quiet about it until you can make your move.
Slashdot Mirror
That could be one itsy bitsy reason why Tesla stock is tanking.
Also, that he shows up on a video podcast smoking weed.
How dumb do you have to be to have multiple?
A little smarter than someone living in their mom's basement at age 41.
Musk is a lot smarter than any of the shorts
Wouldn't the existence of this thread you are reading right now contradict that? Getting sued by the SEC != smart.
when the average person hears or reads "Elon Musk," they immediately think Tesla.
I wonder why? Maybe it's because Musk himself claims to have the power to drastically alter the financial status of the company without consulting others.
I genuinely believe that they're asking for your number so they can help protect your account...
Did you read TFA? It's somewhat related to your belief.
but trying to mitigate the damage by making sure they are aware of it when Facebook pretends they've left their acquisitions running untouched and without interference is not fine?
If he's doing something less than giving all of the money he took to sell out his users to Facebook to fight this, then yeah it's not fine.
Do you actually think you can just spend a wack of cash and dismantle a social network (does anyone think this?)? Has that EVER worked before?
Ever heard of MySpace?
As opposed to someone who created whatsapp...giving him the power/ability/money to do the Next Big Thing when he's already shown to be capable.
Yes, where world the world have been without yet another chat app?
Hero.
If we don't support the act of walking away from a path that hurts millions or even billions of people then we hedge in those who continue to walk that path and make it harder for them to walk away, at the same time we make it easier for those who continue on that path to justify it to themselves.
I support him donating his Facebook $$$ to to charity to fight for this cause. I don't support him badmouthing the hand that fed him under false pretenses because he's got some other startup going that wants to eat part of Facebook's lunch.
Let's not get confused. Whatsapp users had their privacy violated because of Brian Acton. He sold them to Facebook. He knew Facebook's business. I'm happy to hear him say he's sorry for what he did and compensate the people who were hurt by his actions. But this #deletefacebook crap or whatever is just smacks of deflection and self interest.
Right. And why the hell can't Facebook sell non-targeted ads on WhatsApp?
Because that's much less lucrative. That's why this guy made $19B. To be able to target ads at these users.
Good for him - both the selling out and the walking out.
Selling out is fine. Walking out is fine. Turning around and trashing the buyer, not fine. He's the reason his users' privacy is now in jeopardy with Facebook. He sold his users for $19B. Nobody think yet another chat app was worth $19B. He sold the users.
Brian Acton, a founder of WhatsApp, which he (along with the other founder) sold to Facebook for $19 billion four years ago, has grown tired of the social juggernaut. He left the company a year ago, and earlier this year, he surprised many when he tweeted "#DeleteFacebook", offering his support to what many described as a movement.
All good and well after he got his $19B. Will he be donating that to charity?
Language hard! Let me give you a timeline:
1. You made a misinformed comment about the nature and purpose of the UA header.
2. I called you out.
3. You responded with nothing other than a completely different complaint that Chrome mobile doesn't allow you to change the UA header
4. I called you out for changing the topic, and pointed out that you are misinformed about your new argument in (3) also.
5. Now, you call me out for... calling you out on the topic WHICH YOU changed to in (3)? Dude, you changed the topic. I'm not calling the kettle black if I respond to what you said.
You are misinformed as to the nature of a UA header. It isn't even sent to Google. Deal, and move on. But if you insist, I'm going to suggest some other out of context cliche phrases you can respond with:
Beggars can't be choosers
Takes one to know one
I know you are but what am I
The early bird gets the worm
Time heals all wounds
FUD much yourself?
Well, since I never claimed anything about that, and it isn't even what we are talking about... no, I don't. I guess when you have no point any longer you try to change the topic? But anyway, that does sound like a very serious issue.
P.S., did you know that any Android app on your Android phone can know the model, manufacturer, and version number of the OS you are running?
https://developer.android.com/...
Imagine all those Android apps harvesting your device and using that for [fill in evil plan here]. Sends a cold chill down my spine.
how would you defend this pointless privacy violation?
You do realize the UA is sent to the requested website, not to Google, right? I guess Google could be sending the same information to themselves, but the existence of the Android version in the UA isn't your smoking gun, sorry.
But anyway, I guess you are going to need to explain how it's a privacy violation for sites I visit to know what sort of mobile device I use. The website already knows the OS, version of the OS, browser vendor, browser version, rendering engine, rendering engine version. That's in every UA string.
short of sending hardware serials
If that's their goal... allowing third-party websites to track users, why don't they just send serials then? On the contrary, Android has done a lot to try and prevent apps from tracking users. You can read more if you want:
https://developer.android.com/...
Why are you surprised? You should assume that when using chrome any website you touch is reported back to google, including page links you hit, something they're extremely interested in.
Do you know what a user agent string is?
The User-Agent request header contains a characteristic string that allows the network protocol peers to identify the application type, operating system, software vendor or software version of the requesting software user agent.
https://developer.mozilla.org/...
Sheesh. FUD much?
Fun fact, Chrome for Android sends the fine details of the device you're using in the user agent string, down to the device model
So what. The Android version and device type are things that might actually be helpful to a service when rendering a page. You know, the whole point of the UA.
So no. What you're doing is not how we do things in the real.
This is so basic that I have to assume you are not from a western country.
1. If you accuse someone of a crime, or wrongdoing, the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
2. If you can point to some actual wrongdoing here... great. Otherwise, you are just hanging onto this abstract, hypothetical injustice that you can't quantify.
All the while... you'll probably not be citing anything... doing any kind of work... or really doing anything to balance out the effort here.
Let me explain how proof and evidence work. It's not up to me to provide evidence that something isn't happening. If you want to make a claim, about anything, the burden is on the accuser. You may not like that but it's how we do law and order in the good ol' USA. You know that whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
We do both know they were doing it. Your argument is blatant time wasting.
Out here in the real, we require evidence. Your evidence appears to be that 2-3 of the 70,000 Google employees were discussing how they didn't like Trump. The shocking revelation in TFA is that "some" Google employees don't like Trump.
But anyway, Google is right there at www.google.com. Show me the bias. We don't have to speculate, just link it. Make me eat my words.
Lots of positive things. But... the company has abandoned their "don't be evil" motto.
THANK YOU. I had to read down several pages before I got to you quoting "don't be evil".
They've been doing it. Everyone knows.
They haven't been doing it. Everyone knows.
See what I did there? No references, nothing. Just typed it and it became true.
which is, of course, objectively untrue
Which of course it is objectively true.
See how I did that. No links, no references, nothing. I just had to type and it became true.
It's bad enough that Google even has this power
Power to effect their own business? I know, shocking.
An employee suggests
Key word: suggests.
Hold you hat because I'm going to drop a bomb. There are some among the 70,000 Google employees that don't like Trump. Also, some of them talk about it.
and the one after that involves rich people lined up against a wall
rich = able to afford a package delivery by Amazon?
But anyway, do you think scaring people with murder is going to raise the minimum wage? I mean really, if you are working on mass murdering the elite class in the USA, best be quiet about it until you can make your move.
And the goods were sold new, with usual warranty? Company had actual headquarters, contact information?
Talking up the fantastic warranty wasn't part of the sales pitch.