I read the whole article and did not find an answer for a very simple question: what are benefits for users? The whole speech is about how we CAN put agents to all the devices, etc. without answering the simple question WHY should we do it. There are a lot of words about how can google and friends use the data for advertising. But nothing about motivation of users to allow it. He is talking about economical reasons but it will work if and only if users will have economical reasons to put agents on their devices. As of today I do not see a lot of usage of autonomous agents outside of the professional work like software development or ms word automation. What are reasons for people to make these agents a part of their life? The whole speech is built on top of the assumption that happens without a word about why should it. Am I missing something?

That is interesting. Why in Germany and Austria far-right (AfD, CDU, OVP) are against but center-left / liberals (SPD, SPO) are in favor, while for example in France and Czech Republic it is opposite (RN in favor, EELV against; ANO in favor, KDU-CSL against)?

I know that I’m working on a “dark side”… But ad-tech are offering really interesting tasks about building very complex infrastructure besides they are paying well.

There are petabytes of collected data (even in a relatively small ad-tech companies I had a chance to work on; on a facebook/google scale it is much more). Someone should write all the cleaning, processing, de-duplication and matching (aka fingerprinting) steps as well as make this data usable by AI / Machine Learning guys, who will make models that predicts what ad to show to each user based on the available data. I’m working on processing, cleaning, matching and preparing of these data.

By working as a data engineer in ad-tech companies and seeing how big is actually an amount of information collected about you.

I think proton is the most blocked by governments group of services in the entire world. To have a backup in .kbdx file sounds at least like a good idea.

According to the Movember Foundation, a leading men’s health organization and partner of UN Women, two-thirds of young men regularly engage with masculinity influencers online.

While some content offers genuine support, much of it promotes extreme language and sexist ideology, reinforcing the idea that men are victims of feminism and modern social change.

So, 2/3 of young men are risking to become incels, right? Because it is hard to imagine a young girl who is looking for a partner with hyperfocus on his own masculinity as well as a partner, who portraits himself as victim? That is sad…

There is also an option to use Android’s QuickShare from MacOS: https://github.com/Martichou/rquickshare

Yes. For me reasons of VPN on Android (even with Google) are following:

1. Most of greedy apps are trying to collect info about your location. Because in most of the cases you will restrict direct access to the location data, apps will try to do it through IP. VPN resolve this problem at all.
2. A lot of greedy apps or websites are trying to do fingerprinting to identity your logs. While it is possible in theory to do fingerprinting by fuzzy matching all-logs against all-logs, the task is so computationally heavy that the only way is to try to do fuzzy-matching (aka fingerprinting) within the locations. VPN allows you to hide your location.

Of course one may say that VPN does not provide a 100% protections from fingerprinting, I think there should be applied the same approach like in cyber security: the goal is not to protect yourself by 100% but to make attack so expensive that it does not make sense. VPN makes fingerprinting so hard that noone will really do it until you are a journalist, intelligence officer or something like this.

I did not see in article any proof that Chineese scientists have a bad intentions. A statement about “they always do it [because they are evil maoists]” is not a proof for me.

I did not see in the article any arguments, except the fact that Chinese researchers are in some US blacklists. Only proclamations about EU should restrict, EU should prevent, etc. But without any arguments why. Maybe lack of actual arguments is the reason why the article is so short?