That’s a pretty normal picture if you have regular, social interactions. What’s weird is posting that anywhere outside your circle of friends and the picture becoming the topic of public debate after one of the subjects allegedly shot someone.

That being said, and I say this as a married, retired old fuck - that guy definitely fucks.

It’s not like Bluetooth started demanding location permissions, the conceptual model of the permission was revised: having access Bluetooth means an app could determine your location via a form of lateration.

In earlier versions of smartphone operating systems, this was not transparent to users lacking the technical background, so Bluetooth also requiring location access is actually an attempt at making users aware of that. I’m not an iOS developer, so I can’t comment on iPhones, but on Android versions prior to 11, having access to Bluetooth meant an app would be able to determine your location.

Today, you can require the permission ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, which expresses that your app might use Bluetooth to obtain location information on Android. Also, if you’re just scanning for nearby devices to connect your app to, but don’t want users to be confused why your smart fridge app needs to know your precise location, you can declare a permission flag (neverForLocation) and Android will strip beacon information from the scan results, better asserting your intentions.

So, overall: no, there is nothing nefarious going on, it was always possible to determine your location via Bluetooth, and the update to the permission model was an honest improvement that actually benefits you as user.

Now, there are still plenty of shady apps around, and apps that are poorly written - don’t use those.

https://launchpad.net/safe-rm

https://github.com/kaelzhang/shell-safe-rm

etc.

Someone found the DMT stash

What’s a good way to financially support artists directly, without involving shady corporations, and without resorting to piracy?

Just in case you’re not in on the joke:

I share all those opinions, so your rant saved me some potential typing in the future.

On the 8 Pro, the bump is recessed relative to the Otterbox case (given the “tough” Otterbox model for the 8 Pro, no idea what it’s called)

Do you use the phone without a protective case? I find that most cases are designed so that the bump is flush with the back of the case.

That being said, I prefer thicker cases like the Otterbox oder Spigen Tough whatever series, so I could see how such a case would be “too much” for someone.

If you’re open about your own sexuality, this is just a funny story. They share a fun fact about a common experience, the idea being that a majority of the audience is familiar with masturbation and can therefore relate to the frustration of not achieving the experience they initially envisioned.

Coming up with the pun of acoustic pussy is just a witty remark they deemed clever enough to add it to the story.

No idea where you’d like to use live captions, but n maybe this helps:

https://github.com/abb128/LiveCaptions

I think you’re falling into a bit of a trap here: perfect is the enemy of good. Not everything has to be automated, instead of growing pains, there can also be gains.

Remember, we are currently aiming to get these vehicles on the road, alongside regular drivers. They use sensors and computer vision to read street signs, detect people etc., all with the reaction speed of a machine. What if the in-between product is simply a better driver with faster reaction times? That is the current goal, really - no one wants to automate everything, simply because that wouldn’t be feasible anytime soon.

Yes, again, we’re not there yet and these things are far from perfect. But let’s first just aim to get them good enough, and then maybe just a little better than your average driver.

As for the your proposed business model: we have capable drivers now, why do these business models don’t exist right now? Why is there no fast lane that allows me pay to get to my destination faster? What would the technology of driverless cars introduce that would enable these regulations?

It’s not about everything being automated. We also have to differentiate between early incarnations of autonomous vehicles and the desired, final state.

A manual override will of course be part of early models for the foreseeable future, but the overall goal is for the machine to make better decisions than a human could.

I don’t have any quarrel with life or death decisions being made by a machine if they have been made according to the morals and ethics of the people who designed the machine, and with the objective data that was available to the system at the time, which is often better than what would be available to a human in the same situation.

It’s the interpretation of said data that is still not fully there yet, and we humans will have to come to terms with the fact that a machine might indeed kill another human being in a situation where acting any different might cause more harm.

I don’t subscribe to the notion that a machine’s decision is always worth less than the decision of another entity participating in the same situation, just because it so happens that the second entity happens to be a human being.

Yes, you probably are. Please don’t forget that the current available technology constantly improves, and that we actually don’t see any good examples of self - driving cars that much - the most prominent displays are from Tesla, and they arguably build the worst cars we’ve seen since Ford came up with the assembly line.

The technology used in autonomous vehicles, e. g. sensors, have been used in safety critical application for decades in other contexts, and a machine is capable of completely different reaction times. Also, if autonomous vehicles cooperate in traffic sticking to their programmed behavior, observing traffic rules etc., you will get less reckless driving, with traffic flow becoming more deterministic. These benefits will particularly increase once self-driving cars don’t have to share the road with human drivers.

I would always trust a well-engineered, self-driving car more than one driven by a human.

Disclaimer: I used to work on these things in a research lab. Also, we’re not quite there yet, so please have a little patience.

Not all podcasts are about pointless shit. Here are two guys talking about books:

https://www.ifbookspod.com/

I can’t tell if you are implying any disagreement, so I’ll just add that the Proto-Germanic origin for the second half of lady (hlǽfdige) definitely stems from kneading: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/daigijǭ

Other than that, sounds like an interesting podcast!

Absolutely correct. Lady stems from bread-kneader, in fact: https://www.etymonline.com/word/lord

Hm, I don’t see that.

How do you mention you can play multiple audio streams at the same time and then claim the OS is designed to let only one app access an audio channel / device? Which one is it now? Let’s dig a bit deeper into this:

Also, let’s not blame everything on the OS vendor being malicious. In most cases, playing multiple audio streams simultaneously would be annoying. In android, you can absolutely play multiple sources simultaneously, and Android will mix everything together and play it.

That being said, starting with API level 31, Android actually started to enforce a concept called audio focus at the system level. That would be around Android version 12. Audio focus is basically a token that can be requested and handed from app to app, and only the app holding the token gets to talk, everything else is faded out.

I’ll agree that enforcing this and not making it configurable for the end user was a pretty dumb move, but that was simply a UX decision, not certainly malicious.

If your phone is rooted, you can work around it, e. g. via an xposed module.

Hey, much appreciated!