abfarid

joined 1 year ago
[–] abfarid@startrek.website 11 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010), pretty weird and original movie based on a comic book series. I recommend.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 12 points 2 months ago (9 children)

I wasn't reminding them that ham isn't vegan, I was referencing "chicken isn't vegan?" from Scott Pilgrim.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 24 points 2 months ago (22 children)

Ham isn't vegan..?

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

When I said "well almost" I meant the impossible case in the second point. Otherwise, everything is implemented as a I listed. What kind of Android do you use that you haven't seen these features? This granular permission system has been the standard since Android 11.

In iOS it's implemented in a very similar manner, but I don't use it as often to describe it in as much detail as with Android.

The OS can create the file and then hand it off to the app.

That is also implemented, but is a separate API, storage access. You're free to upload any file you like if the app requests it. You can create the file with any voice recorder of your choosing. Although I can't imagine a scenario where Facebook would request a voice clip. When it's requesting the mic it's usually for live audio, like calls.

How is a user to know if something was captured when the screen was off?

It's true, if you gave the app permission to use mic whenever the app is running, it can in theory quietly use mic in the background. If you start a call and lock the screen, the call will continue in the background. Not sure if there are any safety measures implemented for that. But if the case was of a routine sneaky mic spying, it will become obvious fast, due to battery drain and network usage.

still don't have basic controls like restricting network access

There are some network controls, like restricting background data usage (depending on Android version/implementation). But yes, there's still no granular network permission system, you have to manually go into setting to turn on restrictions. Thought to fair, there isn't a consumer OS out there that lets you easily restrict network access to a certain app, even on desktop (correct me if I'm wrong). And I can see why, it would be counterproductive for vast majority of users to manually give network access to each app they install, when the whole point if the device is to have apps that have network access.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

All of those things are implemented in modern Android. Well, almost.

  • Whenever the app wants to use microphone an OS popup asks you if you want to give the app permission to use the feature. The options are "when using app", "only this time" (it will give the app one-time-use access to the mic) and "never". If you click the 1st or 3rd options, you wouldn't see the popup again and you'll have to change the permission from settings. If you choose the 2nd option, you can manually choose to give permission each time it's requested.
  • This is impossible? The OS can either let the app use the mic or not, it can't tell what the app is doing with the mic. Unless you mean give a one-time permission this time, but not in the future, then we covered that in previous point.
  • Android always shows a green indicator on screen (upper right corner) when any app is using the microphone or camera API. Well, almost always, some system apps might not trigger it. But if you want to see which app is using mic/camera you can tap the indicator.
[–] abfarid@startrek.website 2 points 2 months ago

The problem you described sounds more like a side effect of the core issue – corporate greed. Cars can be bad, and overuse is a problem, but let's not blame them for the faults of the system. Until the core issue is fixed, nothings will be truly efficient and useful, because those aspects will be sacrificed to profit.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago

I already crossed out the statement you're referring to and added and edit, but I was talking strictly about weight carrying efficiency. As in, how much useful work is done compared to carried weight. You still make some fair points that I didn't consider though.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If what you say is true, and they can fit all the necessary tech into 50kg, or anything under the weight of an average human, then I agree, in efficiency, that (50%+) beats even the best bus scenario (35% at full capacity) according to my calculations. By efficiency, I mean what percentage of carried weight is useful.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I already crossed out that statement. See details here.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 0 points 2 months ago

See this.

Spoiler alert: I decided I was wrong.

But try the cool calculator I made!

[–] abfarid@startrek.website -1 points 2 months ago

I have already rescinded that decision in this comment. But I wasn't comparing the volume, I was comparing the amount of useful work done relative to the weight. If you wish, the details are in the linked comment.

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I'm not a car owner, so I might be wrong. But I don't think it's normal for people to decide owning a car based on whether or not there's room for it.
Also, I think they meant that self-driving cars that will be taking non-owners to their destination. Since there's already a car that's taking me, I don't need to buy my own.

view more: ‹ prev next ›