Jump to content

Nebraska

Members
  • Content Count

    9407
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by Nebraska

  1. ^^^ it doesn't. i guess that's the joke. the film abandons that pretty quickly and just makes it a gag for amy to use but the real message here becomes "if you're a basic bitch i.e. everyday woman and not a super model, you can be hot too. you just need to believe in it because nobody else will anyway"

     

    have to say i left the theater feeling pretty so...

  2. kHVzB3v.png

     

    a few chuckles here and there but really it's (again) an okay skit extended to what felt like 2 hours.

     

    basically rene (schumer) is an overweight forgotten girl who works in some dumpster of an office  for a company full of super hot chicks. working in the main office is her dream come true. so she goes to the gym and on her first day knocks her head and suddenly she thinks she's "beautiful" (thin) and suddenly she's extremely confident. 

     

    this rips off both BIG and shallow hal. there's also a guy that looks frighteningly similar to dave chappelle and plays a roll with two other dudes that harkened to the film half baked

     

    i don't know about this one. i think schumer is on damage control but the damage might be irreparable at this point. 

  3. Still watching this and thinking that Zuck is getting an easy-ride (relatively) because the people questioning him barely have a grasp of the technologies involved. Imagine if he was being grilled by fellow people in the tech industry. They would have crucified him by now.

     

    yes- there were also repeat questions and questions which specifically had to do with rules congress put into place that make some of the things they're now asking for impossible. it's like they want to eat their cake and have it too.

     

    also, loved the congressman who asked "hey, how about just hiring reviewers from middle america like bismark north dakota since california is such a lefty state? yuck yuck!"

     

    zuck's answer was this

     

    also, whoever is in charge of typing up those random "thank you for your question. this is a follow up" replies is going to have a rough 10 days. 

     

    TgCtNDM.png

  4. Just an assumption of mine I guess, is that when you put any information in the public domain like that, someone somewhere is either using it or trying to profit off it.

     

    correct. when you put something in the public domain: eg. your fb profile set the public it's impossible for fb to regulate a data mining company/organization from gathering that info. fb does use a lot of AI tools to gather information eg. when you join a certain group their AI technology will cross reference other things you have in common to better target ads to everyone in that group eg. everyone in this group likes hamburgers. now we all get carl's jr ads etc.

     

    the problem is that tech is growing and advancing faster than humans can handle which means it's now possible for fb AI technology to find certain words you say or type in facebook chat to cross reference with people in your address book or other things you type when this app is running in the background. not malicious in intent, but you see how suddenly your compromised simply because you decided to search for something on google whilst waiting for a friend to reply to something you said on chat/messenger app.

     

    zucks recommendation for this is to encrypt all your information/data- but of course that then means more research than the average consumer is willing to do hence a mixed bag: 1. tech is more advanced than regular humans can handle 2. artificial intelligence will be the end of humans

  5. I'm not sure I understand the issue.

     

    A) Facebook as a platform allowed an app that gathered data from people's (a small amount of users, relatively speaking) conversations including from people that didn't download (consent) to the app. Friends of those that consented to downloading the app. Is that correct?

     

    B) We all know Facebook was gathering most of our info + selling it or it was being used by intelligence or otherwise hacked/distributed anyways.

     

    There's a disconnect there. Is it just that this is the first official proof or what? It seems like a non-issue to me. 

     

     

    Editeditedit: how much of this information/privacy stuff is included in EULAs that everyone hits "I have read and agree" on that they didn't really read? Srs question. 

     

    a. correct. the app was created by a guy called aleksandr kogan. the app basically did what every app does: do you consent to using this app. we need access to your profile, your phonebook, your microphone. to see what why we need this data, real our TOS. thanks

     

    since nobody reads to TOS, what they didn't know (maybe it wasn't even written in there) is that all this data would be sold to cambridge analytica. facebook found out about this in 2015 and asked cambridge analytica and any other data mining group that may have had access to this data to delete their data. they said "okay. we just did". facebook said "k thanks". that was not the case so damage control is in progress.

     

    b. facebook says they collect data but they do not sell it. what they do is when an advertiser wants their product displayed, eg. to all farmers in stockton california, facebook takes all the data it has on people that like farmers or are farmers in stockton california and floods their asses with that advertisers product/service. 

     

    so advertisers never have access to said data. facebook acts as the proxy betwix your data/information and the advertiser

  6. lol @ congressman mcnerney

     

    mcnerney: hey zucks, so i tried to get my secretary to download my entire history on facebook and nothing came up. WTF?

    zucks: yeah, well, that means you have not shared anything on facebook

    mcnerney: explain that to me

    zucks: do you even have a fb account?

    mcnerney: i'll have to follow that up with you

     

    checked. mcnerney has a fb account, but it seems to be incredibly generic and probably made by some guy in his campaign trail that has long since been fired.

  7. Yeah, I agree with you but what really irks me is that they want the incredible wealth but aren't willing to take any responsibility for how it is made. Today's questions seem much more probing. Honestly, for a CEO, Zuck doesn't seem to have a clue what is going on within his company. He's been too busy counting those dollars.

     

     

     

     

     

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that Zuck, Sandberg and the others haven't really created anything apart from the facebook framework. Users create the content, for free which generates the profits. Zuck feels that he's not responsible for what is created but he's more than happy to take the money it generates.

     

    It all needs regulation. 

     

     

    i agree with some of what you said but not sure everything.

     

    1. i think everyone wants wealth (or at the very least, a lot of us do). zucks and his wife have committed giving away a large portion of their shares of facebook to charity and even given $10 billion thru his wife's charity. zucks also drives non-fancy (cheap?) cars and only seems to allow himself the vice of real estate. personally if i was worth $55 billion, i'd right now be party on the moon pissing down on earth. 

     

    i don't see facebook as owing anyone anything. 

     

    2. you're right. facebook (the platform) isn't valuable. it's the data. zucks agree's with this- which is why the breach is so serious. if it wasn't for the data breach because it's got the data of 10 billion people around the planet.

     

    3.you said zuck has created nothing and feels no responsibility about it but is happy to take their money. correct. what exactly should he be responsible for? if you use facebook, don't share data and you'll never have to worry about 3rd parities stealing your data. you could go further and not engage with the facebook platform.

     

    i'm also not to sure about any business that feels responsible on how it's money is made but isn't more than happy to take it. that by definition is a business. it's a separate entity from a human being (who might have some morals or regrets about screwing people or whatever) but as a business, facebook is beholden to their shareholders

     

    p.s. does anyone else get the feeling the congresswomen are drilling zucks much harder than the congressmen? 

  8. I despise social networks (particularly Facebook). These cronies are great at making billions of dollars because they do not give a flying fuck about their users. With social media, users create all the wealth for free. That's a great business model for Zuck and all the cronies in Silicon Valley.

     

    but i don't see why you blame him. i don't have a facebook because i'm not into social media, but i don't blame zuckerberg for creating. i'd have created facebook if i could, i cannot- hence did not. zuckerberg did. even he thinks people that trust him with their data are "dumb fucks" but people- despite knowing this still use his platform. as far as i see it, they get what they deserve. and so does he.

  9. so it turns out we might be going to war with russia over syria. china could (maybe) stop this by stepping in since or (worse) ending the trade deal with .us and starting a new one with .ru. either way, at least you know the gun happy, red blooded NRA card carrying members will be lining up for this chance to use their shooter for more than just waving around during rallies

     

    RJVS1Iv.png

  10. Didn’t watch the testimony with sound on because work space, but did they really call the Cambridge Analytica deal a hacking incident?

     
    no. zuckerberg had said that user security was always the top priority at facebook. one of the senators asked zuckerberg whether facebook has ever been hacked. zucks said it had. she then grilled him that facebook obviously didn't care about security because they hadn't addressed security issues when that hack happened and hence the cambridge analytica data breach. zuck glitched but said that he was unable to answer the question properly until they did an audit of the cambridge analytica servers but he was happy to follow up on it with her as soon as he got that info
     

     

    i watched almost all 5 hours

     

    good god

     

     

    haha well, there were some times i couldn't watch but tried to pay close attention to what was happening. usually when they laughed or said something silly i tried to tune in. each time they went for a break i would miss when they got back by maybe a minute or two

  11.  is this hearing specifically about CA or more broadly about how facebook handles privacy?

     

    it's more about how facebook handles privacy although the senator who drilled that the most specified that since facebook is an american company, it kinda owed it a lot more to protect american people's data.

     

    also brought up was that even though cambridge analytica is based in the united kingdom, there's no way to tell where the data is actually kept i.e. they could have a server in russia and thus there would be no way to do an audit and find what information that was actually compromised.

     

    zucks answer to this was basically that it's facebook main focus right now to fix security- to which another female senator drilled him about being hacked before. for a brief minute zucks glitched, but came back with a very technical answer about how it would be best if people just encrypted all data. this didn't seem to be understood and since each member of the committee only had 5 minutes to ask questions etc. there clearly wasn't enough time to explain some "technical terms"

     

    a big part of this also seemed to be the committees need to find a person to blame for the data breach- and whilst their main scapegoat is facebook- they seemed to ignore personal responsibility on the endusers as far as what they choose to share about themselves. and whilst facebook has ballooned into a behemoth it currently is- despite this data breach many people (about 9 billion of them) find themselves stuck using the service because everyone else is on the site. even as one senator put it: all of them are facebook users as that's how the communicate with their constituents. 

  12. i watched almost all 5 hours  and noticed a couple of things:

     

    1. zuckerberg was had obviously gone through this with his legal team to the point where he came off a little contrived eg. almost 60% of the first 3 hours had him going "i'll have to get my team to follow up with you" and "thank you senator and that's a very important question and i'll have to get back to you on that"

     

    2. not sure if this was a legality thing, but it made me chuckle that he didn't know how soon facebook takes to delete user data if they delete their account. i know it's something like 20-30 days for that data being purged from the servers, so i'm guessing during the breaks there were techs being told first person to turn that into 7 days gets a huge bonus. 

     

    3. a little of a witch hunt from the perspective of the senators. seriously: everyone wanted things to be perfectly catered to them which is a little impossible for a company the size of facebook and everyone thinking even their mistakes are facebook's problem. if you choose to share some compromising picture of yourself and someone saves that image and later uses it to discredit or blackmail you i don't see how that's facebooks fault.

    one senator didn't seem to understand this and that wasted a few 30 or so minutes with every other senator thinking "ha! we finally got him"

     

    4. for a billionaire he had the worst suit in the room. how does that work?

     

    5. facebook stock went up by something like 4% after zuckerberg mentioned the potential for a paid platform of facebook (you get no ads, they don't track you etc) although zuckerberg doesn't really like this idea, it seemed to clam the senators down since in their world, if you're paying for it, it must work.

     

    also, i found this image of zucks going to the testimony a little disturbing

     

    416x232_063_943913152.jpg

     

  13. cdcr102%20retro.jpg

     

    a masterpiece in sleaze. emanuelle heads to america to find some people making snuff films. things end up in washington, and emanuelle is basically bedding some senator type. oh- and there is a horse called pedro. you'll never believe what he gets up to.

     

    again: perfection

  14. 857218997_o.jpg?format=500w

     

    one of my favorite films EVER.emanuelle goes to kenya to photograph (?) something then ends up not doing so. fantastic b-movie sleaze. and what happened to karin schubert? actually- nevermind.

     

    ten vintage cameras out of ten

×
×
  • Create New...