Legit question: What can an ISP collect when most of the time I'm going to secure "https:" websites? I mean, they can only see the website I'm going to, but not what is going on there, right?
Is just collecting where people are going that lucrative to sell?
The DNS data is super useful for developing a demographic profile.
For example, they could pretty trivially assert with high confidence that a pregnant woman is in your home or that you’re shopping for a car. The tinfoil hat scenarios are interesting as well.
There's what websites/apps you use, but also your behavior patterns. Are you a night owl? How often do you check some website or app. I'm sure there's a lot of other information they do gather based on the "metadata"
Not what they can, what they MUST as required by law. Assuming US, see DTA aka CALEA - at any time little green men with a warrant can ask for tranparrent packet capture of ISP client's traffic.
Also, in many places (Europa) there is collection and retention requirements for ISPs.
That + other data can be used to build a behavorial profile so it's not what your ISP is doing necessarily but what the people they sell the data to are doing with it (or the people they sell to)
DNS records and net flow data. They can also inject JS in http sites, hijack domaijs to do the same, do traffic shaping. But I am biased, I work for a VPN company.
I don't have the app, but from what I can tell, using a VPN doesn't help either. I guess when you downloaded it from the U.S. Android/Apple app stores, it flags you somehow, so a VPN can't help?
If that's the case, you could download it from a non-US app store and it should just work...unless TikTok is doing some denial based on from IP address, then you need foreign TikTok + VPN (or at least a way to mask your IP address being American in origin). At least the USA doesn't have a great firewall (yet?), so they aren't going to block it that way (or maybe they can buy the tech from Huawei, which they adapted from Cisco in the first place).
Spoiler alert: It's not the worst song of all time. There is no one single "worst song", just as there's no one single "best song". It may be one of the worst, sure. But when doing something this subjective, there's no way everyone in the world universally agrees on everything...including "worst" and "best".
I don't care how many "experts" they asked or whatever, it's not the worst song. It always bugs the heck out of me when I see clickbait crap like this. If they think "We Built This City" is worst than...say..."My Pal Foot-Foot" by The Shaggs, then it just means this writer is full of shit.
On this side-topic, Wikipedia has trouble writing e.g. "worst X of all time", because that can't ever be an objective fact... so instead it has articles named "List of X considered the worst" and "List of X notable for negative reception", to which things like "Worst X of all time" redirect:
Everyone already knows there is no objectively worse song, and the writer knows everyone knows. It's hyperbole to emphasize the writer's opinion that it's a really bad song, an inconsequential rhetorical flourish no reasonable person takes seriously.
We'll come back with 'We don't pay monthly subscription models for shady companies like adobe who then charge you a large fee just to cancel your monthly subscription fee to use photoshop' there's cool things like photopea, but yeah there's no rebuttal for Windows only and Windows-specific made software.
To each their own. I'm rooting for linux desktop to be the future though. For gamers, for photo editors, artists. All of us.
> Adobe softwate is best we have on market on audio-visual production.
It's good, but besides Premier I really don't think many of Adobe's products are hot shit nowadays. You can do most of the same compositing you do in Sony Vegas with Blender and Davinci Resolve; today's tools are diverse enough that you don't need Adobe. And for music production and photo editing, I don't even think Adobe is a competitor. Affinity Photo eats Photoshop's lunch, and everyone else that wasn't going to pay for a photo editor can use GIMP or Photopea.
Unless you explicitly work at an Adobe-only shop, I really see no reason to continue using modern Adobe products. The value is just so bad compared to what you can buy elsewhere.
Adobe product has dynamic-links between each others, so you can easily make cut in Premiere, motion graphic in After Effects with assets from Photoshop, sound and music in Audition and all changes are visible instantly in one project.
For photography unfortunately all other editors are impractical, except Capture One which has even worse price policy.
Don't let me start with collaboration with other studios or plugin compatibility.
While Affinity might be true alternative for Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator, it is not compatible with linux.
Every Mac I've used for the past 5 years haven't been expensive. I switched away from Windows 5 years ago, and not looking back. Heck, some of the video cards for Windows costs more than my entire system here.
If the base model will work for you, then it can be super cheap, but when you need upgrades, it gets expensive super fast.
I’m optimistic that the M4 chip based Macs will have better IO across the line and better RAM specs for AI, and overall not get us sucked into upgrades for no purpose. If you use multiple displays, you basically have to get pro or ultra chips, but rumor is M4 will offer way better options in this regard with more display engines and thunderbolt ports.
Yeah, I never understood this whole "you're locked in, you can't get out of their ecosystem."
This has always been BS. I've switched from Apple to PC to Linux back to PC to Apple back to PC and then Android etc etc. It's actually quite simple. At the moment I'm using Apple stuff, but there's nothing holding me here other than just me being here.
Where is the button to copy your photos from apple to google? Until something like that exists normal people are 100% locked in.
They may not even own a laptop with sufficient storage to download all their photos to. If all they have is one, maybe two, phones with limited storage they're totally fucked. Just like Google & Apple designed it.
And it's not like these services make it easy to bulk download/upload your photos, either.
Suppose Walmart has a monopoly in California and Target has a monopoly in Florida. Anybody in California can shop at Target, they just have to go to Florida. "I've switched from California to Florida and then back, it's actually quite simple."
But if you're in California and you need some batteries, even if flying to Florida to buy them from Target is possible, even if you used to live in Florida and might move back there next year, even if you have the money to buy the $300 plane ticket, it's still prohibitively expensive to do it solely to avoid a $5 markup on batteries. Then the two stores don't really have to compete, and you get stuck paying the monopoly price for everything. That's what it means to be locked in.
> You buy different stuff, copy your data across and sell the original stuff.
You buy a different house, move your stuff across and sell the original house. How is it a crappy analogy?
The issue is that the cost of moving removes your choice from individual decisions because they all have to be made together. If you want iMessage then you have to sell your Android and get an iPhone. If you want F-Droid then you have to sell your iPhone and get an Android. What if you want both? This isn't because the free software community would be unwilling to set up a store/repository for iOS, it isn't because no Android messaging app would be willing to interoperate with iMessage, it's because you're locked in to one platform or the other at any given time and have to make all your choices together.
Someone who wants to provide an app store that charges lower fees would have to convince everyone to switch to their platform instead of only convincing people to switch to their store.
The reason they make it that way instead of being able to choose what you run on your device independent of the kind of device is in order to lock you in.
I remember when this first dropped and I was like "this will never catch on. The Internet is using telnet to log into different systems....and FTP...and Usenet...and gopher...and IRC. This World Wide Web is just a gimmick.
Is just collecting where people are going that lucrative to sell?