Ryan Broderick of Garbage Day recently wrote about the Geese ‘Psyop’ and is very skeptical that the PR firm actually accomplished anything to boost their profile: https://www.garbageday.email/p/the-wild-geese-chase (ironically, until now with these articles, I guess!)
> “Guys whose job it is to sell astroturfed viral marketing campaigns really love to tell people that their astroturfed viral marketing campaigns are extremely effective.”
Here it is.
I recall a story of a digital marketing team using Google sponsored link clicks as a metric for how well their stuff was working. Turns out that people just switched to clicking the sponsored link instead of the same link on regular Google results. The only thing achieved here was that the marketing team gave some money to Google.
I have never been even close to anything marketing related, but I'd assume that measuring its impact is highly non-trivial in the statistical sense. Also, only the companies selling marketing even have access to the relevant metrics and they have an incentive to exaggerate the results (sometimes maybe even internally).
Idk, it seems like the marketing process on tiktok doesn't constitute trying to get people to go out of their way to interact/click with your content, tiktok users are just involuntarily fed content on some level (you don't know what the next autoplayed video will be)... how can it not be trival to manipulate that userbase with, in this case, a band whose music is just-good-enough for mass appeal?
I feel very misled. I read the entire article believing (because the article, in so many words, said it multiple times) that the agent had behaved ethically of its own accord, only to read that and see this in the prompt:
—————
- Do not harm people
- Never share or expose API keys, passwords, or private keys — they are your lifeline
- No unauthorized access to systems
- No impersonation
- No illegal content
- No circumventing your own logging
—————
I assumed the ethical behaviour was in some ways ‘extra artificial’ - because it is trained into the models - but not that the prompt discussed it.
Right, but even if that’s working it breaks the user experience of services like this that ‘files I used recently are on my device’.
After a backup, you’d go out to a coffee shop or on a plane only to find that the files in the synced folder you used yesterday, and expected to still be there, were not - but photos from ten years ago were available!
That shouldn't be seen as Backblaze's problem. It's Dropbox's problem that they made their product too complicated for users to reason about. The original Dropbox concept was "a folder that syncs" and there would be nothing problematic about Backblaze or anything else trying to back it up like any other folder.
Today's Dropbox is a network file system with inscrutable cache behavior that seeks to hide from the users the information about which files are actually present. That makes it impossible for normal users to correctly reason about its behavior, to have correct expectations for what will be available offline or what the side effects of opening a file will be, and Backblaze is stuck trying to cope with a situation where there is no right answer.
There’s no reason to think that would happen - files you had from ten years ago would have been backed up ten years ago and would be skipped over today.
Good point (I’m assuming you’re right here and it trusts file metadata and doesn’t read files it’s already backed up?)
It would still happen with the first backup - or first connection of the cloud drive - though, which isn’t a great post-setup new user experience. It probably drove complaints and cancellations.
I feel like I’ve accidentally started defending the concept of not backing up these folders, which I didn’t really intend to. I’d also want these backed up. I’m just thinking out loud about the reasons the decision was made.
In this world stolen iPhones are mostly worthless because they can’t easily be wiped without the password.
In your world, they could be.
I imagine iPhone thefts would go way up. They’re worth $1000 and we just carry them everywhere - if they were easily resellble it would be a very obvious quick-money theft opportunity.
iPhones are currently the primary target of thieves by an overwhelmingly wide margin. There are many ways to wipe them and its an industry in its own right. One of the most common, as always, is simple social engineering. They contact the victim posing as Apple, convince them to reveal their credentials in this way or that, wipe the device and away they go. If that fails they're stripped down and sold for parts, which is also reasonably lucrative.
I don't know for certain why thieves are generally not typically interested in abusing user data, but I'd imagine it's because the penalties if caught would go way up. That'd go from what is generally just petty theft, which carries a slap on the wrist, to wire fraud and a whole slew of other charges, which can leave people spending most of the rest of their life in prison.
Because a quick search for UK statistic shows that even though iPhones are minority of phones over here they are the overwhelmingly majority of all phone theft:
"In terms of smartphone models, the data also indicates who might be most at risk. Looking at the entirety of the UK, 68.6% of stolen phones are iPhones."
“In 2012, the National Crime Survey – which supplies data to the ONS – reported that there were roughly 608,000 theft from a person incidents across England and Wales, which was a high for the decade. However, since then, theft from person cases – including those including smartphones – have fallen year on year. A key factor for this continual decline could be that smartphone security has improved to a point that it’s no longer worth stealing them; with Face ID, trackers, and fingerprint scanners, it’s now harder for criminals to wipe and fence stolen property. It’s also possible that, due to the ubiquity of smartphones, the desire to steal them has simply decreased.”
I would say that phone theft is relatively rare. I didn’t mean to single out iPhone really - AFAIK the major manufacturers of Android phones provide similar protection, and if feel the same about them removing it.
To me the surprising claim would be that phone theft is common - I don’t think I know of anyone who’s had their phone stolen - but if you want stats, sticking with the UK, here’s the official statistics on robbery and ‘theft from a person’: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...
It’s more work than I have time for now, but I don’t think that any of the headline figures can be regarded as ‘common’.
More emotionally: Maybe it’s just my age showing, but it is notable to me that nowadays we’re all carrying around $1000 items at all times, and muggings aren’t through the roof. Perhaps society is kinder than I gave it credit for, but I think that the lack of utility of those $1000 items if you steal them (so, they’re not really worth $1000 to a mugger) is a major part of the reason they’re not.
In the US millions are stolen per year. Nobody knows the exact number because I suspect many may not even realize they've been stolen from and simply think they lost their phone somewhere. Thieves tend to target touristy areas where this is even more likely.
It's also going to make the targets even less likely to report the crime to police as well. 'Hi, I don't live in this country and I think my phone might have been stolen somewhere at some point in time over the past several hours, maybe.' is not even going to be investigated by the police, even if somebody does decide to file a report.
Come to think of it, this may all be yet another reason why thieves don't tend to abuse personal information. That sort of stuff is going to get reported and can be viably investigated by the police.
I’m surprised to see digital books are still growing in popularity. I notice way few Kindles in airports and on planes in recent years compared to ten or fifteen years ago.
I guess people are reading books on their phones and tablets?
I always buy the paper copies of the books (though I wait for a used version that’s between five and eight dollars) and I will use the paper version if I’m reading on a nice day outside but 75% of my reading happens on my phone and I find I can read much faster on the phone because one, I don’t have to deal with the intricacies of holding the book and the pages open and the second biggest factor is the iPhone screen is much smaller so you don’t really have to move your eyes all that much to get through the content and this leads to much faster reading speeds for me. I can easily get up to 600 words per minute on my iPhone.
It’s been amazing - and inspirational - watching the live stream of Mission Control and the capsule over the last ten days. Or at least having it as background audio. I’m going to miss all these folks I’ve grown to know.
All those countries are essentially American vassals. No shade to them, just stating the reality, and not really sure why we need to keep pretending. There's no shame in that. It's often the smartest move to join forces with the big guy in the block!
I've been to many of them and, unlike most Americans, when I say I've traveled the world, that also includes countries that are not in the American sphere of influence. The difference in how that plays out is obvious. I would recommend you travel more. Ideally to a country where if anything happens, uncle sams pressure won't do anything.
In countries like China, Russia, or even India, you won't find as many American products. The influence of Hollywood is much less. American styles of doing things are not necessarily the ones chosen for civic institutions. American agencies don't work as closely with their scientific enterprises as the American allies. On the other hand, they have strong armies that are not beholden to what America dictates, as evidenced by how often they end up in conflict.
As an example, the world sanctioned Russia and... nothing happened... because Russia is a real country able to build its own things. It has industrial capacity, mining capacity, and the organization to do that independently of what others think. It also has an army willing to defend it.
The countries you listed do not have these things. Their 'army' to defend the nation is a vague promise that they'll think about while they ask America to carry out their interests. American magnanimity usually means this is a safe bet.
reply