What? We're not talking about death here, what kind of a reply is that? We're talking about making a decision at a very young age that might have irreversible consequences, a decision many 20yos are simply ill equipped to make, in particular, when alternatives exist.
scrion
joined 2 years ago
No, they're not always reversible. You can opt for one that isn't, and even if you decide to go for it, it might simply not work.
I've had a vasectomy. Give it a few years, 22 might be a bit young.
I happen to work in machine learning. You are most likely referring to the Stanford Gyrophone paper. Given that the sampling frequency of the gyroscope sensor on typical smartphones is extremely limited, you can only get very low frequency content (Nyquist).
It wouldn't be possible for any human to process or understand the recorded signals, so the researchers trained a machine learning model on the recorded samples, with a very limited vocabulary consisting of only the digits from 0 to 9 and "oh".
If the model was not trained on the particular speaker (requiring annotated training data for that particular speaker, which would be almost impossible to get in the assumed scenario), the recognition rate was 26%. For a vocabulary of 11 words.
It's a nice proof of concept, and doubly so if tge CIA considers you a target, but otherwise it's not happening.
So you are saying that apps on your phone can access your microphone without your permission? Wouldn't you want to report that to Google or Apple or whoever made your phone's OS?
Also, how did your individual phone become relevant for the assumption that this is a widespread phenomenon?
Finally, it's great that you log your app activity, but you are aware that the scientist in the study I cited examined 17620 apps and found not a single instance of the app turning on audio and sending the data?
As I said, I'm sure companies will try. But what you're looking at there is a pitch deck presented to someone so they'd cough up money. That does in no way imply that this has been widely deployed without requiring user consent and therefore there are apps out there en masse, listening to smartphone users in a form of clandestine operation. It's basically the same thing as the patent for the old greentext Mountain Dew commercial meme at this point:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sony-patent-mcdonalds/
In fact, the article clearly states that the data Cox Media Group uses comes from apps where users have agreed to grant the application permission to use their voice data, and that Cox Media Group was subsequently removed from the Google Ads program (a precaution for Google to save face).
This is actually not a thing. There is no evidence that smartphones constantly listen to people.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/07/06/is-your-smartphone-spying-on-you/
Also, this person is, well, for a lack of a better term, a porn actress. So this tweet might be a mix of bias, leading to the belief their phone is listening, but maybe also a bit of advertisement - which, don't get me wrong, is great. She did some stuff with Owen Gray, good stuff. Check them out, support their work.
That being said, it is certainly technically feasible. I'm sure there have been several, individual cases, and we will probably see new, "innovative" ways of companies spying on us.
It's actually not. There is no evidence that smartphones listening to users is a widespread phenomenon.
Why would you think that? I merely answered the actual question the poster had: if there was another image apart from the animated GIF. I assume their client did for some reason not display the lower, static picture, cut it off, or whatnot.
The comic highlights the differences in the portrayal of women and men in media, often oversexualizing women in any number of contexts.
A medieval maid milking the cows would probably not have looked (or smelled) like a supermodel.
view more: next ›
Even having a funny and weird relationship with my mother, this would be suuuuper cringe. And inappropriate.