Blueberrydreamer

joined 2 years ago
[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 10 months ago

I made no comment about the quality of Chinese goods, just their ubiquity.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 10 months ago (7 children)

Nah, better lighting doesn't do a damn thing to make a game more fun. The only notable difference that even matters is better load times.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 16 points 10 months ago (4 children)

That's not really helpful when the vast majority still manufacture in China, and at best 'assemble' somewhere else.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 32 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It definitely matters. There's a world of difference between right leaning and actual fascism.

Get the fuck out of here with that dumb shit.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 11 months ago

Read the study before jumping to obvious and incorrect conclusions. All the participants in the study have guns in the house.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yeah, I'm hoping they finally figure out the tutorial balance in Wilds. Earlier games had next to nothing for tutorials, and you pretty much had to look outside the game to even understand the basic movesets of the weapons, much less how things like skills work. I think they overcorrected with the recent ones though, it'd be nice if they could get a little better about introducing information in the world instead of constantly stopping the action to make sure the player sees it.

But yeah, absolutely do not use the OP armor, you'll only ruin your fun and then have a really hard time once you get to the real fights. The main reason to use it would be to power through low rank if you've done it on another platform or something.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

She's an elected leader for the unified Maori tribes, a largely ceremonial role whose primary purpose is to protect Maori interests against government overreach.

But go ahead and latch onto the name I guess.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 11 months ago

Thanks for the info! I guess that's ultimately what I'm looking for more about: how much do we know about cellular traffic? Obviously with encryption we can't just directly read cell signals to find out what's being sent, so do people just record the volume of data being sent in individual packets and make educated guesses?

It seems plausible to run a simple(non-AI) algorithm to isolate probable conversations and send stripped and compressed audio chunks along with normal data. I assume that's still probably too hard to hide, but if anyone out there knows of someone that's looked for this stuff, I'd love to check it out.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 11 months ago

It's almost like they were asking about sources for people looking or something.

If you're not going to contribute, why are you wasting people's time?

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's a reasonable explanation, and what I typically assume to be true. Still, I'm curious about the actual mechanics, and if it potentially could be being done by Google without the larger tech industry being aware of it.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 11 months ago (6 children)

That makes sense, but isn't it assuming they're processing data on the device? I would expect them to send raw audio back to be processed by Google ad services. Obviously it wouldn't work without signal either, but that's hardly a limitation.

As someone else pointed out, how does the google song recognition work? That's active without triggering the light indicating audio recording, and is at least processing enough audio data to identify songs.

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 11 months ago (12 children)

As someone relatively ignorant about the mechanics of something like this, would it not make more sense that the app would be getting this data from the Android OS, with Google's knowledge and cooperation?

The place I see the most unsettling ads (that seem to be driven by overheard conversation) tends to be the google feed itself, so it seems reasonable to me that they could be using and selling that information to others as well, and merely disguising how the data were acquired.

view more: ‹ prev next ›