And how do you determine which websites are good other than checking if they are doing seo?
Is reddit.com good or bad? If a good site that does seo should it be taken out?
And what if what you're searching exists only in a non good website? Isn't it better to show a result from a non good website than showing nothing?
Most articles (like the one you linked or ) conclude that it's technically possible, but found no evidence of the microphone being used when it shouldn't.
>That's actually a pretty good idea. When I'm in a position to get a rootable handset,
I meant easy for any security researcher, to the point where one would've found something by now.
But if you have assistant or siri on your phone then the microphone is always on, so it wouldn't really be trivially easy to test.
In the mean time: I think it would be trivially easy to verify: just take a rooted phone and log accesses to the microphone.
Somebody would've found that it's being activated when it shouldn't by now.
>I'll admit that it's quite likely that advertising algorithms are sophisticated enough to anticipate our needs based on previous behaviours with uncanny precision and timing.
Or it could be that among the hundreds of random ads we see online everyday one of two happen to be related to one of the dozens of conversations we had in the past days.
>I can hardly think of anyone I know that can't attest to the experience of discussing something as a non-sequitur, only to receive ads about it shortly thereafter.
No way in hell that's true.
Things are bad enough, you don't need to make stuff up.
I'm too late to comment, but my 2 cents:
As long as there's something important at stake people will try to hack the test. There's no way around that.
The best that can be done is to try to keep the correlation between the "test" and what it's trying to measure add high as possible and to teach everyone how to hack it, that way everyone is on a level play field. If everyone hacks it then the difference in scores will be mostly about what is being measured and not about who hacked it and who didn't.
That's why big companies actually advice interview candidates to practice on leetcode and give them example interview questions.
But I agree with the main point that being good only at "hacking tests" in life instead of being good at your profession is very bad.
I know big companies do a lot of AB testing with interviews and change their approach over time (Google stooped asking why are manholes round and looking at AST scores because data showed them those things had almost zero correlation with performance).
IMO I find the regular mobile version of Reddit as bad as the AMP.
I just ended installing an unofficial app (boost) for whenever I wanna browser Reddit on mobile.
If not, why can a brain with a bunch of neurons and chemicals?
Either:
- It can, and so can rocks.
- It can, but there's something else unknown that's necessary to generate consciousness.
- It can't, consciousness doesn't exist.