I don't know where this "ownership" debate came from. My ownership of my machine depends on strict, broad + fine grained control over what third-party devs (who are not me) get to do with my machine. Our interests are incompatible and hostile, in an era where most "native apps" ship analytics and marketing SDKs, or are videcoded. If macOS didn't offer these controls I would run every apps in a browser where it's sandboxed. This isn't the 90s.
This change is a reaction to a viral story from a tech reporter who shipped all his texts to Meta without meaning to, which tells you there's a consent and transparency issue for nontechnical users. I don't think anyone in the industry has figured out a proper solution. Unless you never interact with nontechnical people, it impacts your privacy indirectly no matter what you do. Though as technical user I hope we can get more fine-grained control and auditing.
Exactly. Third party software must be to some degree treated adversarially. Yes, even FLOSS software, as that can become subject to things like supply chain attacks. Giving any random program one downloads carte blanche access is as insane as leaving one's doors unlocked and open 24/7. It's inviting serious trouble.
> My ownership of my machine depends on strict, broad + fine grained control over what third-party devs (who are not me) get to do with my machine. Our interests are incompatible and hostile, in an era where most "native apps" ship analytics and marketing SDKs, or are videcoded. If macOS didn't offer these controls I would run every apps in a browser where it's sandboxed. This isn't the 90s.
There are benefits to sandboxing F/OSS too, but most of what you describe there are problems with proprietary software published by for-profit corporations and have dramatically less applicability to anything else.
> "I have a folder open in the Dock. If I click on another folder, shouldn't that then open?" Yes, and it does.
Look at their gif carefully. Enable Dock magnification, click one folder, then click on any part of another folder's icon for which the click/cursor would no longer be on that folder's hitbox after the magnification effect moves to center that folder.
I'm pointing out that you're running the harness which gives you full control over the execution of every tool call, therefore you're responsible for its actions and their consequences.
It's intellectually dishonest to throw our hands up and say that this is just how it is and there's not much we can do when that couldn't be further from the truth.
We could almost completely eliminate any possibility of escape/collateral damage but we don't want to because doing things safely is inconvenient.
What if you needed all of your other tabs? It enrages me that how the browsers all decided that my state and my history were worthless to me.
You know what happens when your business is a browser and you gradually deprecate different functions of a browser, rather than refining and expanding on them?
I'd guess GP id enraged that you can't selectively choose, or that there is no option to have the tabs restored without auto-loading, so you can keep your list of open work without being forced to reload a freezing tab.
On Firefox, when it reopens, it isn't actually running any tab other than the one you were looking at when it closed.
When you switch to one of the other tabs, that's the first time they are actually instantiated and run. So if you had this tab in the background, your machine crashed, and Firefox reopened on boot, it would not crash again.
Often, it will report "We are having trouble restoring your session", seemingly without reason, and that dialog has a very simple system for choosing which windows and tabs to recreate vs which to discard. I think you can change a setting to always use this dialog.
It is "recorded" by the Apple Watch's microphone, "stored" in the Watch's Secure Exclave, transferred and "stored" in the paired iPhone's Secure Exclave where it is transcribed, then trimmed of fluff words, then uploaded to Private Cloud Compute for summarization and trimming "sensitive info", then back down to the phone, and then deleted off both Secure Exclaves. The summary is synced through iCloud to the Siri app on all your devices, is "stored" for a week, and can be saved permanently.
Apple's marketing screenshots show "Always On - Listen for conversations all day" as one of the four main options when you first turn it on.
Is the speech to text happening on the watch and then the transcription is getting summarized on the phone? If so, the argument may not be as clear cut IMO.
This seems like a huge overreaction. I really don't get what the big deal is here? Are people worried about Apple snooping on conversations? They already have enough iPhone to track any device in the world with the AirTag network? Not to mention every phone has like 3 microphones lol
Are you worried about malicious actors snooping on conversations? They have always already been able to do that longer than I have been alive and a transcription app isn't going to change that
I don't believe it. Photography was invented by non-Big Tech, and was widely popular and useful before Big Tech adopted it.
Miniature cameras on your body, and summaries of every conversation you have which you can store permanently, are concepts from either spy movies or weird sci-fi. I think it's a big mistake to see this as a continuation and not as a very different trend.
We may have to accept that Big Tech people are weird and cannot be trusted with any of this. See the Valley people now feeding all their personal conversations to agents. They are creepy and they are creating products in their own image.
> I don't believe it. Photography was invented by non-Big Tech, and was widely popular and useful before Big Tech adopted it.
Cameras were invented before big tech. Big tech took cameras and made them better and more ubiquitous. Microphones were invented before big tech. Big tech is taking them and making them better and more ubiquitous.
To be clear, I agree that the leaders of these companies are weird and untrustworthy. I'm arguing that the utility they will offer the world is worth far more to most people than the privacy concerns. Because of this, most people will happily adopt this technology.
Friction makes all the difference. Google used to sweat over 100ms in page loading.
Running a voice memory all day long is one thing. Pressing a button that automatically summarizes every conversation you'll ever have is a step change.
They're already doing that on reddit. Fanboyism is so dangerous. No one should be that emotionally invested in a corporation, it lets them get away with anything.
I think so.
I don't know where this "ownership" debate came from. My ownership of my machine depends on strict, broad + fine grained control over what third-party devs (who are not me) get to do with my machine. Our interests are incompatible and hostile, in an era where most "native apps" ship analytics and marketing SDKs, or are videcoded. If macOS didn't offer these controls I would run every apps in a browser where it's sandboxed. This isn't the 90s.
This change is a reaction to a viral story from a tech reporter who shipped all his texts to Meta without meaning to, which tells you there's a consent and transparency issue for nontechnical users. I don't think anyone in the industry has figured out a proper solution. Unless you never interact with nontechnical people, it impacts your privacy indirectly no matter what you do. Though as technical user I hope we can get more fine-grained control and auditing.