Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jtalk4456

Member
  • Content Count

    1,615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from wkdpaul in Just Five Words Sell for over $2m - Twitter madness....   
    I'd argue for autographs, there's a real memory and connection there. So and so actually touched this, I actually spoke to so and so in person, they actually spoke back to me, etc. That signature is proof someone was physically there in a sense. It's real and tangible. If the power goes out you can still play catch with that babe ruth signed ball. Can't look at that tweet though. 

    This however feels incredibly impersonal. No contact, no smile, no talking. and I mean is he really even famous like that? he's just a CEO. he didn't say it to you or anyone you knew, you're just buying a certificate that says you paid 2 million for a screenshot. And it might be one thing if the tweet was gone after that (pretending no internet forever copies or wayback machine), but the tweet is still there. So i can go screenshot it myself. Personally I feel a lot more proud being the guy who got the screenshot for free than the one who had to pay 2 mil for it...
  2. Agree
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from JAKEBAB in Just Five Words Sell for over $2m - Twitter madness....   
    I'd argue for autographs, there's a real memory and connection there. So and so actually touched this, I actually spoke to so and so in person, they actually spoke back to me, etc. That signature is proof someone was physically there in a sense. It's real and tangible. If the power goes out you can still play catch with that babe ruth signed ball. Can't look at that tweet though. 

    This however feels incredibly impersonal. No contact, no smile, no talking. and I mean is he really even famous like that? he's just a CEO. he didn't say it to you or anyone you knew, you're just buying a certificate that says you paid 2 million for a screenshot. And it might be one thing if the tweet was gone after that (pretending no internet forever copies or wayback machine), but the tweet is still there. So i can go screenshot it myself. Personally I feel a lot more proud being the guy who got the screenshot for free than the one who had to pay 2 mil for it...
  3. Funny
    Jtalk4456 reacted to gabrielcarvfer in Just Five Words Sell for over $2m - Twitter madness....   
    Money laundering?
  4. Agree
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from poochyena in Just Five Words Sell for over $2m - Twitter madness....   
    I'd argue for autographs, there's a real memory and connection there. So and so actually touched this, I actually spoke to so and so in person, they actually spoke back to me, etc. That signature is proof someone was physically there in a sense. It's real and tangible. If the power goes out you can still play catch with that babe ruth signed ball. Can't look at that tweet though. 

    This however feels incredibly impersonal. No contact, no smile, no talking. and I mean is he really even famous like that? he's just a CEO. he didn't say it to you or anyone you knew, you're just buying a certificate that says you paid 2 million for a screenshot. And it might be one thing if the tweet was gone after that (pretending no internet forever copies or wayback machine), but the tweet is still there. So i can go screenshot it myself. Personally I feel a lot more proud being the guy who got the screenshot for free than the one who had to pay 2 mil for it...
  5. Like
    Jtalk4456 reacted to TheawesomeMCB in At what point when do you have too fast of an internet connection.   
    Alright, you all have spoken. When it comes out I'll start with the 250, if I need more I'll upgrade more. Thanks Y'all!
  6. Like
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from TheawesomeMCB in At what point when do you have too fast of an internet connection.   
    wait are there companies that won't let you upgrade?? that would be a very stupid business move to not let people spend more money
  7. Like
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from TheawesomeMCB in At what point when do you have too fast of an internet connection.   
    HD video (720p or 1080p) streams require a bandwidth of at least 5 Mbps, while the best internet speed for 4K streaming is a minimum of 25 Mbps
    from a quick google search. so lets say you have 3 pcs streaming hd video and 5 other people in your house are each streaming another hd video. You're up to 8 hd video streams for a total of 200 mbps needed for THE BEST situation. Add in 50 mbps for other things requiring internet, smart appliances, phone use, app updates, etc. 250 can handle it, and that's not a normal usage.
    To conclude: 50 is tiny, 100 is bare minimum for a small household. 200 which is starter for my area with Spectrum is a really good spot to be in for most situations and households. anything above that is gravy for most. Now if you do a lot of streaming/uploading you might benefit from a higher tier to get more than 10 up, but 200 is fine for the majority. I have myself, wifey, and 5 kids. Each kid has a fire tablet and we have 4 smart tvs, 2 pcs and a nice tablet for wifey. Wifey and I each have a phone as well. Can I run off 200, yes. Do I get a discount based on my job that let me get the 600 super cheap and took it cuz why not, absolutely.
    With your tiers 100, 250, 500, and gig, I'd say 200 is fine, if the 500 is within your price range, it's gonna be nice, but not necessary. I don't see you needing more than that unless there's something you didn't tell us
  8. Like
    Jtalk4456 reacted to tridy in The Price of The Right to Repair - Louis Rossmann   
    In his video Louis  explains how it worked in the automobile industry to pass the right to repair, how many parties were involved in that and how much money needed to get the voting done through bypassing the politicians, bureaucracy and lobbying and people laughing at your face.
     
    He said it is going to cost around 5 million to make this happen. It is a lot of money for one person but not so much if we help him.
     
    It could be once in a lifetime opportunity to make a huge change for us, the consumers of this industry.
     
     
    What are your thoughts on how we can help him. He is putting a lot of his personal energy and passion into that.
     
    I though that if we have several tech YouTubers and Louis on the stream talking about the problem and raising the funds.
     
    I would definitely like to tell the story to my grandchildren one day that I was a part of it. I want my right to repair!
     
     
  9. Agree
    Jtalk4456 reacted to Benito593 in At what point when do you have too fast of an internet connection.   
    Honestly, I would start with 250. You need to see, if you get the advertised speeds first, before paying an arm and a leg for internet. Odds are, if you are a going to see a significant amount more of speed, then you don't even need to upgrade too much. I have a similar issue here in Mississippi. They are just now introducing fiber internet lines here.
  10. Agree
    Jtalk4456 reacted to Bombastinator in $650 Million Facebook Lawsuit   
    This seems to be an argument about a word definition “revenue” and what is meant by the term.
  11. Funny
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from Bitter in $650 Million Facebook Lawsuit   
    JG Wentworth! 8-7-7-CASH NOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW!
     
  12. Informative
    Jtalk4456 reacted to Moonzy in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    sorry to do this to you but
     
  13. Agree
    Jtalk4456 reacted to Spotty in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    Thread locked. Please check for existing discussions before posting.
  14. Agree
    Jtalk4456 reacted to Doobeedoo in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    Sure. Maybe, probably, because they already have all possible info there is.
  15. Funny
    Jtalk4456 reacted to .Apex. in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    Nice joke, what's the catch?
  16. Agree
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from JLO64 in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    Summary
    Cookies are being phased out of the Chrome browser next year, and Google is stating that it will not be build or use any other tracking technology to track web browsing traffic. 
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    I never let myself place a company in a moral bearing when it comes to tech. The only truth I am confident on is the motivation of money to a business. Any business half as large as Google doesn't get where they are unless they know how to make money. This would seem a move that loses them substantial money, so there's only a few possibilities I see. 
    1. Public pressure has forced them to make the choice with business as normal getting them bad press and potentially loss of business. This is great because this would mean the public has truly done their job giving companies a reason to be better. If the public cares enough, things will get better guaranteed
    2. Government pressure around the world has them future proofing their business model and trying to be one of the first on the scene to "lead the way for privacy". This is great as well because if politics demands better of society, I simply can't argue. It's the job of government to protect its citizens and I think this falls in line with that. 
    3. They decided to out of the goodness of their collective corporate hearts... Probably not. Again I never take a moral bearing with companies, so even if this was a case where leaders at google thought this was the right thing to do, why not sooner then? Why the post, why not just a quiet change for the better? At minimum, it's a good PR move that will positively impact the world I think. And I can't argue with that. Good intentions are great, but good actions are greater, so if they did a good action for the wrong reason, I'll still be fine with the action. 

    Overall: I think the best part here is the influence this will likely have in normalizing better practices. Just like Amazon has made shipping in a few days normal, Google has the chance to make better privacy normal, with other businesses following suit soon after. Any who don't follow will risk public outrage as they deserve.
     
    Sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/google-wont-use-other-web-tracking-tools-after-phasing-out-cookies/ar-BB1ecdGn 1
    https://www.droid-life.com/2021/03/03/google-says-it-soon-wont-track-your-browsing-anymore/ 2
  17. Informative
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from Delicieuxz in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    Summary
    Cookies are being phased out of the Chrome browser next year, and Google is stating that it will not be build or use any other tracking technology to track web browsing traffic. 
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    I never let myself place a company in a moral bearing when it comes to tech. The only truth I am confident on is the motivation of money to a business. Any business half as large as Google doesn't get where they are unless they know how to make money. This would seem a move that loses them substantial money, so there's only a few possibilities I see. 
    1. Public pressure has forced them to make the choice with business as normal getting them bad press and potentially loss of business. This is great because this would mean the public has truly done their job giving companies a reason to be better. If the public cares enough, things will get better guaranteed
    2. Government pressure around the world has them future proofing their business model and trying to be one of the first on the scene to "lead the way for privacy". This is great as well because if politics demands better of society, I simply can't argue. It's the job of government to protect its citizens and I think this falls in line with that. 
    3. They decided to out of the goodness of their collective corporate hearts... Probably not. Again I never take a moral bearing with companies, so even if this was a case where leaders at google thought this was the right thing to do, why not sooner then? Why the post, why not just a quiet change for the better? At minimum, it's a good PR move that will positively impact the world I think. And I can't argue with that. Good intentions are great, but good actions are greater, so if they did a good action for the wrong reason, I'll still be fine with the action. 

    Overall: I think the best part here is the influence this will likely have in normalizing better practices. Just like Amazon has made shipping in a few days normal, Google has the chance to make better privacy normal, with other businesses following suit soon after. Any who don't follow will risk public outrage as they deserve.
     
    Sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/google-wont-use-other-web-tracking-tools-after-phasing-out-cookies/ar-BB1ecdGn 1
    https://www.droid-life.com/2021/03/03/google-says-it-soon-wont-track-your-browsing-anymore/ 2
  18. Like
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from Tamesh16 in $650 Million Facebook Lawsuit   
    Summary
    Judge approves $650 million Facebook privacy settlement over facial recognition feature
     
    For those who didn't hear the first story, Facebook was under lawsuit for it's new Tag Suggestions feature, which violated Illinois law by storing biometric data without consent. The setting was originally opt in by default
     
     
    To be fair they later fixed this by adding a direct notification alerting users about the usage of that feature, but the lawsuit was based in the grounds of the initial use and so stood.
     
    This lawsuit has now passed and 7/10s of a percent of their 2020 annual revenue from 2020 will be given to people in Illinois. 
    *Edelson is the attorney from Chicago
     
    My thoughts
    I think it's certainly a step in the right direction, but it still begs the question of why we need this step at all. While we may question the motivations of people in big tech, we can't pretend they're dumb. Are these geniuses so shortsighted as to not understand how wrong it is to decide for the customer what data they will give up without asking? Do they honestly think in this tin foil covered world that people are itching to have FB use facial recognition on them without permission, all for the time savings of knowing what friends to tag in a pic? If anything this seems like such a stretch of the limits of what tech is designed for. Stop criminals, find missing children and victims of sex trafficking, ehh sure I guess... Be able to be told what friends and family are in MY picture that I took and posted myself, now that's amazing! Do they really think we're that incapable of identifying our own friends by name that they need to employ an advanced facial recognition software just to make sure pics are tagged accurately?
    Back to the news though, it's a small drop in the bucket, but the money really isn't important. In law, Precedent is King. Try arguing something is legal when it's been deemed illegal in court previously, you won't get far. We need this kind of precedent to help protect us from a very unregulated industry. Our government(s) have failed for years to adequately prepare for or even talk about the challenges that are facing and will continue to face society from our increasing reliance on technology. We've got a lot of ground to cover and make reasonable legislation for data privacy. 
     
    Sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/judge-approves-24650-million-facebook-privacy-settlement-over-facial-recognition-feature/ar-BB1e4A7D?ocid=uxbndlbing1
     
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/17/17246222/facebook-bipa-fines-penalty-tag-suggestions-facial-recognition2
  19. Informative
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from soldier_ph in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    Summary
    Cookies are being phased out of the Chrome browser next year, and Google is stating that it will not be build or use any other tracking technology to track web browsing traffic. 
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    I never let myself place a company in a moral bearing when it comes to tech. The only truth I am confident on is the motivation of money to a business. Any business half as large as Google doesn't get where they are unless they know how to make money. This would seem a move that loses them substantial money, so there's only a few possibilities I see. 
    1. Public pressure has forced them to make the choice with business as normal getting them bad press and potentially loss of business. This is great because this would mean the public has truly done their job giving companies a reason to be better. If the public cares enough, things will get better guaranteed
    2. Government pressure around the world has them future proofing their business model and trying to be one of the first on the scene to "lead the way for privacy". This is great as well because if politics demands better of society, I simply can't argue. It's the job of government to protect its citizens and I think this falls in line with that. 
    3. They decided to out of the goodness of their collective corporate hearts... Probably not. Again I never take a moral bearing with companies, so even if this was a case where leaders at google thought this was the right thing to do, why not sooner then? Why the post, why not just a quiet change for the better? At minimum, it's a good PR move that will positively impact the world I think. And I can't argue with that. Good intentions are great, but good actions are greater, so if they did a good action for the wrong reason, I'll still be fine with the action. 

    Overall: I think the best part here is the influence this will likely have in normalizing better practices. Just like Amazon has made shipping in a few days normal, Google has the chance to make better privacy normal, with other businesses following suit soon after. Any who don't follow will risk public outrage as they deserve.
     
    Sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/google-wont-use-other-web-tracking-tools-after-phasing-out-cookies/ar-BB1ecdGn 1
    https://www.droid-life.com/2021/03/03/google-says-it-soon-wont-track-your-browsing-anymore/ 2
  20. Informative
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from wkdpaul in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    Summary
    Cookies are being phased out of the Chrome browser next year, and Google is stating that it will not be build or use any other tracking technology to track web browsing traffic. 
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    I never let myself place a company in a moral bearing when it comes to tech. The only truth I am confident on is the motivation of money to a business. Any business half as large as Google doesn't get where they are unless they know how to make money. This would seem a move that loses them substantial money, so there's only a few possibilities I see. 
    1. Public pressure has forced them to make the choice with business as normal getting them bad press and potentially loss of business. This is great because this would mean the public has truly done their job giving companies a reason to be better. If the public cares enough, things will get better guaranteed
    2. Government pressure around the world has them future proofing their business model and trying to be one of the first on the scene to "lead the way for privacy". This is great as well because if politics demands better of society, I simply can't argue. It's the job of government to protect its citizens and I think this falls in line with that. 
    3. They decided to out of the goodness of their collective corporate hearts... Probably not. Again I never take a moral bearing with companies, so even if this was a case where leaders at google thought this was the right thing to do, why not sooner then? Why the post, why not just a quiet change for the better? At minimum, it's a good PR move that will positively impact the world I think. And I can't argue with that. Good intentions are great, but good actions are greater, so if they did a good action for the wrong reason, I'll still be fine with the action. 

    Overall: I think the best part here is the influence this will likely have in normalizing better practices. Just like Amazon has made shipping in a few days normal, Google has the chance to make better privacy normal, with other businesses following suit soon after. Any who don't follow will risk public outrage as they deserve.
     
    Sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/google-wont-use-other-web-tracking-tools-after-phasing-out-cookies/ar-BB1ecdGn 1
    https://www.droid-life.com/2021/03/03/google-says-it-soon-wont-track-your-browsing-anymore/ 2
  21. Informative
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from TVwazhere in Google won't be tracking you anymore?   
    Summary
    Cookies are being phased out of the Chrome browser next year, and Google is stating that it will not be build or use any other tracking technology to track web browsing traffic. 
     
    Quotes
     
    My thoughts
    I never let myself place a company in a moral bearing when it comes to tech. The only truth I am confident on is the motivation of money to a business. Any business half as large as Google doesn't get where they are unless they know how to make money. This would seem a move that loses them substantial money, so there's only a few possibilities I see. 
    1. Public pressure has forced them to make the choice with business as normal getting them bad press and potentially loss of business. This is great because this would mean the public has truly done their job giving companies a reason to be better. If the public cares enough, things will get better guaranteed
    2. Government pressure around the world has them future proofing their business model and trying to be one of the first on the scene to "lead the way for privacy". This is great as well because if politics demands better of society, I simply can't argue. It's the job of government to protect its citizens and I think this falls in line with that. 
    3. They decided to out of the goodness of their collective corporate hearts... Probably not. Again I never take a moral bearing with companies, so even if this was a case where leaders at google thought this was the right thing to do, why not sooner then? Why the post, why not just a quiet change for the better? At minimum, it's a good PR move that will positively impact the world I think. And I can't argue with that. Good intentions are great, but good actions are greater, so if they did a good action for the wrong reason, I'll still be fine with the action. 

    Overall: I think the best part here is the influence this will likely have in normalizing better practices. Just like Amazon has made shipping in a few days normal, Google has the chance to make better privacy normal, with other businesses following suit soon after. Any who don't follow will risk public outrage as they deserve.
     
    Sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/google-wont-use-other-web-tracking-tools-after-phasing-out-cookies/ar-BB1ecdGn 1
    https://www.droid-life.com/2021/03/03/google-says-it-soon-wont-track-your-browsing-anymore/ 2
  22. Like
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from Moonzy in Poll about love   
    1. Exactly, time gives more knowledge and more room for acceptance of that knowledge. Or lack of acceptance
    2. XD
    3. That's exactly it. Love is about caring despite flaws. Loving without condition. So when you find those flaws, you find you either love them a bit more or love them a bit less
    4. You forgot your meme, here you go
    5. I really hope you're trolling, but in case you're not, the Arctic circle is around the northern pole while Antarctica is in the Antarctic Circle around the South Pole
    6. Did we establish a viewpoint from the OP or his wife on this? Maybe I missed it but I thought her view was Americans don't live by it, not whether it was a thing or not. Having said that I 100% agree. Happy Life Happy Wife. When she's right, she's right, When I'm right, it's about her being right, when I'm wrong, she's right, and when she's wrong, she's wrong about me being right.
     
  23. Informative
    Jtalk4456 reacted to Moonzy in Poll about love   
    -resist urge- 
     
    In most cases, I feel like the more I understand someone, the more flaws I find
    People tend to be nice to strangers
    When they get comfy around them they start showing their true color, and more often than not, it's not better than if we're strangers.
  24. Agree
    Jtalk4456 reacted to minibois in Poll about love   
    I could see this going both ways, so a simple "yes/no" answer really is not enough to answer this question.
    The more you get to know someone, the more you can love them, but the opposite could also be the case. You can learn more of their flaws, which could lower the love you have for them.
     
    Of course love is about accepting each other for who they are and learning to deal with each other despite of them, but there is a limit to that too.
    *angry Antarctica noises*
  25. Like
    Jtalk4456 got a reaction from RoseLuck462 in $650 Million Facebook Lawsuit   
    Summary
    Judge approves $650 million Facebook privacy settlement over facial recognition feature
     
    For those who didn't hear the first story, Facebook was under lawsuit for it's new Tag Suggestions feature, which violated Illinois law by storing biometric data without consent. The setting was originally opt in by default
     
     
    To be fair they later fixed this by adding a direct notification alerting users about the usage of that feature, but the lawsuit was based in the grounds of the initial use and so stood.
     
    This lawsuit has now passed and 7/10s of a percent of their 2020 annual revenue from 2020 will be given to people in Illinois. 
    *Edelson is the attorney from Chicago
     
    My thoughts
    I think it's certainly a step in the right direction, but it still begs the question of why we need this step at all. While we may question the motivations of people in big tech, we can't pretend they're dumb. Are these geniuses so shortsighted as to not understand how wrong it is to decide for the customer what data they will give up without asking? Do they honestly think in this tin foil covered world that people are itching to have FB use facial recognition on them without permission, all for the time savings of knowing what friends to tag in a pic? If anything this seems like such a stretch of the limits of what tech is designed for. Stop criminals, find missing children and victims of sex trafficking, ehh sure I guess... Be able to be told what friends and family are in MY picture that I took and posted myself, now that's amazing! Do they really think we're that incapable of identifying our own friends by name that they need to employ an advanced facial recognition software just to make sure pics are tagged accurately?
    Back to the news though, it's a small drop in the bucket, but the money really isn't important. In law, Precedent is King. Try arguing something is legal when it's been deemed illegal in court previously, you won't get far. We need this kind of precedent to help protect us from a very unregulated industry. Our government(s) have failed for years to adequately prepare for or even talk about the challenges that are facing and will continue to face society from our increasing reliance on technology. We've got a lot of ground to cover and make reasonable legislation for data privacy. 
     
    Sources
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/judge-approves-24650-million-facebook-privacy-settlement-over-facial-recognition-feature/ar-BB1e4A7D?ocid=uxbndlbing1
     
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/17/17246222/facebook-bipa-fines-penalty-tag-suggestions-facial-recognition2
×