Readit News logoReadit News
rantwasp commented on 'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy (2007)   papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pape... · Posted by u/zekrioca
jmclnx · 4 years ago
Funny thing, even 2000 years ago or so this concept of "Nothing to Hide" was known. There is a passage in the bible about "throwing the first stone".

Seems people in power throughout history have been wanting to pry into people's private lives. And 'regular' people feed that need themselves by watching "Reality TV" and following paparazzi type media outlets.

rantwasp · 4 years ago
you’re not allowed to use the bible that way. you can only use it to justify irrational beliefs and hate towards others that don’t align with your view of the world. /s

seriously though, if people actually applied what the bible said in the context that it is said I think we would all literally be in a better place.

Dead Comment

rantwasp commented on Once an Addict, Always an Addict?   deprocrastination.co/blog... · Posted by u/vitabenes
strken · 4 years ago
I was obese[0] 3 months ago, and had been that way for about two years. Now I'm a healthy weight. It was easy to do with minimal lifestyle changes - calorie tracking, minor dietary changes, and couch to 5k running a couple of times a week.

The way most studies of weight loss work is by recruiting a pool of obese applicants. This is intrinsically biased: someone who has had a lifelong struggle with obesity can be recruited across 100% of their lifespan, whereas someone who spent two years obese and then lost the weight and kept it off can only be recruited for that 2 year window, or 2.5%. There are probably other factors that come into play that bias the sample even further.

The question these studies answer is "given a random obese person, how likely is this person to lose weight?" This is a relevant clinical question, and the answer is usually a pretty low percentage. For an individual who hasn't struggled with obesity their entire life, a more pertinent question is "given that I have just become obese, how likely am I to lose the weight again and keep it off?" The chances of that are much higher.

[0] By BMI, which has a pretty big margin for error, but I was visibly overweight.

rantwasp · 4 years ago
it depends how long you’ve been obese, how obese you were and if there were external factors that led there.

glad getting back to a normal weight worked for you. This is awesome.

rantwasp commented on CSAM Detection Technical Summary [pdf]   apple.com/child-safety/pd... · Posted by u/kristianpaul
simondotau · 4 years ago
> The turn off icloud argument also does not work.

Doesn't it? It worked on Android for the past seven years. Haven't heard anyone complain about the fact that Google has being doing pretty much the exact same thing to all photos uploaded to their cloud.

> So the solution is: stop using Apple.

Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and probably a dozen other major companies who didn't even consider it necessary to tell us.

rantwasp · 4 years ago
stopped using Google, M$ and Facebook a long time ago. Guess it’s time for Apple to go.
rantwasp commented on CSAM Detection Technical Summary [pdf]   apple.com/child-safety/pd... · Posted by u/kristianpaul
simondotau · 4 years ago
Your last point is a slippery slope that began the moment you allowed any software on any device to update itself. Literally any software that updates itself could be converted into a treacherous surveillance system at any time.

And literally any cloud storage service could betray you at any time without pushing new binaries to your hardware.

And nobody ever has to tell you shit.

rantwasp · 4 years ago
for all that i know the software doesn’t even need to update itself. it may have the backdoor built in.

so now what? go back to landlines? stop using a “smart”phone?

rantwasp commented on CSAM Detection Technical Summary [pdf]   apple.com/child-safety/pd... · Posted by u/kristianpaul
simondotau · 4 years ago
Turn off iCloud Photos and it won't run the surveillance. Seems reasonable that if you want to store your photos on someone else's hardware, they should get some say whether their hardware is used to store child porn.
rantwasp · 4 years ago
seems reasonable? here’s the thing: you start with a clear cut case like cp and after that you add different things that, as a government, bother you. you’re in a totalitarian state faster than you can blink.

The turn off icloud argument also does not work. Who tells you they’re not going to keep pulling stunts like this? So the solution is: stop using Apple. Now what?

rantwasp commented on Lies, Damned Lies, and Vaccine Statistics   drrollergator.substack.co... · Posted by u/forcry
lefrenchy · 4 years ago
In the “ What the numbers really showed” you use the lack of vaccinated sample size to justify something for the unvaccinated, but then immediately use that small number to your advantage to say “if 24 people had died then the vaccinated would have a higher death rate”. It’s disingenuous and doesn’t show anything.

Also if the vaccine prevents contraction then it should be counted as preventing death/hospitalization, but obviously those numbers aren’t obvious. Seems to me the vaccine IS preventing contraction so you would need to account for that wouldn’t you?

rantwasp · 4 years ago
yes. the “if” maneuver for the mental gymnastics gold! cannot believe i wasted my time reading this pedantry
rantwasp commented on Lies, Damned Lies, and Vaccine Statistics   drrollergator.substack.co... · Posted by u/forcry
rantwasp · 4 years ago
> 36 of 84611 in the unvaccinated versus 0 in 1066 in the vaccinated group. 36 in 84611 is roughly 1 in 2350, but we only had 1066 infected in the vaccinated group. There is not enough information to claim the death rate per infection is higher or lower, and that uncertainty is indicated in the graph above. That is worlds away from the relative immortality communicated by the efficacy number 100%.

Okay. But immediately after…

> In fact, if there had been 24 deaths in the vaccinated group the efficacy reported would have been 3%! Because it was looking at rates over time, 24 deaths would have been the death rate over time similar to 36 in the unvaccinated group. But clearly, among those infected, 36 in 84611 is a far lower death rate than 24 in 1066!

If? Now we’re onto hypotheticals. Here is an idea, you have so few because they were vaccinated!

Also the mental gymnastics of saying: “it’s better to not be vaccinated in case you get covid because you are less likely to die” is worthy of a mental gymnastics olympics gold medal.

I understand that the CDC guy may have worded things differently but directionally he is right.

But, again, one cannot just ignore the hypotheticals of Dr. Gator when it provides validation for your anti-vaxx stupid attitude.

rantwasp commented on In internal memo, Apple addresses concerns around new Photo scanning features   9to5mac.com/2021/08/06/ap... · Posted by u/goindeep
tengbretson · 4 years ago
I honestly don't get the uproar here. This is opt-in, so how is it any more outrageous than existing MDM software that people opt-in to for work reasons which are way more invasive?
rantwasp · 4 years ago
the CSAM part is not opt-in.

technically you could not update to ios 15 or disable icloud, but it's not opt-in by any means.

rantwasp commented on An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology   appleprivacyletter.com/... · Posted by u/nomoretime
simondotau · 4 years ago
Translation: The child porn industry needs to wait until we solve world hunger. Priorities, people!
rantwasp · 4 years ago
The real translation is that nobody gives a fuck about the children but they use this as an excuse to peddle their bs backdoors.

u/rantwasp

KarmaCake day1586September 17, 2019
About
z00@mailbox.org
View Original