Fly4aShyGuy

Like others said, most likely your HA IP changed, had this happen recently in a power outage. Need to either set them to use hostname or make the HA machine have a static IP.

Have any evidence that both are the same regarding privacy or just your personal feelings?

one day when Apple start changing their tune on privacy policies

I don’t think this is a fair point, unless someone was making the claim that Apple is some benevolent do-good company out of the kindess of their own hearts. No one really makes those claims though, I think most who choose their products for privacy reasons simple thing they are better than the other of the main 2 options, and that like any corporation needs to be watched closely. Just because I chose an Apple device at this time does not mean I advocate that they will always be a better choice for privacy (or any number of characteristics someone may care about when choosing a phone).

almost every apple user says shit like this while using Gmail, Google docs, and the Google app on their phone

Again, just your feelings. Maybe statistically it’s even true that most do, but at least there is a choice on these things. I can and do avoid all of these, the only things I load from google are tracking scripts embedded in websites that make it through several layers of blocking.

privacy means not giving your data to ultra mega corps

Not sure this is true, surely there are large corporations that are at least better than others with regard to privacy. It would be especially foolish to assume the inverse of this, that just because a company is small that they will respect privacy or act better.

An alternative way to buy things or even store value (maybe not Bitcoin specifically on that one, but other currencies). Admittedly I don’t think its the best at any of those things, but it doesn’t have to be. I know that’s always the ant-crypto person’s next come back, suddenly change the goal post from having some value to being the best at a particular thing. Some people value the decentralized nature of it, and right or wrong, I don’t see why their choice of using something you don’t like shouldn’t be allowed.

I don’t use them, and agree with a lot of the reasons for not using them, but I just don’t see my self as the ultimate arbiter of what should be allowed. If there is no value, then eventually it will fizzle out, and we can all continue not using them like we have been. While the environmental angle is very convenient to vilify it (or any other thing you personally don’t like for that matter), I don’t see how it fairly gets applied to this and not almost every aspect of life. Cars for example, a great one because it falls into the same trap. The general consensus on Reddit/Lemmy is that any one who drives a pickup truck is a POS, but even if the anti-truck gang could wave a wand and ban them all, will it then become the anti-rav 4, CRV, etc etc. As long is there is any choice in a vehicle, someone could always they that someone is driving something bigger and worse for an environment than the need and that they are a bad person for it.

Another great example is air travel. This one gets some attention around celebs and private jets, but for the most part you don’t see people in here saying what a piece of garbage anyone who travels by air more than once a decade or so is. I mean I haven’t done any non work travel in that long, so clearly no one else should need to.

Sorry this got long, but it all comes back to the point of who gets to decide? Worth taking a setup back from the group think of Reddit/Lemmy and realize there are always going to be people who do things and even use resources on things that you (or me) think are stupid.

You need help.

I don’t think he’s arguing that, and I don’t think you believe that either. Doubt any of us would consider that content ethical, but what he’s saying is it’s not nearly the same as actually doing harm (as opposed what you said in your original post).

You implying that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow into those awful things is extremely poor taste. I’d expect so much more on Lemmy, that is a Reddit/Facebook level debate tactic. I guess I’m going to get accused of that too now?

I don’t like to give any of your posts any credit here, but I can somewhat see the normalization argument. However, where is the line drawn regarding other content that could be harmful because normalized. What about adult non consensual type porn, violence on TV and video games, etc. Sliding scale and everyone might draw the line somewhere else. There’s good reason why thinking about an awful things (or writing, drawing, creating fiction about it) is not the same as doing an awful thing.

I doubt you’ll think much of this, but please really try to be better. It’s 2024, time to let calling anyone you disagree with a pedo back on facebook in the 90s.

We really need to grow past this idea that just because you don’t personally use or like a thing that it is useless. Who are you to get to decide what has value and what doesn’t? If there wasn’t value, no-one would buy or use it. The unspoken part of this argument that gets repeated so often is that the reasons people are interested in the thing are reasons associated with groups you’ve been told very confidently don’t matter. Lack of control from the government? Only a nasty conservative/libertarian hick who “don’t like no GuBmint” would want something like that. Anonymity/privacy reasons (I know, only for for certain coins)? Only a scammer would want that, why care about privacy if you have nothing to hide?

None of this is even promoting or saying I’m pro crypto, just saying these are poor arguments.

As an example, as someone who doesn’t follow any sports whatsoever, I could argue the amount of resources and travel for this big football game coming up are vulgar. I mean come on, I don’t care about this game so why should anyone else be allowed to use resources on it?

Inevitably, you will come back and say but sports offers X, Y, and Z real benefits. If I were to continue the analogy of the inverted argument, the next argument is ALWAYS: “Yes, true, but it’s not the absolute best or most efficient at X, Y, or Z so therefore that doesn’t count”. It could very well be argued that any benefits coming from the super bowl could be done in cheaper, more environmentally friendly ways. Do we cancel this game then? Is anyone who is interested in it a POS?

This was an example, I actually realize there are tons of benefits to sports even though I don’t get much at all out of it personally. But it’s part of becoming a well adjusted person to realize people are going to have different values and I don’t get to decide what is important to them, or that because they are part of an out group their interests and values don’t matter.

To make one more example, if someone said they put their life savings in gold in their safe to prep for some doomsday scenario, I certainly wouldn’t agree at all that it was a good choice. A fairly objective case could be made that it is in fact the wrong/bad decision, however I still don’t get to decide their values don’t matter just because I don’t agree with them, or more importantly because Reddit/Lemmy folks told me confidently that those values only belong to preppers/conservatives/libertarians/etc etc and also that those are bad people.

💯

Thanks for responding, genuinely trying to understand it a bit, admittedly expected that most fall into C) especially in these techy areas.

Check this out: https://www.freetelly.com/

This thing gives me serious 1984 vibes. I hadn’t read the book when I first heard of this, but I now realize the name is pretty much and open play on the tellyscreens in the book. Reminds me of the black mirror episode where you have to pay to stop watching.

Since I didn’t comment elsewhere on the thread, my plan of attack for now is usually older TVs (even just a few years old are still really good quality), even if they are smart but not ever connected. Apple TVs on each one, also buy the 2-3 year old version of this used for about $40-$50 not any more then I used to spend buying Roku sticks. Gives me a good enough balance for now, and before Apple haters pile on, yes it’s not perfect, but there have been some studies showing these are some of the best behaved streaming devices. More importantly than what the streaming device is, I have the ability to chuck them and add a PC or whatever else without having to replace the actual TV.

Also, what will that look like 10 years from now when “popular app of 2024” is dead and gone, and new thing has no reason to build an app for a 10 year old car. Theres a reason why people like these mirroring systems to much, let the device that is likely to be replaced every 2 or so years and get regular updates handle the software.

I’m agreeing with you maybe I’m just misreading the tone of your reply haha.

That’s certainly less desirable option for many. But why is wanting modern cross platform messaging so bad? It works iPhone to iPhone, works Android to Android, theoretically if there were other players (maybe if BB or Windows still had phones) they could also achieve the same using RCS with Android. This argument is and has always been about default protocols that phone can communicate with. Of course downloading 3rd party chat apps, emailing them, mailing them a letter, using a cup and string, stopping communication because they chose to use a phone from a different manufacture are all still “options”.

Me too, really do not understand this on Lemmy of all places. It isn’t and never has been outside of people still school age been about the color of the bubble. I truly want to understand this to the point I’m going to start asking anyone who posts this personally the following:

Do you A) really think that the following are not at all important to people:

• Read receipts
• Typing indicators
• Reactions
• Transferring photos/videos in a way that doesn’t look they were shot on an early 90s camera phone
• Potential E2EE *(Potential because my points are not necessarily specific to Beeper Mini and iMessage, but also relevant to the conversation around Apple supporting RCS and the unknowns about how that will work)

B) Not aware of these things or any of the differences between iMessage, SMS, RCS, etc and truly believe the only difference is the bubble color? C) Is this just a smug reaction to the possibility that one of these App work arounds work iMessage will no longer be as exclusive if they were to succeed, and trying to reduce down the desires of those who would use it (and also the desires of Apple users who want these benefits with everyone regardless of who manufactured their phone)

@[email protected] I’d be curious to know which phone platform you use?

I’ll repeat it ad naseum, but of course it’s not about the color of the bubble. I don’t know how this keeps getting repeated, are people really that tech illiterate on Lemmy of all places? People who care about privacy want this for sure, not to mention anyone who wants to send pics or video in a reasonable quality or not be part of subpar group chats.

It literally could mean the difference of not having to use an iPhone for someone who really cares about E2EE messaging and has mostly iPhone contacts. And inbefore “but you could use WhatsApp or Signal, etc”, well yes you can but it’s only as useful as the amount of people in your contacts who also you it. I really do personally wish Signal gained more steam, but so few use it it’s pretty much useless.

Definitely prefer a real book, of course a ton of convenience to be gained by the various ebook readers. One thing I’ll say I have a very hard preference for though is at least an e-ink screen when reading on a digital device. Spend enough time on backlit screens, way nicer when I can’t have a physical book to have e-ink and regular lighting.

I think the issue is with what is implied by the headline as well as the context of being posted on a privacy community. I as well as many others probably ready that headline assuming the police somehow had access to that data from the app outside of the person’s phone. I know that also makes some assumptions, but probably the ones most people on a privacy community are thinking/making. Most of us would be assuming that if the app was sharing this data with police, or the police had some back door way of accessing it, then this would be a big privacy news item. The fact that they viewed the data on an unlocked phone and app is much less a privacy concern, more of a policy concern that they are allowed and able to do that (admittedly, still privacy related but to me this is like 80% policy concern and 20% privacy related). Also what actually happened is pretty different from what the headline on a privacy community implies which is where people are having issue. Some examples of this to make it even more clear…

• Statement: Facebook post “My aunt got her covid vaccine and died within 24 hours! Don’t trust these vaccines!”
• Implication: The covid vaccine killed her.
• Reality: She was in a car accident on the way home.

The statement isn’t technically false. The first sentence is true, the second sentence can absolutely be the opinion of the poster. But the combination implies that she died from the vaccine, something totally different from what actually happened.

• Statement: c/Privacy post “Police use OneNote information to convict murder suspect!”
• Implication: Moreso because of being on a privacy community, most would read this as police somehow having access to OneNote data either through sharing or backdoor.
• Reality: Suspect had a print out of their shopping list made in OneNote consisting of a shovel, ducktape, bleach etc and coordinates of a remote spot where body was found laying on their desk at home.

If it was posted to a non privacy related community, the assumption that there was a privacy concern may be much less, but I think the headline would still be misleading. In the facebook example the person was misrepresenting what happened to push a political agenda that vaccines are bad. In both the murder example and in the article linked in your post, the headline is trying to misrepresent what happened to increase engagement.

There are very clear reasons why the headlines weren’t the following:

• British police use data found on unlocked phone to investigate miscarriage. (Still concerning for reasons of morality and policy, but probably not going to get tons of attention on a privacy community)\
• RIP my aunt who died in a car crash on her way home after getting the covid vaccine.
• Police convict murderer found with evidence of crime on suspect’s desk. (Yes, I realize the list isn’t “evidence” per say, but you see what I mean. This post would not get any attention either.)

Since this got really long, it’s important to say I was just trying to show how the headline is misrepresentation of what happened. I don’t think you posted it with any ill intention or that there aren’t other moral and political issues with what is happening.

The assumed connection between advertising and privacy. While they are often related, there are situations where they can be different concerns. Two very common lines of reasoning I see a lot:

• Regarding Brave - that is is just an advertising company so shouldn’t be considered for privacy - without getting into a whole debate about Brave, I think advertising can (and used to for many years) be done in a way that doesn’t harm privacy. And while many privacy advocates may be 100% against advertising of any kind, I think there are some people out there that care a lot about the privacy but not as much against any ad of any kind. The idea of a model that respects privacy but allows for advertising supported free content is at very least interesting to me.

• The assumption that Apple’s growing advertising business must mean declines in privacy coming. While they certainly could lead to that, I don’t think that is a given. There are several areas (specifically areas where already browsing 3rd party items such as apps or businesses) where contextual ads could be effective without harming privacy at all. Not saying I approve at all of these advertising moves on what are sold as premium devices, just that the assumed decrease in privacy is assuming a lot.

My point is only that these can and potentially should be looked at as separate issues. I’m not ignoring that there is a conflict of interest created where a company like Brave could go back on privacy features to improve the advertising features or that Apple does the same for their advertising money, but I think it’s a bit of a miss to assume the worst possible outcome in these and other scenarios.

Excited to check it out!

Just another note of thanks as others have put here. I really need to get more active in these communities, love to see this grow, great project!

Yes, definitely personalfinance!