‘The online instructions for restricting data access are very complex and confusing, and the steps required are scattered in different places. There’s no clear direction on whether to go to the app settings, the central settings – or even both,’ says Amel Bourdoucen, a doctoral researcher at Aalto.
Sounds like there’s some dark pattern BS going on with those settings.
Well, the idea is that anything and everything can be hacked. It’s just that the difficulty varies wildly; some being trivial whereas others are impossible until someone finds an exploit. If you’re working with a total black box, you’ll have to make many assumptions, which means that figuring stuff out may take a while. If there’s at least some documentation, such as a patent, you won’t have to guess absolutely everything. That doesn’t guarantee that it’s going to be easy. Maybe the patent doesn’t go into much technical detail, but still manages to describe the product in just enough legal detail that the company can sue anyone trying to come too close.
I don’t think you mentioned the announcements often heard in shopping centers. As long as your ears work, you’ll be exposed to these ads.
That’s a lot like the papers that come with physical products, such as cameras or keyboards. This category of advertising isn’t particularly offensive IMO, and it’s also fairly relevant as opposed to most online ads.
What if you go full speed? Will it break something?
Oh, but the board directors might want to replace the CEO anyway.
If it’s patented, it can also be hacked more easily.
What kind of theory do you recommend?
You’re right, that it would be bad for humans. I’m just looking at the big picture and what would good for it in the long run.
Humans already make similar decisions anyway. Certain part of the population will suffer so that another one can benefit. Occasionally, these sorts of decisions also lead to deaths. In an even larger scale, humans have also decided that certain animals and plants can suffer so that humans may thrive. Imagine if the ecosystem as a whole could make a decision like this about itself. Do you think the it would keep humanity, remove it entirely or maybe trim it down a bit?
But seriously though, humans are here to stay for the time being, and I prefer to keep it that way. Unlike Linkola, I’m in no hurry to see disasters wipe out a portion of humanity.
And even if you can carry out a proper experiment, it might be useful to see of there’s already a survey on the same topic. If there is, you can use that data to design your experiment, and hopefully you’ll be able to take important variables into account.
Ok, so a newer version should be fine I guess. If that’s the case, the title should be: “If you’re still running these prehistoric software, Windows won’t be able to update“