But, if the leaks are about unethical bluestones practices or illegal action? Google might be better served living by their own original motto than hunting leakers.
It's really not about simply violating privacy. It's about the actions one takes after one violates all the privacy ever.
Big data is power. Facebook and Google know that. Everyone else had better learn. These reactions telegraph that Google and Facebook have been eagerly making use of the power they've gained, and it's obviously backfired… or, the first things they've tried to do have been totally evil and reprehensible, and successful.
Part of the goal of the GDPR is to turn massive stores of user data from a corporate asset into a legal liability. If we can get internet companies to treat user data the way brick-and-mortar companies treat hazardous chemicals--occasionally necessary for some industrial process, but best avoided where possible, and always treated with respect--then that would be a big win for society IMO.
Why are they so frantic if they're on the up and up?
From the attitude, it sounds like they've gone full-on 'be evil' and are legitimately panicked that they will be found out before they can get the kind of power that would render them immune from any consequence to their actions. They must surely understand international politics, and a lot is happening right now in international politics.
I would say Facebook and Google are likely to be smack in the center of what's going wrong, and that in both cases they figured they could learn to control the monsters they unleashed, and stood to benefit.
That would justify any degree of paranoia and hysteria over leaks. There is no purpose in being this frantic over leaks if they know they've not done terrible things.
>Now that I'm a parent, I've made a promise to my kids that I will always let them finish their current game before kicking them off. If they start a new game after they've been given the last game warning, then there's consequences. They know this, and we rarely have any issues related to behavior and gaming.
This is good but most parents don't really know how games work so they can't look at the UI to see if their children are lying.
So much this. I'm a parent. I'm a game developer. I'm a former kid who dreamed that someday my parents would sit down and ask me to show them what I was doing.
You should know what your kids are playing, and what better way than to show interest in their hobbies. (And, like, maybe talk about it afterwards?)
The amount of time required to play most games is extremely high and expectation that parent should spend so much time with something parent does not like completely absurd.
There is also a moment where gamers should understand that the world does not revolt around them nor their games. When everybody is helping preparing dinner and what not, or expected to be on time, there is no rational reason to give the gamer exceptions.
There isn't an expectation that you will put in all the time required to completely learn a game, but there is an expectation that you will put in the time required to have a basic understanding of the game. As a parent you should know what games your children are playing, the type of content they're being exposed to within those games, and the amount of time they're putting into them. If you're not willing to put in enough time to know what your children are doing then don't have children.
no, watching a few rounds of Fortnite or having your kid show you round their Minecraft world does not require "extremely high" amounts of time and already gives you a useful insight in what's going on. Nobody is asking you to become competitive in a game, or even just play if you don't like it. And your second paragraph is a complete non-sequitur.
> When everybody is helping preparing dinner and what not
Right, during those times, the family should be helping prep dinner. My four year old helps prep dinner and does chores afterwards.
But we, as a family, also have leisure time and interests. In my opinion, if your kid was into baseball, you should try and show an interest by going to games or playing catch. If they were into dance, maybe go to their recitals or encourage them to practice.
No one is expecting you to be good at your kids hobbies. Or even enjoy them. But I believe you should show support and make an attempt to regularly engage with them.
I understand Fortnite and I don't play it. My kids do and so I find out about it, played a few Agnes, watched them and now I know its ok. Other kids get a blanket ban because their parents don't understand or they are playing CoD because their parents don't understand. My kids know that some games are not appropriate for them and if I say something is ok the it's fine. E.g south park fractured but whole is not but halo is.
> Is it really unreasonable for children to expect their parents world to pretty much revolve around them?
Yes it is. It is reasonable to expect care and relationship. It is not reasonable to expect your hobby to treated as something more special then hobbies of siblings, grandparents and parents. It is reasonable for other family members to expect kid to participate on activities I mentioned no matter what their interests are.
Parents world revolve around children when they are danger to themselves due to young age or sickness or behavioral problems. It revolves around children for many unavoidable reasons, gaming not being one of them.
It is not reasonable to expect to be tiptoed around just because your choice of hobby. In fact, it is expected that parents teach this the kid.
> Is it really absurd to expect parents to show just a little bit of interest in their kids hobbies?
To be able to listen about it? Yes. To be participating? No. Just like with any other kids interest like collecting little pink ponies or memorizing flags.
If the kid cant organize the game (stop playing soon enough to be at time) while still participating in outside world, then the kid is not ready to play that game. If the kid is moody after playing game and generally pain in the ass, it is reasonable to stop accommodating gaming and dealing with the behavior the same way parents punish/criticize siblings acting that way for non-gaming reasons.
Actually, participation often ruins the hobby. If your dad is better then you at a game/sports its loosing its value to differentiate you from your siblings.
I remember my older brother saying, "it's like dungeons and dragons" when I asked my dad to buy Warcraft. That got the idea shut down immediately.
But later in the year I was quite insistent that it's not that bad. So my dad agreed to watch a bit. I played the first few levels of the demo for him. I still vividly remember him saying, "that's it?" And then we bought it later that week.
Brand value, I guess? All AMD hardware (CPUs and GPUs) I've bought in the past was crap, I'm never buying anything from them again, no matter what they do. It's always the same: on paper they are better and cheaper, but once I have them at home they are worse and, in case of the GPUs, they have pathetic drivers. I've always felt ripped off after buying AMD, it's never worth it just to save some pennies.
This has been my experience, I wonder if others have felt the same.
Whenever AMD's CPUs have been price/performance competitive they've always been a fantastic choice. Especially now, when with Ryzen/Threadripper/Epyc you not only got more cores for the less money, you also got better security.
AMD's GPU drivers have been perfectly fine since the 9700 Pro. That's a 16 year old myth at this point, let it go.
Do you have an actual argument here? The story, while interesting, doesn't really contribute either way. Per the author's own story the switch to the new driver broadly didn't happen until after it was finally stable, and the legacy driver continued to receive performance optimizations in the meantime.
It's an interesting story of project management nightmares, but it doesn't provide any argument to the state of AMD's drivers as experienced by end users either way.
In terms of stability we do have some large-scale metrics on that front, such as Vista's crash blaming. Those metrics don't support claims that AMD's drivers are less stable than Nvidia's, as the Nvidia was responsible for 28.8% of Vista crashes while ATI was 9.3%. Given more Nvidia than ATI users that's not necessarily damning, but it also clearly disagrees with the notion that ATI is deeply unstable while Nvidia is rock solid.
And keep in mind during the 9700 Pro's prime all the way up to today OpenGL is used by nearly nothing on Windows. We're already talking about the niche use case.
The ATI dev on twitter made no such claim. In fact he never made any claim about stability at all. Just that the new driver was missing functionality, so only specific things (like Doom3) got it and they were shipping 2 OpenGL drivers as a result during 2004-2007. End-users weren't broken during that timeframe. The old driver didn't suddenly break and get super unstable. If anything the complaint is that the old driver was too stable, it wasn't getting new features & changes fast enough.
Do you have any benchmark comparisons to support this claim? All I can find in searching are random threads of people saying this, but nobody providing any actual evidence or comparisons.
The few games using OpenGL on Windows I can find show AMD's performance being perfectly competent:
The nvidia cards were on average a bit faster, but that was true in DX as well. Meaning it wasn't just "lol amd opengl drivers"
And of course Linux testing, where OpenGL is far more common, shows no major disparity, either, which you already know hence the qualifier of "on windows" but that qualifier makes no sense. It's going to be the bulk of the same code between windows & linux for the driver, as has also been rather well tested & verified.
Which gets back to "it's a goddamn 16 year old myth" that literally spawned out of Nvidia's hyper aggressive opengl optimization of Quake 3.
You're clearly confused as to the topic you're replying to. I responded with benchmarks to someone who said performance was bad. Stability was not the topic of discussion in this subthread.
I've had both Intel and AMD cpu's and both AMD and Nvidia GPU's (I guess you could add Intel too for their integrated gpu's) and my AMD experience has been generally quite pleasant and problem-free.
To be fair, Mozilla now owns Pocket. It's not just some random extension. Chrome comes preinstalled with YouTube, Gmail etc. too. It's a bit of cross-property promotion and to be fair, Pocket is indeed quite useful.
They did not own it from the start, but they did have a special privacy agreement with Pocket regarding user data. Also, the acquisition was a result of user feedback, something Google would likely ignore.
For some time last year, the Mozilla Corporation made it so a fraction of Firefox users got their entire browsing activity siphoned to a third party company, Cliqz, so they could bundle ads in the browser: https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...
Because in many places in the world, speaking some languages is inviting trouble. In US, for example, people speaking Arabic in public (including online) can be harassed over that.
The reason this is outrageous is because they weren't doing this kind of thing before. The reason this isn't outrageous when Chrome does it is that Chrome always does this. Using this as a reason to distrust Firefox and instead trust Chrome is insane.
It's valid criticism but seeing this presented in arguments about why Firefox is bad (and you should be using Chrome instead) is absurd.
Firefox is significantly more trustworthy than Chrome (the outrage over Mozilla's occasional screw-ups exists because that behaviour is decidedly not the established norm for Mozilla whereas the same behaviour from Google surprises no-one).
The context in this thread was "Switch to Firefox. It prioritizes privacy, unlike Chrome". In other words, "Firefox is more privacy-focused than Chrome".
Piling on Mozilla for past screw-ups creates the impression that this statement is wrong and that both browsers are equally bad at privacy because neither of them is consistently perfect.
Even if the criticism is technically correct, piling it on like this creates a skewed impression that if you care about privacy you might as well use Chrome because even if you switch to Firefox your privacy will be invaded anyway.
This normalises the level of invasiveness of Chrome and equivocates its consistent and intentional behavior with a series of exceptional missteps.
In case you think "But I never mentioned Chrome", well, Chrome and Firefox were the only options in the original post so anything negative about Firefox implies a positive about Chrome and vice versa. If you wanted to call out specific behavior, either present an alternative (Brave? Ice Weasel?) or clarify that you're addressing the behavior categorically and not just that instance of it specifically.
If someone says "Don't use A. B is better because it doesn't do $thing" and then you respond by "I've seen B do $thing" that implies equivalence between A and B even if B did $thing only a few times out of carelessness whereas A intentionally does $thing all the time because its business model depends on it. It doesn't matter that you didn't mean it that way, it doesn't matter that it's true and it doesn't matter that this is a mistake on part of the audience. Humans are flawed and communication requires you to take those flaws into account -- unless you just want to express yourself.
Is Google the next target of the press, once they are done trashing Facebook?