Again, not having a feature doesn't mean they don't send telemetry back. They can be stripped down AND steal my privacy. In fact, I expect them to considering the backers.
This seems to be a dual concern: do they collect driver data during vehicular usage, and/or during web browsing?
For the first, my argument is they simply cannot, even if they wanted to, in the same way I can't track my friend if I supply him with a toothpick. There simply isn't sufficient technology in a toothpick by itself for me to violate their privacy, so I would need other methods, like agreements with businesses or a backdoor to his phone.
Regarding web usage, their privacy policy says
> To contractors, service providers, and other third parties we use to support our business.
> If you do not wish to have your email address or phone number used by Slate to promote our own or third parties' products or services, you can opt out by changing your communication preferences in your Slate account.
I have read a lot of privacy policies, and this verbiage suggests that they don't sell your data (even in aggregated form), but they do sell access to a customer base. This is similar to youtubers getting sponsored - only assumptions of the customers can be made based on the youtubers content, and no YouTube telemetry itself, since that it owned and processed by YouTube, not the youtuber. Otherwise the policy would have mention of selling data. This is further confirmed by the language that you are opting out of emails to not receive third party stuff, not opting out of selling of data. Since data being sold is required to have an opt out method (in most US states), it is further safe to infer no data is sold. Just access to the reader base.
I hope this answers your questions on whether they are worthwhile to use. Personally, I think this is honorable and I'd be confident to say that these cars don't have the problem being discussed in this forum.
I haven't heard about slate till just now, but based on their specs, it doesn't seem like they are capable of collecting or selling data. The dashboard is your personal tablet or phone. It literally seems to just be a battery, motor, chassis, and trunk, with climate control and required safety features
You've gotten several comprehensive responses so far and I want to add a niche corner that people might assume might not have the bot problem but still does.
I run a website that hosts tools for my family: games and a TV interface for the kids, remote access to our family cloud and cameras, etc. Sensitive things require log in and have additional parameters required for access of course.
I specifically blocked bots from search engines so my site is never indexed, as I'm not selling anything nor want any attention, as well as some other public non-malicious bots in case they communicate with Google, just to be safe there, and my robots.txt doesn't allow anything.
I assume then, that the only way a bot could even find my site is to do what the indexers do: brute force try every single possible ipv4 address hoping to hear something back, as my domain should not be known (and isn't simple enough to be quickly guessed), and most traffic must be malicious, or indexing (AI overview and other scrapers won't be finding it via web search).
Since it isn't indexing, and keeping everything in simple black and white boxes, my remaining traffic is family or malicious bots, and 99.9% isn't family.
I currently have the most strict bot-blocking setup I could come up with, which nicely cut down on quite a bit of traffic, but I do still receive ~2k attempts per day, which as you can imagine, still is around 99% not traffic, as I have fewer than 20 kids, and my kids aren't using the site nonstop.
Conveniently, my setup has never accidentally blocked a family member, so I'm pleased with the setup.
> I assume then, that the only way a bot could even find my site is to do what the indexers do: brute force try every single possible ipv4 address hoping to hear something back, as my domain should not be known
If your site uses https, they could also get your domain from the certificate transparency logs for the certificate you use.
I didn't think of that, but that makes complete sense, as it is https. I think my info was sold by my registrar as well because solicitors call or email me on occassion because they "accidentally came across my site" and want to provide the design/js/etc help.
> I get that I’m in a movie, and I have to always create the next step. Nothing surprises or horrifies anymore.
I haven't lucid dreamt since a child, but I recall everything about the dream continuing to be autonomous as before becoming lucid, but if I wanted to do something, I could add that element. I definitely could still be surprised, as the dream fulfilled wishes like a genie would, meeting it technically but perhaps not as I meant when I willed the change. The few times I reigned my subconscious so I had full power and there were no longer any surprises, I would wake up.
> everything about the dream continuing to be autonomous as before becoming lucid, but if I wanted to do something, I could add that element. I definitely could still be surprised
I may have overstated what I said. The environment continues to be dynamic, and characters enter and exit and cause their usual mayhem (alongside me). But if something unexpected happens, there is–in my mind–a theatrical explanation for it and thus a plot-driven solution. The stuffed animals are upset I'm going to wake up and kill them, so I put them in a zoo where they believe they continue to exist after I stop dreaming, et cetera. (And sure enough, they're there next time I'm in that "place".) If you're trapped somewhere, you know an exit will materialise because you're the main character, and sure enough, it eventually does. If I break something I love, I know something will happen that makes it whole again. When anything that happens can be undone, action is robs of its meaning.
This annoys me to no end. I have an old phone that I boot up occasionally because it holds all the apps that I only need once per year for a niche feature that is only accessible in their app. I don't need 200 apps on my main that I would otherwise never open.
So would you say that the value of Apple products increases as you have more of them (higher than just the linear benefit of more products)? I've used them, but always as one offs.
For example, Ive had a Mac(book? The one that you connect periphery to use) as a work computer at a previous software job, the iPhone because of a girl I dated who wouldn't be with a green bubble man, and iPad also in a previous job, so never together or actually adopted in personal life, so I didn't get sold.
RCS is proprietary so it only works on GrapheneOS if you have Google's Messages app. At least, that was the case a year ago, but I'm assuming it hasn't changed.
On the bright side, Messages works without linking to a Google account
GrapheneOS user here, on my only phone, aka my daily.
I love my phone and when I replace it, I will be flashing GrapheneOS again. This is my second phone with it so far, and roughly year 4 or 5.
With that said, it isn't for everyone. I definitely remember some issues upon first install, a learning curve if you want to call it that. I also introduce intentional obstacles in certain "workflows" in my life that dissuade certain usage, like excessive social media use. With that said, I no longer remember what I introduced myself and what was an OS characteristic. I do remember having frustrations with most banking apps IF I didn't log into the play store mirror. Since I'm "hardcore" and am not willing to sign into a Google product on my phone, they just don't work. However I don't think they would be an issue for most people.
If you are on the fence, you can make a backup of your phone, try it out, and if you don't like it, you can reinstall the default Android and restore your backup. I've done it before when I used my previous GrapheneOS phone for store credit for my next phone, and figured they'd want a factory reset default OS on there.
I think you and your parent have great arguments. Your pizza deliverer chose his battle, which was to only deliver pizza, not materiel, and is commendable. Your parent seems to want to delegate death from humans to AI, which seems to me like a simplification that won't turn out exactly like that, but the premise of deciding whether that is a battle to pick is valid. If you want to start blurring the lines between the analogy and literality, if you choose to pick every battle to fight, there's not enough human bandwidth to do it all, and delegation to AI could be helpful. That last sentence is more loose, so I won't defend it, but I couldn't help not making a tie between picking your battles and literal battles. Perhaps a form of dark humor there.
The broader context of this is that Anthropic did put ethical restrictions into their contract. A bunch of AI employees industry-wide called for solidarity with Anthropic. But then OpenAI, and now Google, defected against this equilibrium and signed contracts agreeing to "any lawful use".
The GP was arguing that, first of all, it's not practically possible to put limitations on such a contract, because you can't audit everything the military does. But that argument is bunk, because not only do you not have to audit everything the military does (only what you as a contractor are asked to do), Anthropic also signed exactly such a contract, and the DoW did indeed run into those restrictions and got frustrated by it.
Their second argument, that if Google didn't agree then someone less scrupulous would take their place and exert less pushback, is also bunk. Google's pushback is as low as it gets; you can't sign a contract to do something illegal, so agreeing to any lawful use is the loosest possible contract that anybody can sign. And given that they defected in this prisoner's dilemma, they are already the less scrupulous party doing the work that Anthropic would not.
I agree with the intent of your rhetorical question, so I'm jesting with you. I'm justifying my "yes" with the hopefully humorous distraction that every person, including American taxpayers, has at some point made a nonsustainable/selfish (my definition of immoral) decision.
I barely looked it up so I'm no expert, but that's what I'm interpreting from their site.
[0] https://www.slate.auto/en/faq
reply