Not GGP, but I suppose the general idea is: Granting permanent location permission to maps.google.com seems a bit more privacy preserving than granting it to *.google.com, assuming one opens maps significantly less often than e.g. GMail, search etc.
iOS allows this, but only on mobile data, which is pretty infuriating. Why should I not be able to also restrict apps from dialing home/anywhere just because I'm on a Wi-Fi network (which isn't even necessarily unmetered)?
It's really annoying. I have a sudoku game on my phone, works great but give it internet access and it's suddenly full of sketchy adverts.
If I'm playing it on my commute, it's usable with mobile data disabled for the app. But when the train stops in a station long enough to auto-connect to wifi, immediate full screen adverts :(
Then don’t use an ad supported app? I have one as supported app on my phone - Overcast. The developer created their own ad platform and serves topic based ads based on the podcast you are listening to right now. Ironically enough I started to pay for a subscription even though it didn’t give me any real benefit just to support him until he started having ads.
I’m gonna be That Guy for a minute: if you enjoy using a Sudoku app, isn’t there one available on more acceptable terms, e.g. a single purchase or a IAP that removes the ads from this one? I’m not saying you have to pay like $3.99/week for a scam one, but more like pointing out that if you don’t like ads (as I also don’t) why not support the developers who believe in selling software to you for a few bucks rather than selling your annoyance to Google via Adsense?
100% agreed; people generally don't realize how deanonymizing EXIF data can be.
I remember one of my cameras or phones including a "seconds since device startup" counter; together with the exact time the photo was taken, this yields a precise timestamp of when a phone was last restarted. This by itself can be highly deanonymizing out of a small to medium sized set of candidate phones/photographers.
The EU already managed to make card payments significantly cheaper and more secure within a few years than they'll probably ever be in the US (still no PINs and no 3DS, and interchange will probably never get regulated because everybody freelances as a severely underpaid lobbyist thanks to frequent flyer miles), to say nothing of regulating a free and instant bank payment scheme into existence while FedNow is still rolling out.
Say what you will about EU inefficiency and regulations, but in my view, at least their financial ones have been largely on point.
This is indeed one of the biggest weaknesses of "pull-based" payment cards, and something most if not all natively phone-based methods do better.
The best credit and debit cards can do is PIN verification or biometrics (for Apple/Google Pay), but even there you still trust the terminal to not show you a different amount than you'll be charged (assuming the screen is even pointing towards you; I've often been asked to tap without seeing what I'm even consenting to).
Online, there's 3DS, but that's not required everywhere and for every transaction.
There once was a vision to extend both positive cardholder approval and cardholder authentication for each card transaction, but it turns out the friction of that is higher on average than just letting everything but the most egregiously suspicious fraud go through by default and handle the rest via the disputes process.
Out of curiosity:
> you open the app on your phone and it gives you a 6 digit BLIK code, you give that code to the seller
Is this the flow for online payments as well, or only for in-person payments?
> Is this the flow for online payments as well, or only for in-person payments?
On-line, too. Or should I say, first, because AFAIK on-line came first. I've been using it for years as my default on-line payment method where available, before noticing it becoming an option on POS terminals.
I've been wondering this too. As I understand it, BLIK codes are generated on the back-end, so I imagine they have some clever anti-collision measures in place. What I know is:
- The TTL of the code is variable; on some days I've noticed it to be as low as 60 seconds, on others around 3+ minutes. Not sure if it depends on the type of transaction or time of day.
- After entering the code in charging widget/terminal, or giving it to a merchant, you still get a screen on which you need to explicitly confirm the transaction; it displays the amount and name of charging entity, so this would presumably reduce the impact of possible collision.
- Sometimes the codes generate instantly, sometimes it takes a few seconds; I always assumed it's network connection lag and/or usual webshit performance issues, but it would also be consistent with an anti-collision measure - if you run out of 6-digit codes, wait a second or two, some will free up.
- Not once I've heard any report or rumor about a collision.
IIRC a few years ago I saw some store asking for 6 or 8 digit BLIK codes, I guess the latter was how they were planning to expand from supporting just Poland to supporting whole EU. But that effort seems to have died out.
Unfortunately it's also pretty clunky for tax reasons in many places and inherently deflationary (and as such problematic from an economic point of view).
Sure, great if you don't trust your government or whoever issues your local currency, but if you can, there are better alternatives. Trust is an asset, not just a liability.
It might not always be warranted, but where it was, increased trust in society, institutions, and systems has been the enabler for economic growth and human development in the past centuries. Talk it down at your own (or more accurately, at all our) peril.
Economic growth and human development over the last several centuries has been the result of a complex web of interleaved prerequisites, that said, trust wasn't one them.
People trusted institutions for thousands of years prior to the scientific revolution. Europe had plenty of trust in religious institutions between the collapse of the Roman empire and the scientific revolution, and you know what it got them? Superstition, witch hunts, barbarism in the name of proselytizing, failed pandemic responses, and a near complete stall in technological and scientific breakthroughs for a millennium.
What the scientific revolution brought us was the decision to not trust, but to reason, to measure, to hypothesize, to verify. Facts matter. Humans are stupid and it is human nature to place trust exactly where trust is least warranted.
"Economic growth and human development over the last several centuries has been the result of"
Fossil fuels...most of the growth from 1800-1970 was due to fossil fuels. Not sure why this is such a mystery to so many. Makes sense when you think about it from a physics POV. You use energy to move things, to make things, to travel to buy things, etc. Heck, the middle class wasn't a concept until the industrial revolution which was caused by...say it with me...fossil fuels.
Like I said, complex web of interleaved prerequisites. Without the scientific revolution, hydrocarbons would remain almost entirely untapped.
But yes, energy was absolutely one of those prerequisites. Fun fact (you're probably already aware, but for other readers): there is a strong positive correlation between national energy consumption and national economic output.
Hey, on the other hand, zero malware! It is zero, right? Please say it's zero...
Just today I found a malicious version of Ledger on the macOS app store. It's been there for five weeks, and there are already some anecdotes out there of people losing their coins.
I guess that's somehow the developer's fault for not "staking their claim" to their name, as Apple seems to only monitor for malicious duplicate submissions if the original is in the App Store to begin with...
A year or so ago I had to speedrun turning on developer mode on Android because my grandma had somehow installed an app that did a ransomware-like fullscreen popup after about 10-20 seconds after bootup. Could've factory reset it and called it, but wanted to try to rescue it for my grandma. Used adb to figure out what app was doing it and removed it. I might be misremembering details, but I think one of the reasons it could do what it was doing was it was using Samsung-specific permissions, which Google shouldn't allow on the store. I reported the app and looks like it's gone now.
$99 per year for your developer account required to distribute applications. At AWS pricing, that's a bit over a TB of traffic. At any normal pricing, that's anywhere from 10TB to a few hundreds. At volume pricing, that's even more. How many apps are paying for traffic they don't use? Apple pockets millions.
I also don't think Apple should be coerced to host content. However, as long as they insist on gatekeeping all installs on the iPhone platform they should be. If Apple doesn't want that coercion, they are free to relinquish their app store monopoly.
Are you rhetorically or actually asking? I'd guess significantly lower than coal and gas, and in the ballpark of (but still higher than) solar and wind combined (in the expected value, i.e. probability of a Chernobyl-like disaster times the death toll of that).
No member of the public has died from civilian nuclear power in the US. Significantly more people have died installing solar panels by falling off of roofs.
That's why I mentioned expected values. Historical data alone is too sparse.
I don't doubt that that resulting number is still very low, or there (being intentionally optimistic about politics and society here) wouldn't be any nuclear plants.
Especially long-term storage is tricky, and if you need to consider time horizons of millenia, even small risks add up.
> Significantly more people have died installing solar panels by falling off of roofs.
In fairness, you then also have to consider "regular" industrial accidents at nuclear plants, which are probably still much lower (due to the presumably much higher energy output per employee hour than other forms). But that's besides the larger point of low probability and historical risk.
> That's why I mentioned expected values. Historical data alone is too sparse.
The data is sparse because the rate is very low. If the world used twice as much nuclear power as it does now, we don't have enough statistical data to predict with high accuracy if something as bad as Chernobyl would happen two more times or zero more times but the existing data allows us to be pretty confident it wouldn't be 100 more times. Meanwhile coal kills more people than 100 Chernobyls every year in just the US.
There is also reason to suspect Chernobyl was an outlier because the USSR was such an authoritarian nightmare. They not only screwed up the design of the reactor (positive void coefficient, no containment building) but then also its operation and the response. The majority of the confirmed deaths were plant workers and emergency responders who got radiation exposure after being sent in without training or relevant equipment. It took the USSR more than three days to admit that it had even happened so that people living next to the plant would know to leave the immediate area. Screwing it up that bad required more than an honest mistake.
> Especially long-term storage is tricky, and if you need to consider time horizons of millenia, even small risks add up.
The "thousands of years" thing is essentially fake. Radiological half-life is the inverse of intensity. Things with a half-life of five minutes are super radioactive. Things with a half-life of thousands of years aren't much above background.
For example, there is an isotope of uranium that has a half-life of four billion years. It's also a pain because its decay chain contains radon gas. ZOMG what are we going to do with it for that long? Well, that's the one that represents 99.3% of natural uranium straight out of the ground, which is why homes in areas with natural granite need radon reduction systems, so it turns out the answer to what we do with it is we can put it in a reactor and use it to generate electricity and that will turn it into something with a shorter half life that goes away sooner. And the major ones that are "thousands of years" can also be used to generate electricity if we would actually separate them and use them for that to get rid of them instead of wringing our hands about where we're supposed to keep them.
> In fairness, you then also have to consider "regular" industrial accidents at nuclear plants, which are probably still much lower (due to the presumably much higher energy output per employee hour than other forms).
It's also lower because nuclear plants are pretty obsessive about safety vs. random solar installation company whose job application test is to see if you can make it onto a third story roof with a two story ladder.
Nobody has died from nuclear accidents. If we’re including workers falling off of roofs then we should include nuclear power plant workers dying from mundane industrial accidents which has happened in the US.
If we're going to do things that aren't power plants then aren't you going to get renewables in trouble for needing more raw materials per unit of generation from dangerous environmentally hazardous mining operations?
If we do that, we need to assign a value to a statistical human life. This is usually taken to be something like $12M (adjusted for age).
And having done that, we discover the contribution of lost lives to the cost of solar and wind (and nuclear, without accidents) is lost in the noise. So the problem ends up choosing the source that is directly cheaper; differences in deaths per TWh can be ignored.
That's not where natural geothermal energy is from. It's residual heat from planetary formation and some natural radioactivity.
This form of storage also unfortunately only yields heat (via heat pumps or directly), not electricity, as the temperature difference is much too low in comparison to meaningfully run any heat engine from it.
Great if you need to heat houses; not so great if you were hoping to store the solar energy for a rainy, or rather cloudy, day (or night).
No, that is how natural geothermal energy works. Perhaps you mistakenly thought I was saying the heat comes from sunlight? I didn't. The heat comes from below (or, in some cases, from internal radioactive decay). And this delivery of heat from below (or from decay) is a slow process, taking a very long time, which is why geothermal resources have to be buried deeply (otherwise, that heat just leaks out and the temperature of the geothermal resource is too low).
Yeah, "accumulate the heat over thousands of years" indeed sounds a bit misleading to me. The heat is largely already there (or is generated pretty uniformly through radioactive processes), it's just slowly transmitted outwards down a gradient.
No, the heat is not already there. The heat comes in and goes out; the heat energy initially in the crust decays away exponentially with time and has no effect on the steady stage temperature gradient.
It was not initially in the rocks that we are tapping for geothermal energy, which would be a few kilometers. I wasn't talking about the Earth as a whole. Remember, this is about why so much more thickness is needed for the rocks for ordinary geothermal energy systems, vs. artificial geothermal.
reply