> There's an entire mesh of metrics that are used to calculate your relation to separate accounts.
> It's the confidence tolerance that keeps you and your partner from getting banned together.
Thanks for that bit of info, the degree of disgusting that google would be tracking who people's partners are is off the scale invasive and should be a reason for an immediate complaint to the various data privacy authorities.
Thus spake the Googler... sorry, but I think I understand it just fine, I think it is you that is not understanding it properly but since your salary depends on not understanding it properly I won't blame you for that.
> google would be tracking who people's partners are
is a misunderstanding of that comment. Nothing they said implies that Google is tracking who people's partners are. You're welcome to have whatever opinions you are about companies, but I'd also hope that you're careful not to read conspiracies into places where they aren't stated, especially in about institutions you have preconceptions about.
Whether it is tracked explicitly or implicitly, the idea that there is a matrix that establishes your linkage to other accounts is the bit that I take issue with because the conclusion for me is that Google is able to infer things about the people they hold data on that they never ever should have access to.
If you have a credible alternative explanation of what it does mean then you are welcome to supply that but instead you are making statements that are unverifiable:
> Nothing they said implies that Google is tracking who people's partners are.
That's a very, very thin line because if Google can figure out which account to ban and which account to let live because they are close enough that without that matrix the two would be seen as the same entity then that's already many levels of privacy violation too far. Being able to derive who is partner with whom once you have that data is trivial, whether Google actually does this or not is irrelevant because you can't prove a negative.
You are well into the territory of defending the indefensible here and I'm giving you a lot of leeway because you most likely have a mortgage and a bunch of other responsibilities but effectively you are defending your employer from a claim of gathering data without consent. Which - as I probably don't need to remind you - is a massive violation of privacy.
This all revolves around implied ability, I don't give a rats ass about whether or not there is an actual implementation of that ability - as it seems you do -, Google should not have this capability because I did not consent to its tracking of the relationships of my accounts vis-a-vis other accounts. Legal basis for data processing and informed consent are both staples of privacy law.
I know that both of these, but especially consent are difficult topics for Google, they seem to approach these things from a 'we can therefore we will' angle and that has resulted time and again in them being found on the wrong side of the lines of ethics and legality. This is just one more little nail in that particular coffin.
> This all revolves around implied ability... Google should not have this capability
The entire "ability" here is, as far as I can tell, is that it's possible to connect accounts to IP addresses. This is something that practically every system does. HN does it to stop abuse and ban-dodging. Wikipedia does it. You're reading an incredible amount of bad faith into the concept of IP bans.
> but effectively you are defending your employer from a claim of gathering data without consent.
I'm very specifically not doing that. I've made no comment on what the practices of any particular company are. Ultimately I don't know. What I do know is that the comment you're replying to doesn't say the things you keep implying. If your goal is to silence any disagreement, please feel free to continue speaking like this, but if your actually interested in engaging, I'd implore you to appreciate that I'm speaking for myself and not threaten me with..whatever you're implying here.
> This all revolves around implied ability, I don't give a rats ass about whether or not there is an actual implementation of that ability
I mean this is critical. If all you care about is the "ability" every site on the internet that you can log into has the "ability". All of them, every single one. The stance you're taking here is that a website supporting the ability to log in inherently violates your privacy because, whether or not it does, it has the ability to track information that could correlate your account with other accounts (and many of them do!)
The existence of said data store implies that they are using that data store, it is impossible without looking in the box to know what is being done with it. Erring on the side of caution with these things seems to pay off, especially when it concerns Google, who in this respect is only outdone by Facebook.
1. Yes and no. Discord "guilds" have their metadata and chat messages managed by a single shard somewhere in GCP. However, voice is managed using servers hosted by ID3, a much smaller provider. If you find the right websocket server you can repeatedly take down voice instances still.
2. Emojis are just lines in a database, and yet they still charge a fee for that. The reason why it's free is because that's the selling point. Also, that sharded "guild" is actually part of a sharded container that still has a cost to run, and manages the write-lock for the data in that "gimme".
The whole tangent here feels weird since I _choose_ what to run on "my" VPS. Noisy neighbors have been a solved problem for decades.
3. This is actually the killer feature, centralization sells because of network effects. You're only on Discord because your friends are on Discord.
4. Teamspeak has this with myTeamspeak now. You've been able to have multiple sessions for a long time, but now it's in a nicer interface.
Looking at this, it looks like it's intended to handle that by only denying certain code paths.
Think denying access to production. But allowing changes to staging. Prove yourself in the lower environments (other repos, unlocked code paths) in order to get access to higher envs.
It's definitely interesting to see this roll around since the only individuals that see the CAPCHA page mentioned, are users of Cloudflare's DNS services (knowingly or not).
P.S. Shout-out to dang for dropping the flags. I have a small suspicion that their may be some foul play, given the contents...
I use my ISP's default DNS servers and have consistently gotten the CAPTCHA page for weeks now. The CAPTCHA seems to be broken too, rendering archive.today entirely inaccessible.
You could play with that though since "both sexes" could be perceived as "both individuals that have a sex" and "husband and wife" don't have any technical meaning.
It's already a play on 両姓(both surnames), which could have meant that parents could constitutionally block marriages. Not that it matters, though. People are frankly more concerned about tax frauds and crime record laundering abusing same-sex marriages than imagined traditional family values.
The vast majority of the "rules" apply only in extreme business situations, generally in the oldest Japanese companies.
Outside of that, the Japanese are extremely forgiving of those that are visiting not following _every single custom_. There's an understanding that so long as you're not disrupting the peace (being super loud, making a mess, etc) then a level of tolerance is applied.
LGBT is much of the same way where, your personal feelings and decisions don't impact everyone else, and thus it's not their business to decide what you can/can't do.
Once you're living here, there's some expectation that you start learning and participating in customs and traditions, but even that's extremely flexible.
Thanks! The people were were visiting weren't actually very traditional. I had a feeling they were a lot more accepting than I was told. And I'm not a loud person ever.
Now I wish I could go back some time to really experience it :)
As soon an number porting is available, I'll be signing up for a Pro plan.
Been using Google Voice for _years_ and it's only gotten worse.
I know that the whole schtick is that you don't need an app, but is one on the table for Android? Things like native integration with the Dialer and Notifications are a strong candidate for a native integration.
Oh. And JP phone numbers, but that's a stretch goal.
Native integration with the dialer would mean that when I dial a number in the _stock_ dialer, then it allows you to select the dialing-account/SIM to use.
Notifications are cool, but having the ability to filter the categories of different types of notifications, or from different users, is also something that can't be done via Webapps/PWA.
Yeah they do. There's an entire mesh of metrics that are used to calculate your relation to separate accounts.
It's the confidence tolerance that keeps you and your partner from getting banned together.
reply