Microsoft had a movies and TV store?

I think Xvideos.

I don’t remember, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Like, I personally find it useful enough to have stuff enabled, but I do get that people want it off for real. I wouldn’t be surprised if the only way to achieve that is to degoogle the phone.

I think the article is misunderstanding what is happening (though to be clear I think the email is at fault for that). Google is making it so that app developers can integrate Gemini better by allowing Gemini to interact with those apps. There is a menu inside Gemini where you can switch these interactions on and off (Inside Gemini, click your profile in the upper right corner and press apps in the menu).

I’m assuming from the email that this will be enabled by default which is a choice they’ve made and which absolutely could be argued as invasive. That being said you’d actively have to use Gemini and have it be active on your phone in order for it to interact with those apps.

Assuming Google records whatever you do on your phone whenever you do those things, which many privacy minded people of course legitimately worry about and feel uncomfortable with to various degrees, this is not really anything but another way for your assistant to do more things. If they want to read your stuff that’s not really dependent on a switch in the Gemini app.

So if you have Gemini entirely disabled I don’t think this is relevant. Only if you actively seek to use it and do not want it to be able to integrate with external applications will these settings be relevant to you.

Well, yeah. I haven’t actually seen this email yet in my personal inbox, nor have I found the opt out personally. Google is kinda weird with their staggered rollouts but I figure it’ll turn up. I’m on a Pixel, so anything else would be quite odd.

edit: seems to be in the top right corner of Gemini, press your profile picture and then apps. That’s where the settings are. You can opt out of Gemini having access to any app in the list on an individual basis.

I don’t feel very concerned… That’s kind of the point of the service.

Good that there’s an opt-out.

edit: I dug around for it. They seem to mean the literal “Apps” settings page and not the “Settings” page. Every individual app that Gemini is capable of connecting to has a switch there. In Gemini, press your profile picture, then apps. In there you can both access the activity setting and decide which apps Gemini has access to.

Ok.

I’ve used it to figure out a button on a vintage calculator which had multiple humans give up assuming it’s broken. Neither I, nor the AI knew what it was for but I could use it as a very willing conversation partner that didn’t grow tired of trying new things.

I’ve had it help me come up with an effective deep fry batter that fit my exact needs and gave a perfect result.

It’s usefulness is limited in many respects but if you have a rough idea of what you’re talking about it will (mostly) be helpful. Until it forgets things.

Feels like the Escobar phone

deleted by creator

I feel like youtube is losing sight of why users are paying for the service then.

To me, personally, youtube is useful enough that I will keep paying to remove ads entirely (in combination with ublock). That being said, there will come a time when the value proposition is no longer balanced. Then I will stop paying, and probably stop using it as well.

But as always with Google, I question whether their motive is to kill another service. They’re very competent at that specific thing.

NICE

That’s some weird shit

Yay!

This might be the funniest shit I’ve read.

Intel Exhibitionist

You do keep saying that you understand but you also implore me to consider how taking agency away from people, telling them they are not capable of making a decision about themselves and their body is morally and ethically flawed.

Something which I’ve never said that I personally haven’t. So I think we’re closer in personal belief on the issue than we maybe assume we are.

Again, I understand what you’re saying. I am talking about stated intention as far as the discussion goes. That people cannot consent in a situation where money changes hands can absolutely be interpreted as part of the foundation but my personal thought on that is more that it is due to negligence.

In effect, it is irrelevant to the proponents of this model whether or not consent can be given.

Does that make it better? No, not at all, and I definitely think that those who consider the legal construction to be sound should have to discuss that point as well.

I have had to clarify this a couple of times now in this thread but what I wrote is not my personal stance. It is what the stated intention is. That doesn’t make it right or effective.

All my my comment was intended to do, was to add context to a discussion about a society that I live in. I did not intend to put my personal stamp of approval on the consequences of that societal context.

I do personally believe that, assuming the stated intention is true, the law hasn’t done what was meant to be achieved perfectly and that it should be discussed whether there is something that can be done to better the situation.

We have a few moralistic laws in Sweden that at the very least need more debate. The laws around sex work are definitely on that list imo.

Sorry, maybe I was being unclear (while I’m quite good at English, I do realise that “being sympathetic” has a different meaning than I intended).

I do not necessarily think it is the correct model. There are a lot of valid opinions on how to do it, and I do lean more towards well regulated legalisation. But I understand the thinking that made the system what it is. I see the points that favour it. That said, I also see the points that disfavour the current law.

I do think it’s healthy to have a discussion about it, and I think Sweden does need to have that discussion. We need to have a discussion about weed too, for example.