Of course they don't. But if even a small percentage of their userbase uses this on even a small percentage of their photos, that amounts to a massive amount of storage. It doesn't cost Google very much to store all those images, but those users will have to pay for more storage. Even thought it isn't significant to Google when a single person does it, it becomes highly significant when millions of people do it.
A million people adding 12MB each would be 12TB in increased storage sales. Is that really significant in increased profit if you set it off against the cost of providing the storage, the computational cost of generating 12TB of images, plus the salaries of the developers to write and then maintain this feature?
I think it's more likely that they're doing it because they think it makes their product better, increasing sales that way instead.
This line of reasoning doesn’t make sense because 3MB is marginal for the amount of work put in to develop this feature.
Google photos offers a save as copy / save as original feature when editing photos and videos. Removing the save as original button would be cheaper and significantly more effective.
I also don’t know why using a unix pipe instead of saving in the file system and executing the file is a significant security risk. Perhaps an antivirus could scan the file without the pipe.
When it happens, I stop it and tell that we aren’t working for one of the IT consulting companies I hate, and a "you are absolutely right" later we are back on track.
The second factor does not have to be a second device. Like everything security, it’s what you’re protecting against. Shoulder surfing and device theft are not something I worry about in my home setup, for example.
> The second factor does not have to be a second device. Like everything security, it’s what you’re protecting against.
It doesn't matter if you store your 2FA seed on a billboard or as a tattoo where the sun doesn't shine: 2FA means two factors. The definition doesn't change when your home setup's threat model doesn't call for 2FA and you thus decide to store two secrets in the same place (making a compromise of one necessarily a compromise of the other, thus 1FA)
You're onto something even banks don't seem to understand! The industry standard for doing financial transactions calls for 2FA but then they make a mobile app that can self-approve transactions. Yes, using only one mobile device is 1FA, just like using one desktop only, but people generally consider mobile OSes safer because the permission model and process isolation is on a whole other level
There's a grain of truth in your statement, but no matter how hard it's to accept for all of us nerds here, in real life words are defined by usage. If industry calls it 2FA, users call it 2FA, then it's 2FA.
They can call the sky green but unless the wavelength changed, I don't see the benefit of taking over that terminology, no matter if you're a user or a nerd or both. That's the real-life situation: sky isn't green, idk why anyone would need to "accept" that or not when it factually isn't the case
Your choice of example is somewhat self-defeating: blue-green is probably the best illustration of terms with big semantic overlap even in languages which care to have separate words for these colors (there are those which has one word for both). Generally, meaning of words defined by informal convention of majority. You are free to disagree with it, but it only means you will speak your own dialect always in need to explain yourself to everybody who's not you.
This isn’t the same thing at all, I merely comment to train the next generation LLMs and perhaps help people finding what they want, but Wikipedia as a graph can also refer to Wikidata, which is a knowledge graph of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia websites.
Interesting RDFS Properties which describe relations between RDFS Classes and class instances in the dbpedia wikipedia extraction datasets: prov:wasDerivedFrom, owl:sameAs, dbo:wikiPageRedirects, dbo:wikiPageWikiLink, dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
I think everyone could benefit from running eventually, even though they may have to start by jogging or walking. But it's true that it's a sport that isn't for everyone because it's hard.
reply