Is Charging Your Phone All Day Really That Bad? – The New York Times

By Nick Guy

Mr. Guy is a senior staff writer at Wirecutter, a product recommendation site owned by The New York Times Company.

• Sept. 4, 2020

“If you’re unsure whether there’s a “right” way to charge your phone — or whether charging it too long, too often or too fast can damage the battery — you’re not alone. I’m a senior staff writer at Wirecutter, and I’ve been writing about phones and tech since 2011. Before that, I was an iPhone sales specialist at an Apple Store. Even with that experience under my belt, it has never been totally clear to me whether being careful about how often I recharge my phone actually extends the life of the battery enough to make a difference, or if it’s just another hassle in a world with far too many of them.

Some people just plug their phones into a charger (or toss them onto a wireless charging pad) whenever power is available. Others fastidiously keep their batteries between 40 percent and 80 percent, never allowing a full charge, guided by the belief that a battery will last longer as a result. Personally, I keep my iPhone on a Qi wireless charger on my desk all day while I’m at work, and I juice it up overnight, as well.

After speaking with battery researchers and the reuse experts at iFixit, reviewing studies on phone replacement trends and analyzing some user data from Wirecutter staffers, we’ve found that although micromanaging your phone’s battery is likely to extend its life to a small degree, the results might not be worth the inconvenience in the long run.

What the science says

Charging your battery causes its performance to degrade over time, no matter how you do it. Smartphones are powered by lithium-ion batteries, which work by moving charge carriers (in this case, lithium ions) from one electrode to another. The ions move in one direction when charging and in the other when discharging.”

EWG Skin Deep® | Ratings for All Softsoap Products

Showing 77 Softsoap Products

Product Type
bar soap (2)
body wash/cleanser (20)
exfoliant/scrub (5)
liquid hand soap (52)
shaving cream (1)

Product Type

• Product Type
• bar soap (2)
• body wash/cleanser (20)
• exfoliant/scrub (5)
• liquid hand soap (52)
• shaving cream (1)

Sort by
Best to worst
Worst to best
Alphabetical A-Z
Alphabetical Z-A

Best to worst

• Best to worst
• Worst to best
• Alphabetical A-Z
• Alphabetical Z-A

   1   2   3   4   5   6   7    

Items per page:
12
24
36

12

• 12
• 24
• 36

Data: Fair

---

SOFTSOAP

Earth Blends Moisturizing Liquid Hand Soap, Pomegranate & Plum

Data: Fair

---

SOFTSOAP

Coconut Butter Body Scrub

Data: Limited

---

SOFTSOAP

Aquarium Hand Soap

Data: Limited

---

SOFTSOAP

Hand Soap, Bright Citrus

Data: Limited

---

SOFTSOAP

Milk & Golden Honey Moisturizing Hand Soap

Data: Limited

---

SOFTSOAP

Hand Soap, Coconut & Warm Ginger

Source: EWG Skin Deep® | Ratings for All Softsoap Products

Opinion | Privacy Cannot Be a Casualty of the Coronavirus – The New York Times

By The Editorial BoardThe editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.April 7, 20207Credit…Illustration by Michael Houtz; photograph by Getty ImagesMillions of Americans, sheltering in their homes from the coronavirus, have turned to communications platforms like Zoom, Google Hangouts and Facebook Messenger in order to work or stay connected to friends and family. Free and easy to use, the services are gobbling up record numbers of new users.But there’s a saying in Silicon Valley: If the product is free, you are the product.This is not business as usual, though. Americans aren’t willingly surrendering their online identities during this pandemic — many are being compelled to do so by their schools, family or work. Just as a swath of manufacturers are switching their production lines to ventilator and mask production for the greater good, corporations that normally view every new registered user as a data point to exploit need to take a pause on profiting from online data harvesting.For those fortunate enough to have laptops and reliable broadband internet at home, it is not sufficient to simply update privacy policies or customer agreements. Americans need a guarantee that conversations held over video chat won’t be data collection events.The videoconferencing company Zoom has been a standout brand of the pandemic, in part because its daily user numbers ballooned to 200 million in March from 10 million last year, making it one of the few buoyant stocks amid the recent sell-off.

How To Buy The Right Bed Sheets: Sateen Vs. Percale Vs. Linen www.forbes.com Aug 28, 2019 … Instead, focus on the fabric. Look for sheets made of Combed or extra-long staple Egyptian or Pima (or American-made Supima) cotton …

How To Buy The Right Bed Sheets: Sateen Vs. Percale Vs. Linen
http://www.forbes.com
Aug 28, 2019 … Instead, focus on the fabric. Look for sheets made of Combed or extra-long staple Egyptian or Pima (or American-made Supima) cotton …

 

 

Source: percale vs egyptian cotton sheets – Zenya.com – Search The Web Web Search

Opinion | Twelve Million Phones, One Dataset, Zero Privacy – By Stuart A. Thompson and Charlie Warzel – The New York Times

By Stuart A. Thompson and Charlie Warzel   DEC. 19, 2019

• 15

EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY, everywhere on the planet, dozens of companies — largely unregulated, little scrutinized — are logging the movements of tens of millions of people with mobile phones and storing the information in gigantic data files. The Times Privacy Project obtained one such file, by far the largest and most sensitive ever to be reviewed by journalists. It holds more than 50 billion location pings from the phones of more than 12 million Americans as they moved through several major cities, including Washington, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Each piece of information in this file represents the precise location of a single smartphone over a period of several months in 2016 and 2017. The data was provided to Times Opinion by sources who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to share it and could face severe penalties for doing so. The sources of the information said they had grown alarmed about how it might be abused and urgently wanted to inform the public and lawmakers.

After spending months sifting through the data, tracking the movements of people across the country and speaking with dozens of data companies, technologists, lawyers and academics who study this field, we feel the same sense of alarm. In the cities that the data file covers, it tracks people from nearly every neighborhood and block, whether they live in mobile homes in Alexandria, Va., or luxury towers in Manhattan.

One search turned up more than a dozen people visiting the Playboy Mansion, some overnight. Without much effort we spotted visitors to the estates of Johnny Depp, Tiger Woods and Arnold Schwarzenegger, connecting the devices’ owners to the residences indefinitely.

David Lindsay Jr.

Hamden, CT | NYT Comment:

Great report, “horrible, but great,” to quote Olivander, the wand seller, in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter #1. I have a great thirst for more specifics on: 1. As an iphone user, if I use google maps, allowing my location, am I screwed. Am I condemned to their resalable bulletin board of movement, or am I protected. Can I use directions from here to there and still have privacy?

And 2. which apps are to blame, including which functions on them, and what are the trade offs. 3. What legislation is needed to give us a modicum of privacy? thank you for this horrible, but magnificent report.

(David blogs at InconvenientNews.net.)

Outsmart the scammers – from People’s United Bank

Outsmart the scammers – from People’s United Bank Outsmart the scammers Recognize signs of a phone scam and stop a fraudulent caller in their tracks. Have you ever answered a call that goes something like this: “Hello, [Your Name]. I’m calling from [the Name of Your Real Bank].” (You see the name of your bank displayed on Caller ID.) “We are calling to alert you to unusual charges on your debit card ending in 1234 at several retailers in recent days. I need to verify your SSN ending in 4321, and confirm your User ID and account number in order to stop this unauthorized activity on your card.” Is this call legit? No, it’s a scam. Why? Because People’s United Bank will never contact a customer either by phone or email to request sensitive personal information such as account numbers, PINs, usernames, passwords, security codes or other personal and account information. People’s United Bank will also never call and ask a customer to respond to a text message, or share a texted security code. Know the signs of a phone scam Scammers are getting more difficult to spot by using the following tactics: ■ Manipulating or spoofing caller IDs to make calls appear to be from someone you trust, such as your bank. ■ Conveying a sense of urgency or that pressures you into acting too quickly. ■ Providing partial but factual information about you or your account and requesting you to confirm that information on-the-spot. ■ Requesting that you immediately disclose additional personal or account information so that they can help you. Tips to avoid getting scammed ■ Don’t assume your caller ID is actually who’s calling. ■ Don’t confirm private personal or account information over the phone, or by email. ■ If texted a security code, do not share that security code with anyone over the phone—it should only ever be used by you to access your account. ■ We will never call and ask to share a texted security code. ■ We will never call you and ask you to respond to a text message. ■ If any of these things happens to you, hang up and dial the listed number of your bank. Your security is our priority If you have any questions or concerns please call us. 1-800-894-0300 This email was sent to: dalindsayjr@gmail.com. To ensure that you continue to receive email from us, please add us to your Address Book as information@peoples.com. You can update your email preferences or unsubscribe at any time. Protecting your privacy is a priority. People’s United Bank will never request customers to update or verify personal information, passwords, account numbers, or PINs via email. If you suspect an email using the People’s United Bank name to be suspicious, please contact the Call Center or forward the message to abuse@peoples.com for assistance. This email is subject to the People’s United Bank website Terms and Conditions, including those governing links to third-party websites. 850 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT, 06604 ©2019 People’s United Bank, N.A.  I  Member FDIC  I   Equal Housing Lender

10 Tips to Avoid Leaving Tracks Around the Internet – By David Pogue – The New York Times

By David Pogue

• Published Oct. 4, 2019Updated Oct. 8, 2019

“Google and Facebook collect information about us and then sell that data to advertisers. Websites deposit invisible “cookies” onto our computers and then record where we go online. Even our own government has been known to track us.

When it comes to digital privacy, it’s easy to feel hopeless. We’re mere mortals! We’re minuscule molecules in their machines! What power do we possibly have to fight back?

That was the question I posed to you, dear readers, in the previous “Crowdwise.”

Many of you responded with valuable but frequently repeated suggestions: Use a program that memorizes your passwords, and make every password different. Install an ad blocker in your web browser, like uBlock Origin. Read up on the latest internet scams. If you must use Facebook, visit its Privacy Settings page and limit its freedom to target ads to you.

What I sought, though, was non-obvious ideas.

It turns out that “digital privacy” means different things to different people.”

 

David Lindsay:

Everyone should go to the dentist twice a year, and read an article like this one about how to protect your privacy on the internet.

Opinion | Google and Facebook Are Quietly Tracking You on Sex Websites – The New York Times

“Dr. Maris argues that this lack of disclosure is similar to the issue of sexual consent. “As in any sexual interaction, silence must not be mistaken for consent,” she said. “Individuals should have a clear understanding of the power dynamics of the sexual exchange they are entering when visiting porn sites.” Those power dynamics, according to Dr. Maris, are deeply unbalanced. “You have some of the world’s most powerful companies here,” she said, noting that there’s very little redress for the consumer should the data end up in the wrong hands.

Affirmative consent is at the heart of digital privacy. Nearly all tracking is by default and governed by impossible-to-read privacy policies. And in an era that privileges and prioritizes mass collection of personal information, that means gathering information that is not only invasive but also superfluous. The leaky user data of pornographic websites is merely an extreme example of what has become standard practice online.”

Opinion | Congress to I.R.S.: Don’t Even Think of Helping Taxpayers – The New York Times

By The Editorial Board
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

April 10, 2019, 311
Image
CreditCreditLuba Lukova
Congress has landed on one of those rare ideas that commands support from both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, it’s a bad one.

“On Tuesday, the House approved legislation misleadingly titled the Taxpayer First Act that includes a provision prohibiting the Internal Revenue Service from developing a free online system that most American households could use to file their taxes. The Senate is considering a similar piece of bipartisan legislation.

This makes no sense. Congress should be making it easier for Americans to file their taxes. Instead of barring the I.R.S. from making April a little less miserable, why isn’t Congress requiring the I.R.S. to create a free tax filing website?

Better yet, the United States could emulate the roughly three dozen countries, including Chile, Japan and Britain, where most taxpayers do not need to fill out tax returns. In some of those countries, the accuracy of tax withholding is sufficient to obviate the annual filing process. In others, the government sends out completed forms to most taxpayers. In Estonia, filing taxes can be done in less than three minutes.”

Opinion | How Capitalism Betrayed Privacy – The New York Times

By Tim Wu

Mr. Wu is the author of “The Attention Merchants: The Epic Struggle to Get Inside Our Heads.”

• April 10, 2019
• • 4

CreditCreditErik Carter

For much of human history, what we now call “privacy” was better known as being rich. Privacy, like wealth, was something that most people had little or none of. Farmers, slaves and serfs resided in simple dwellings, usually with other people, sometimes even sharing space with animals. They had no expectation that a meaningful part of their lives would be unwatchable or otherwise off limits to others. That would have required homes with private rooms. And only rich people had those.

The spread of mass privacy, surely one of modern civilization’s more impressive achievements, thus depended on another, even more impressive achievement: the creation of a middle class. Only over the past 300 years or so, as increasingly large numbers of people gained the means to control their physical environment through the acquisition of wealth and private property, did privacy norms and eventually privacy rights come into existence. What is a right to privacy without a room of your own?

The historical link between privacy and the forces of wealth creation helps explain why privacy is under siege today. It reminds us, first, that mass privacy is not a basic feature of human existence but a byproduct of a specific economic arrangement — and therefore a contingent and impermanent state of affairs. And it reminds us, second, that in a capitalist country, our baseline of privacy depends on where the money is. And today that has changed.

The forces of wealth creation no longer favor the expansion of privacy but work to undermine it. We have witnessed the rise of what I call “attention merchants” and what the sociologist Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance capitalism” — the commodification of our personal databy tech giants like Facebook and Google and their imitators in telecommunications, electronics and other industries. We face a future in which active surveillance is such a routine part of business that for most people it is nearly inescapable. In this respect, we are on the road back to serfdom.

 

via Opinion | How Capitalism Betrayed Privacy – The New York Times