Not to mention that with the latest few generations of CPUs Intel has also increased burst/decreased base clock while promising unrealistic power draws.
In other words, Intel's CPUs are mostly about "burst" performance these days, too. They don't get anywhere the promised peak performance for any significant amount of time.
Exactly. They are likely doing this because smartphone makers were already moving away from supporting as cards. The patents will likely expire soon too.
Let's hope Google doesn't intend to enable the feature for the 2020 elections (or any election), because this one thing could single-handedly do to Google PR-wise and politics-wise what the trending topics did to Facebook in 2016/2017.
Can you even imagine what will be the end result of this strategy?
Basically 1 site getting 99% of the traffic when everyone does voice searches and Google only gives them the "top answer" (which may or not may be correct).
From a UX perspective, once they've already committed to this, it will be difficult for Google to change this to giving users "more alternatives" even if they wanted to (which they won't, unless there' a lot of backlash about it). It will also be worse than what we have now, as far as "giving alternatives" goes, as those will be limited
Until the new EU copyright law with the upload filters, YouTube didn't have to make the copyright takedowns as aggressive as it did. It went way above and beyond what the law was requiring. Why did it do that, you ask? Because if was part of whatever deal Google made with studios in order for them to give it access to songs for its failing music services.
One could also argue that if YouTube's takedown fitler wasn't as "good" (where good doesn't actually mean objectively good, but aggressive) as Google made it be, then EU's upload filter wouldn't have passed either, because then there would have been no example of anyone "doing it right" (read: taking down anything that smells like a cousin of a copyrighted work, including stuff like public works, bird chirps, etc -- just to be sure).
My point is, YouTube wouldn't have needed as many humans to check if people's taken down stuff was needed to be taken down, if its algorithms weren't designed to be so aggressive in the first place.
Google dug its own grave here. Now it's stuck between the creators who increasingly see it as a hostile/too risky service, and the people who keep calling for YouTube to censor stuff that "offends them", and who will never ever be satisfied with whatever censorship regime YouTube puts in place, just like the copyright trolls never will be either.
Facebook's problem is that it has no incentive to fix these issues, which it sees as "features" for the most part.
That's why it always seems to improve its privacy policy only as a result of regulations and scandals. Even then, it only does the minimum necessary that it believes will appease everyone for the time being and until the next scandal.
Could this be used against Facebook in court eventually? Like showing this as evidence that Facebook has been maliciously trying to abuse its users' privacy?
Zuckerberg said that because that would have benefited Facebook if it became true. It's like IBM now saying "forget Intel and transistors, quantum computers are the future!" (because we happen to make them and be ahead of everyone else in this).
I think that could also have been the "official reason".
The same reason could have been used to give the NSA some legroom for instance, but tell everyone that's why they won't do so much verification in the future.
Honestly, that serves Google right. I've been saying it for years how stupid Google is for encouraging 99% of Chromebooks to be powered by Intel chips (even more than Windows machines), when the Chrome OS itself is architecture-agnostic (for the most part).
It was just stupid through and through. Even today we see ARM coming to full versions of Windows, but Google is still kicking it with Intel CPUs.
I think the last I heard of them they were almost into bankruptcy-mode, so yeah it does seem like they did this out of desperation. Still short-sighted, though.
Yes, and Facebook and Dropbox have enabled Yubikey/U2F support in the same way. It's stupid and it gives you a false sense of security (because you're using hardware tokens, which you'd expect to be more secure).
I would still say it's not recommend to backup those keys in the cloud, and I hope LastPass at least has the common sense not to keep those keys on the same server as the LastPass passwords. However, a middle ground may be backing up the keys before you change/reset your phone, and then disabling the feature (I'm not sure if they actually wipe or reset those keys every time you disable the backup feature, though, but I hope they do that).
It is the "new" Microsoft, in terms of PR. Kind of like AT&T's "Gigabit to the press release." Tons of positive press for the announcement, but nothing real behind it.
In other words, Intel's CPUs are mostly about "burst" performance these days, too. They don't get anywhere the promised peak performance for any significant amount of time.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-dr...