If you are referring to Beth Rosenbarger, she took a job with a different employer some time ago.

The mayor’s appointment to the historic preservation commission had no experience with historic preservation. The appointment did not get the motion and second required to bring it up for a vote.

Although, If I have my own Amazon referral link in my blog post and they replace the referral code in their feed, I would not be happy about that.

They could be injecting their own ads or affiliate links into the content.

For example, if a post links to Amazon.

I have not looked at the source code.

I ended my Zellij eval when I ran into this dangerous bug when Sync and Fullscreen are combined.

It potentially sends commands to a server in a hidden window you can’t see.

https://github.com/zellij-org/zellij/issues/3458

Tmux doesn’t have this problem.

The story hypes this to be a bit more than this is.

Framework sent a laptop to the lead Mint dev. He’s going to try make sure it works well with Mint, but it already does.

The more low key framing straight on the Mint blog is here:

https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=4762

Rights. Scammers were in the listing before, and AI has helped them appear more trustworthy.

Watching history repeat itself.

Date pickers that assume you have a 5 digit birth year.

WhatsApp is a Meta business unit, yes.

And it has its own rules and policies for what is shared with other Meta business units.

Google has spell out the same. Just because you provide data like location to one Google service doesn’t automatically mean every other Google service can access it.

And they can’t just change their internal data policies however they like as some of this is governed by legal regulations.

Here’s a a story about how Google is not allowed to share data across business units without user consent, at least in the EU.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/12/24036312/google-digital-markets-act-services-user-data-opt-out

Here WhatsApp spells out what it shares with Meta:

https://faq.whatsapp.com/1303762270462331

It’s reasonable not to trust them, but they could get in serious legal trouble if they are claiming the data is encrypted and they can’t access when in fact they can.

WhatsApp has a different business model. There are a lot of businesses on the platform and businesses are charged to do business messaging with users.

In some parts of the world WhatsApp has become a somewhat essential part of life so plenty of businesses what to participate and access the users there.

How Meta got into that position involved zero-rating— a practice where they work with ISPs to make sure there are no data fees to access WhatsApp.

While free seems good, the practice allowed WhatsApp to quickly dominate, crowd out competitors and make itself essential.

https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/is-zero-rating-a-threat-to-human-rights

“What makes a zero-rating practice, like that of WhatsApp in Brazil, particularly threatening to human rights is when it is the only economically viable option for internet access in a society. In Brazil, as an internet connection can swallow up to 15% of the household income, users rely on these practises. As Professor Belli points out that economically, no other opportunity exists to assess the information being presented.”

No. The Signal app offers similar functionality to WhatsApp core features and is open.

Where is the evidence of Meta mining WhatsApp metadata?

Meta acquired WhatsApp and somehow hasn’t messed it up yet. WhatsApp has always been fairly good with privacy and doesn’t share much with other Meta apps as far as I’m aware.

That is what the article is explaining. The contact names and details are encrypted.

https://engineering.fb.com/2024/10/22/security/ipls-privacy-preserving-storage-for-your-whatsapp-contacts/

Perhaps the call times are exposed but it seems it would be difficult or impossible for them to connect this with a human identity.

Use Signal if you have concerns about WhatsApp.

They cannot see phone numbers of contacts, no.

Is this deshittification?

They already are.

This post is reporting the results of a poll. How is that trolling? Poll results you don’t like are trolling?

Also not sure why you’d think reporting Trump-favorable poll result sways sentiment here in his direction.

This news can be motivational for those favoring other candidates to volunteer, engage more.

One of the issues eight years ago was that the polls underestimated Trump so Dems weren’t as motivated to get out the vote against Trump. Let’s not repeat that mistake.