The default camera app has this off by default. Most of the ones I've tried do.
But do you remember every options you've randomly toggled over the years? It's pretty easy to see how someone would flip on geotagging, forget about it, then be shocked a few months later when they discover all their photos are leaking their location.
> But I don't honestly think Google could have consulted their community. It's just too big.
The thing is, they frequently do. They have developer relations people, they publish blog posts about breaking changes, they work with W3C and other standards bodies, they reply on bug trackers.
But, in this case, nothing. Just a unilateral change with no communication. Not even a blog posts saying "As of April, this functionality is deprecated."
On Android 16. Open photo. Hit share. Hit Bluetooth. Pick a device to send it to. Wait for xfer to finish. Observe in exifview. What detail is missing?
At the height of the pandemic, the UK mandated zero-rating data for mobile connection to .gov.uk and .NHS.uk domains, along with several other charitable sites.
(I was part of the team working on that proposal.)
Do you have heared of IP addresses and that large institutions especially government institutions have their own blocks from the address space? Mapping these is kind of easy.
meanwhile Czechia literally BANNED free Wi-Fi in restaurants and other establishments during COVID, so people will spend there less time, I understood the rationale if people already didn't have mobile data in phones anyway
other things Czech gov banned during COVID-19 was singing in public places, no kidding!
And I'm not even going to complain they banned sale of the toys, colored pencils and other items so people will spend less time in the shop, so me and kids could just look at the colored pencils behind the tape because we had to go to shop anyway.
> other things Czech gov banned during COVID-19 was singing in public places, no kidding!
So, wait, no Christmas carolling? Was this the doing of Babis? Then only the drunk shall sing in public places, mainly because they're too drunk to care.
"Church services are limited to a maximum of 100 people, and singing is prohibited; the same applies to public participation in municipal and regional government meetings."
"In other regions, the operation of schools and educational facilities is being restricted in accordance with the Education Act, and that of universities in accordance with the Higher Education Act, such that singing is not part of the curriculum; furthermore, with the exception of the first stage of primary education in elementary schools, sports activities will also be temporarily excluded from the curriculum."
The UK does have net neutrality, and it's quite strictly regulated by Ofcom, which produces an annual report showing compliance and highlighting any issues it has investigated:
Things like restrictions on tethering and using a SIM in a router are forbidden.
Unlike most countries, net neutrality has never been a political football in the UK.
Ofcom groups zero rating schemes into three types:
Type one - government and NGO services (always allowed).
Type two - where categories of service (e.g. video or music streaming apps) are zero rated, but any service fitting into the category can apply to be zero rated by the network.
Type three - any other kind of zero rating.
Things like the VOXI Unlimited Social Media packages fit into Type Two, so are expressly permitted.
For the rest, Ofcom assessed the impact on consumers, which is generally low.
This is not net neutrality, all network traffic is not treated equally.
Ofcom seems to have invented their own definition of net neutrality and placed it on that website, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. This is tiered access.
It doesn't meet a perfect theoretical definition of net neutrality, but it's a set of defined legal limits on the extent to which providers can treat different kinds of traffic differently.
Net neutrality is not theoretical, it is literally the default setting.
Any deviation from that default requires special effort be taken to identify network traffic and treat it differently, and as soon as you have made that effort you cannot truthfully claim to have net neutrality. The UK does not prohibit net neutrality but it does not require it either (according to the comment I replied to which I have not verified).
I guess to me this seems a bit like saying that free markets are the default setting. We’re not in some kind of perfect state of nature. We’re in a complex interconnected society where virtually everything of any importance is regulated to some extent. What you’re saying seems like saying “as soon as you impose one regulation you no longer have a free market”.
This non sequitur strains my ability to assume good faith on your part. We're not talking about markets, we're talking about a utility.
Does your water company bill you differently depending on what you use the water for? Your gas company? Electric? This is not a complicated concept to understand, please make an effort.
What would be the model of a country with stronger net neutrality laws? I think EU regulations are now a touch stronger than UK regulations due to post-Brexit divergence, but by world standards, the UK has strong net neutrality protections.
I'm in the UK and am currently being paid to use electricity.
My energy provider uses a tracker tariff which can change every half hour (it does have a maximum cap to prevent the issues seen in Texas). Prices are currently negative, so every kWh I use right now means the electricity company pays me.
Nuclear promised energy which was "too cheap to meter". But solar actually delivered.
If you had a big enough battery, could you sell electricity back to the grid later? Get paid to charge the battery, get paid to discharge the battery?
It seems silly, but actually... it's driving useful behavior I suppose. Then again, maybe a good government would notice this and just fast track grid storage rather than distribute that work to all the citizens.
A lot of the value to homeowners is essentially arbitrage on the retail cost of electricity: when prices are high you're going to be paying a lot more to pull electricity from the grid than you would be paid to supply it, so you're better off using up the buffer yourself as opposed to paying for electricity from the grid.
> If you had a big enough battery, could you sell electricity back to the grid later? Get paid to charge the battery, get paid to discharge the battery?
Yes, some people do this. There's even a startup built around the idea: https://www.axle.energy/
Sure you could. How much do you think they will pay you per kw? 1/10 what you paid them and they will charge you for using their infrastructure..at least in the US they do.
There is no such thing as "the utility" in Europe. It is legally not allowed for a single company to both operate (parts of) the grid and trade in electricity.
I don't think that would ever commonly be viable or at least not for a long time. EV's are a lot more than batteries and are proportionally stupidly expensive.
If the electricity net arbitrage was worth the degradation of the battery then .... companies would do it themselves and just build the batteries for cheaper at scale.
>A UK energy company already has a Vehicle to Grid tariff.
And is that actually worth it to anyone who does the math?
An optimistic 161 pound saving compares to how many of my battery cycles for example? My car costs 50-60k so battery degradation is not nothing.
The arbitrage difference between filling your battery cheaply and discharging when prices are high is greater than any theoretical wear on your battery.
Even better if you are being paid to charge your battery.
The battery is already a sunk cost. Doesn't matter how expensive the battery was if it's already sitting on your drive.
I did a quick fag packet calculation and even today 10% of everyones EV battery would be enough to cover the grid for an hour. That's enough of a buffer to spin up gas turbines for example, so you can actually shut them completely off.
>The battery is already a sunk cost. Doesn't matter how expensive the battery was if it's already sitting on your drive.
My Hyundai Ionic 6 rolling battery costs 50-60k.
Spending a cycle of it's battery is not a discardable cost.
Some will still take it but this seems just like a more deceptive version of those uber driver that get a pricey car and then find out that combined with maintenance, degradation/devaluation and other hidden costs they don't actually make that much driving around.
>I did a quick fag packet calculation and even today 10% of everyones EV battery would be enough to cover the grid for an hour.
I presume you deduct more than half of the rolling battery capacity out there.
You can't discharge those to 0% shouldn't charge them to 100%, many won't be charged fully (or connected)
+ If I need to leave in the morning like most I don't want to necessarily be dropping charge into the grid.
>My Hyundai Ionic 6 rolling battery costs 50-60k. Spending a cycle of it's battery is not a discardable cost
Problem is we don't have good data on actual costs. So we don't know if we're talking about something substantial or something hypothetical. Absent that data I think my comment is fair.
>I presume you deduct more than half of the rolling battery capacity out there
No. We are talking about 10% of battery capacity so your battery at 80% would only need to go down to 70%.
A problem we have in the UK at the moment is that we have gas turbines running even if not needed just incase the wind suddenly drops. It takes (or can take) about an hour to spin up a turbine from cold. So a battery supply that could cover that hour would mean we could use a lot less gas. Most of the time it isn't even used, and if it is, most probably won't use that full 10% and once the gas turbines have spun up it could recharge the batteries.
To link it back to the earlier comment, even if the maths is bad for EV as battery storage, you can still use it as battery of last resort. It would be expensive, so ev owners would still be up on the deal, but there would be a system on place to actually use them when actually needed.
> For all their faults, Amazon don't seem to have leaked anything of mine.
Selling email lists is business. Not selling email lists is, in some cases, much smarter, much more hard-nosed business, and is exactly what you would expect from Amazon.
When your only product is email addresses, you will sell them to anybody trying to sell other shit.
When you sell all the possible kinds of shit in the world, why on earth would you enable your competitors by giving them any form of access to your customer list?
reply