I mean, given their recent liscence kerfuffle it seems clear to me that Adobe really wanted to be able to train on customer data. They had to backpedal, since that generated a surprising amount of controversy. They hold an effective monopoly in certain fields, and their behavior shows they really don't always have customer interests at heart.
Even without customer data to train on, they do have a pretty large moat with their image library. And you are right, they are in a good position VS competitors who trained on data they don't have rights to. We'll have to see how things play out legally, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up that something like midjourney ends up in an untenable position. However, openAI has a huge amount of funds that could be redirected to fight a oegal/lobbying battle. While they aren't a direct Adobe competitor, their whole business revolves around using unliscenced data to train their models, so they have a pretty clear horse in this race.
Someone submits one image to their library that they didn't own the rights to and Adobe has to do a completely new training run to remove it, since you can't just delete.
Or they just leave it up and admit they didn't need the rights and their library being cleared of rights isn't really a value add.
OK, I also live with roommates while I'm saving up a downpayment and waiting for mortgage rates to drop. But c'mon, there's a huge difference between being homeless and having roommates. I've been close to being homeless before, and at that point I would have been happy to have even the shittiesy roommates if it meant not sleeping on the streets.
I'm disgusted at the implication that 70k isn't enough to live in LA. Yes, it may not be enough to meet some arbitrary standard, but it's insane to say that the alternative is being homeless. This is just a spoiled rich kid who isn't making enough to keep their previous standard of living. There's tons of working class people in that same community getting by on way less than 70k who aren't getting articles written about them.
In the above example, the normal flow to get a Google address user@company.com relies on setting DNS records for company.com, both to prove control of the domain as well as to route email to that domain. There may be an exploit/bypass I'm not seeing, but I legitimately don't see any way a user who has a legitimate user@company.com email address hosted somewhere besides Google workspace could then setup a user@company.com email address with Google.
If there's a way to do this, I would greatly appreciate a link or brief explanation, as our process for employee termination/resignation does involve disabling in the Google admin portal and if we need to be more proactive I definitely want to know.
The issue here is that if company.com does not use Google Workspace and hasn't claimed company.com, then any employee can sign up for a "consumer" Google account using user@company.com.
There are legitimate reasons for this, e.g. imagine an employee at a company that uses Office365 needing to set up an account for Google Adwords.
You can sign up for google with an existing email. So if example.com is all on MS365 that's where the admins control stuff. No google workspace at all, no DNS records or proof of domain to anyone but MS.
So anyone with an example.com email can make a google account using that email as their login. Verify they have the email and that's their login. A common system for users who need to use google ads or analytics.
But when the company disables 365 login the google account remains. And if you use something third party that offers a "Sign in with google" then assumes because you have a google account ending "example.com" you are verified as "example.com" you've got access even if that account is disabled.
If you have the google admin portal this doesn't work as you're controlling it there. But signing up for Microsoft or Apple accounts with that google workspace address might have the same loophole.
Edit: rereading this, it comes off slightly accusatory or hostile. That's not my intention, I'm genuinely curious why there's this perception that modern cars are underpowered.
Under-powdered? I'll definitely agree with you on hating everything being pushed to a crappy iPad mounted in the dash, but what period of cars are you comparing to where today's cars are underpowered? If anything, I think it's the opposite, even a basic econobox has HP numbers that are above what an older performance vehicle used to have.
KA24E (1990 240SX), 134HP [0]
FA24D (current Toyota GR86 & Subaru Brz), 228–234 hp [1]
The corolla has a ton of different engine options, the base US model (that car and driver complains about being sleepy) has 169HP [2]
So a older 240, which was a performance car and is still a ton of fun to drive, is 35HP down from the base-spec current gen corolla. The corolla just doesn't feel like it has any power, but it has no issues getting up to speed on a freeway entrance ramp. Whereas an economy car of the same vintage as that 240 will definitely struggle to do so.
and the econobox does that while having 4 doors, air conditioning, emissions controls, crumple zones and a stereo system, and being reliable as all hell, vs an old oil burner from back in the day
I guess? I mean the econobox I was thinking of was an early 90s accord, my last one I retired 3 years ago since it was starting to get to the point of too much rust. Still had 4 doors, AC, crumple zones, and a stereo that was perfectly acceptable, just needed to add a $25 Bluetooth reciever. A modern corolla is safer than a 91 accord, but the accord isn't exactly a 1960s deathtrap. Definitely better airbags though, the accord just had a driver and I think that was an option.
However, I replaced the accord with a SUV since that's basically all that's available anymore, so I don't feel that much safer in my 2023 Ford since the if I end up in a ditch I'm way more likely to roll and being heavier there's way more energy to disperse in that crash.
That old Honda lasted >30 years and wasn't a great example when I bought it 10 years ago. I only did maintenance and some suspension work, I never had to touch the engine or transmission. That seems plenty reliable enough for me, even paying a shop it probably would have cost 3k for the 10 years I drove that car.
I mean, I remember people saying similar things about Google scanning Wi-Fi SSIDs to track their location. There was a point in time where people were saying that was conspiracy theory thinking.
The sibling comments are incorrect, the minimum security prisons are called 'Federal Prison Camps", the colloquial name is 'Club Fed'. There aren't a ton of these facilities, so I can see why other people thought that the camp phrasing wasn't literal. Think military camp rather than summer camp.
Slightly OT, but as someone who escaped poverty this is the type of volunteering that is super helpful and makes a huge difference. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything like this in my local area, do you have any pointers on starting/finding a program like this to contribute to?
I really what you are doing, I have been looking for a way to give back now that I am in a financially secure position and that sounds more impactful than just giving money. If you would prefer, I can be contacted at my username at google's email service.
I stumbled into this because I volunteer at three food shelves around Burlington, Vermont doing food distribution. At the largest one there is a day shelter with outreach workers and a kitchen serving hot meals. I gave a few phones to the outreach workers that I got from family members, and found that there was high demand so I just started posting on community forums asking people for their old phones. In a few cases I have replaced batteries or screens but if the phone is usable I distribute it as-is after erasing it and applying any software updates. I buy cables and chargers in bulk so I can deliver a complete kit. Almost all the work is sitting down with the donor and erasing it.
Many charities are very happy with money btw, our local food bank prefers it and cites a 3x factor in “value” compared to food donations due to discount s they get when buying bulk.
Just saying, don’t feel bad for “just” giving money.
Regarding monetary donations, if you believe institutional misuse outweighs efficiency gain, then your area food banks are in a much worse shape than my local area, which I hazard to guess is merely average.
Food banks can do so much more with cash, such as buy fresh produce from local farmers, than they can with your unwanted groceries, usually canned goods. Or if you're buying food specifically intending to donate it, do you really think the average person reading this (and 50% of you reading this are below average) is a better shopper with their $100 than the food bank is with $10,000+? Instead of shopping, spend that time with them, and still donate the same amount you would have spent.
I was surprised when I spent my own time and found out how much further they can stretch each dollar, and often provide healthier food.
I would begin with contacting an appropriate state department that helps those people and seeing if they know of any similar organizations, or if they provide grants for non-profit organizations that can assist people in poverty that way. California had quite a bit of money allocated for that, which led to some abuse of the system by a few of them.
Yes, but 1000 phones aren't normally in the cards for poor people unless they're financing via carrier or using a tax refund. Before switching into software, I spent most of my mid-late 20s under the poverty line, I never had a high-end phone. But cheap android phones are readily available, here's one [0] for $100 USD that honestly looks like an absolutely fine phone.
IME people who are poor enough to not be able to get a contract with a carrier buy a phone at Walmart and then do prepaid carriers. This has the 'fun' side effect that they get a new number whenever they have to switch phone plans. These switches aren't deliberate, they just run out of money to keep up the old prepaid line, go a week or 3 without a phone, then sign up again. Porting the old number is too much work/time, so they just end up with a new phone number. Its just one of the shitty things about poverty.
At least in the US, in July, for a Google pixel 8, through Verizon or AT&T, no. Buying a pixel 8 retail from best-buy or Amazon was $200 cheaper than either carrier, and both wanted to push financing instead of outright purchase. My experience (mostly with Verizon) has been that buying directly from the carrier has been more expensive in the last decade than buying the phone retail.
I wonder how much those cheap MVNO prices are subsidized by everyone who has a contract directly with the carrier though. Going directly with Verizon or AT&T is super expensive compared to Europe. At the end of the day, someone needs to build & maintain the physical infrastructure. I don't know if the carriers could keep operating if everyone switched to MVNOs, they might not have enough revenue to maintain the infrastructure. North America is pretty large and not densely populated.
That being said, the major carriers here absolutely suck and utilize very scummy business practices that aren't that far off of a payday loan place. Financing an iPhone with Verizon really isn't that far off of payday loan rates, it's a horrible deal.
MVNOs do not guarantee the same level of service as the main flagship carriers who actually own and build the infra. I'm a customer of a MVNO that uses Verizon network. If I go into a crowded area, I can definitely see some traffic deprioritization happening to my traffic but I'm willing to make that tradeoff for saving a ton of money (majority of the time I use my phone on Wifi anyway).
But since I switched, I have convinced several other family members to also switch to a MVNO to save money. It will be interesting to see what happens if a lot more people make the same tradeoff. I wonder will they just intentionally make the MVNO experience so horrible by throttling to get everyone to upgrade, or they will just increase the rates on the MVNO plans so there is not a substantial difference anymore?
Even without customer data to train on, they do have a pretty large moat with their image library. And you are right, they are in a good position VS competitors who trained on data they don't have rights to. We'll have to see how things play out legally, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up that something like midjourney ends up in an untenable position. However, openAI has a huge amount of funds that could be redirected to fight a oegal/lobbying battle. While they aren't a direct Adobe competitor, their whole business revolves around using unliscenced data to train their models, so they have a pretty clear horse in this race.