Well it's not just that... picture a community group talking among themselves and then some rando shows up, yells "I built this thing that you all might like", hangs out for an hour and then is never heard from again.
I think that's great in moderation as it stimulates ideas and discussions, shows us what folks are working on, etc... but this can't become Product Hunt. The reasons for posting here should be vastly different than posting on Product Hunt.
The poster has a confirmed email address that is associable to the business? Maybe
The poster has a confirmed email address that is associable to the business and their name is verifiable as HR/Hiring Manager/Someone in a legitimate position to post this offer? Sure
It's not a great idea to blame AI, which is small addition to the global emissions. I suggest focusing on what's really important, not what's currently trendy.
It's already using on the order of 1% of global energy, and there are active plans to expand that by a factor of 5 or more in the near future. That's as a percentage of current energy use, which is already way higher than it should be, so if all other sectors reduced theirs to sustainable levels it would be like 5% now and 25% planned. It's a bit more complicated when you account for renewable energy, but certainly adding consumption is not helping there. Now that buildout may not happen as planned/advertised, but I think it's very reasonable to worry about new things that make the situation worse even by a few percentage points when you need to make things better overall by much more than that to make progress. Of course this is not to say that we shouldn't be worried about/working on other sources of consumption that are currently a larger fraction -- we need to keep doing that too. But giving a pass to hundreds of TWh from AI junk in favor of trying to reduce the thousands of TWh from some other source by a couple hundred is a good way to erase the gains that you make over there.
Come on, if the first thing that comes to your mind is something responsible for 1% with projection of 5% emissions then it’s clear that you don’t really care about actual solutions but prefer to parrot current rhetoric from social media. Why not focus on the biggest contributors?
Go to [Settings] » [Apps] » [Special app access] » [Display over other apps] and check if any preinstalled carrier apps or anything suspicious has this permission granted.
Apparently this is handled by the privileged STK[1] service. It can launch browser which is I think what's happening.
GrapheneOS presently doesn’t do anything different in this case, they pull it from AOSP without modifications. However you can disable it using the frontend app (SIM Toolkit) as someone pointed out, but as far as I can tell this requires the applet on SIM card to cooperate (offer the opt out).
Otherwise you can disable the STK altogether with ADB but that will also block you out of other SIM card interactive functions, which might not be a big deal however.
Edit: "We plan to add the ability to restrict the capabilities of SIM Toolkit as an attack surface reduction measure. (2022)"[2] and open issue[3].
Like a popup how? What kind of dialog is it? It's more likely to be an app that's bundled by your carrier than your carrier MitM'ing ads into your stuff which is kinda what it sounded like
Caveat: if they're doing that, then they're almost certainly data mining your data streams (e.g. dns lookups etc.)
I wouldn't feel secure on such a carrier unless I also VPN'd traffic to a reputable provider (Nord, Express, or Proton) and forced DNS over TLS to known servers.
SIM cards can come with apps preloaded. There was a carrier in Mexico that would load a SIM app for Dominos Pizza and you could order a pizza from your phone if you were on that carrier. I learned this because of some carrier certification feedback I had to disposition at one job.
Why doesn't the same caveat apply to a paid account?
I mean, you have to declare when content is an advert, and if you are asserting that the owners of the chatbot are going to just ignore that requirement, won't they just do the same thing for paid accounts?
I would assume they would until the profit of subscriptions surpasses the profit of anything else they can monetize. Why would they leave money on the table?
reply