Connect with us



Some people are reporting that the display on their Pixel 2 XL phones suffers from screen burn-in.
 Google’s new two-year warranty for the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL.

Just after Google‘s Pixel 2 ($649.99 at Verizon Wireless) phones started to ship, reports surfaced that some 2 XL models suffered from screen burn-in. On Oct. 26, Google acknowledged the issues and — contrary to our own in-house tests — asserted that the burn-in rate for the Pixel 2 XL was “in line with that of other premium smartphones.” Despite this, Google has extended the product warranty from one year to two years.

The company also promised readers that it would continue to use software updates to optimize the display and minimize the burn-in rate. For example, Google is currently testing a software update that would make the navigation bar buttons fade out after inactivity, reducing the likelihood of burn-in.

If you have a Pixel 2 XL that you think might be plagued by these burn-in issues, consider exchanging it for a new device. We went through all the fine print for both Google and Verizon‘s return and repair policies to help you out.

What is screen burn-in?

Screen burn-in (also called “differential aging”) is when an image or parts of an image remain on the screen even when not actively displayed. For example, you might notice a faint version of the navigation bar on the bottom of the display despite the bar not actually being on the screen. Some early plasma television screens were notorious for screen burn-in.

You bought it from Google within the past 15 days

The Google Store has a 15-day return or exchange window for any device you buy. If you’re within this window, simply return or exchange your 2 XL.

Go to Google’s support page and login with your account. Find the order you want to return and print out the return confirmation. Pack the phone, accessories and return confirmation in the original packaging.

You bought it from Verizon within the past 14 days

On Verizon, the return or exchange window is 14 days and there is a $35 restocking fee unless you live in Hawaii.

Verizon permits one device exchange during its 14 day window. The 2 XL needs to be in “like-new condition” and shipped back with the original box, accessories and receipt.

To start, go to Verizon’s return process support page.

What to do after the return period

If you bought it through Google

If your return window has closed, but you’re within the first two years of ownership you can still have your Pixel 2 XL ($849.99 at Verizon Wireless) replaced or repaired by Google. Visit Google’s warranty page to start the process.

This is where things get a bit legalese-y. Google defines a defective device as suffering from one of the following:

  • Doesn’t charge properly
  • Won’t turn on
  • Freezes often
  • Has microphone, speaker or button issues
  • Has trouble getting internet or cell signal

Obviously, screen burn-in or display defects are not listed, but that doesn’t mean Google won’t replace or repair it. I recommend filing a claim as each one is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

If you bought it through Verizon

If you bought a 2 XL from Verizon, you can either go through Google or Verizon to claim a defective device. Verizon’s criteria for a defective phone is a device with a factory defect and not one with damage caused by “outside forces.”

To start a claim with Verizon, call (866) 406-5154 or visit a Verizon Wireless Store.

Keep checking back here, as we’ll update this article with additional information if we hear more from Verizon or Google.

Source link head straight to cnet to read the full article.

A lover of all things tech, love all things that uses creative juices (not an innuendo) an avid blogger and part time vlogger, now stop reading and go check out some awesome posts on this site.

Tech News

Google Doodle honors ‘Prince of Mathematicians’ Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss






Maths is the latest to receive the Google Doodle homage.

Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss, otherwise known as “The Prince of Mathematicians”, made instrumental contributions to number theory, algebra, geophysics, mechanics and statistics.

Gauss was born on April 30 in 1777 in Brunswick, a city in the north of Germany, near Wolfsburg. Despite poor working-class parents and an illiterate mother, Gauss was a child prodigy, believed to have been able to add up every number from 1 to 100 at 8-years-old.

One of his first major equations was working out his date of birth, which his mother hadn’t recorded. He used the only information she had: that it was a Wednesday, eight days before an Easter holiday.

At university when he was 19, Gauss discovered a heptadecagon, or a 17-sided polygon. He requested that a regular heptadecagon be inscribed on his tombstone, but it was too difficult for the stonemason, who said it would just look like a circle.

 A heptadecagon.


László Németh/Wikipedia

And remember your prime numbers? That year Gauss was involved with proving the prime number theorem, helping understand how prime numbers are distributed among the integers, or whole numbers.

Again the same year, a productive one for Gauss, he discovered the quadratic reciprocity law, which allows mathematicians to determine the solvability of any quadratic equation in modular arithmetic.

At 24, Gauss’ work on number theory, which he completed when he was 21, was published as a textbook. Not only did it involve his original work, but it reconciled that of other mathematicians. It would be considered his magnum opus and had an extraordinary impact on the field.

Oh, and add to those achievements a discovery in astronomy — in the same year, 1801, Gauss calculated the orbit of an asteroid called Ceres.

After a much-accomplished life, Gauss died aged 77 on Feb. 23, 1855.

Source link

Continue Reading

Tech News

How Cambridge Analytica works and turned ‘likes’ into political tool



How Cambridge analytica works

The algorithm at the heart of the Facebook data breach sounds almost too dystopian to be real. It trawls through the most apparently trivial, throwaway postings –the “likes” users dole out as they browse the site – to gather sensitive personal information about sexual orientation, race, gender, even intelligence and childhood trauma. So exactly how cambridge analytica works and why it turned like in to a real world political tool.

A few dozen “likes” can give a strong prediction of which party a user will vote for, reveal their gender and whether their partner is likely to be a man or woman, provide powerful clues about whether their parents stayed together throughout their childhood and predict their vulnerability to substance abuse. And it can do all this without delving into personal messages, posts, status updates, photos or all the other information Facebook holds.

how cambridge analytica works

Some results may sound more like the result of updated online sleuthing than sophisticated data analysis; “liking” a political campaign page is little different from pinning a poster in a window.

But five years ago psychology researchers showed that far more complex traits could be deduced from patterns invisible to a human observer scanning through profiles. Just a few apparently random “likes” could form the basis for disturbingly complex character assessments.

When users liked “curly fries” and Sephora cosmetics, this was said to give clues to intelligence; Hello Kitty likes indicated political views; “Being confused after waking up from naps” was linked to sexuality. These were just some of the unexpected but consistent correlations noted in a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal in 2013. “Few users were associated with ‘likes’ explicitly revealing their attributes. For example, less than 5% of users labelled as gay were connected with explicitly gay groups, such as No H8 Campaign,” the peer-reviewed research found.

The researchers, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell and Thore Graepel, saw the dystopian potential of the study and raised privacy concerns. At the time Facebook “likes” were public by default.

Cambridge Analytica whistleblower: ‘We spent $1m harvesting millions of Facebook profiles’ How Cambridge Analytica works.

“The predictability of individual attributes from digital records of behaviour may have considerable negative implications, because it can easily be applied to large numbers of people without their individual consent and without them noticing,” they said.

“Commercial companies, governmental institutions, or even your Facebook friends could use software to infer attributes such as intelligence, sexual orientation or political views that an individual may not have intended to share.”

To some, that may have sounded like a business opportunity. By early 2014, Cambridge Analytica CEO Alexander Nix had signed a deal with one of Kosinski’s Cambridge colleagues, lecturer Aleksandr Kogan, for a private commercial venture, separate from Kogan’s duties at the university, but echoing Kosinski’s work.

The academic had developed a Facebook app which featured a personality quiz, and Cambridge Analytica paid for people to take it, advertising on platforms such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk.

The app recorded the results of each quiz, collected data from the taker’s Facebook account – and, crucially, extracted the data of their Facebook friends as well.

The results were paired with each quiz-taker’s Facebook data to seek out patterns and build an algorithm to predict results for other Facebook users. Their friends’ profiles provided a testing ground for the formula and, more crucially, a resource that would make the algorithm politically valuable.

How Cambridge Analytica works

To be eligible to take the test the user had to have a Facebook account and be a US voter, so tens of millions of the profiles could be matched to electoral rolls. From an initial trial of 1,000 “seeders”, the researchers obtained 160,000 profiles – or about 160 per person. Eventually a few hundred thousand paid test-takers would be the key to data from a vast swath of US voters.

It was extremely attractive. It could also be deemed illicit, primarily because Kogan did not have permission to collect or use data for commercial purposes. His permission from Facebook to harvest profiles in large quantities was specifically restricted to academic use. And although the company at the time allowed apps to collect friend data, it was only for use in the context of Facebook itself, to encourage interaction. Selling data on, or putting it to other purposes, – including Cambridge Analytica’s political marketing – was strictly barred.

It also appears likely the project was breaking British data protection laws, which ban sale or use of personal data without consent. That includes cases where consent is given for one purpose but data is used for another.

The paid test-takers signed up to T&Cs, including collection of their own data, and Facebook’s default terms allowed their friends’ data to be collected by an app, unless their privacy settings allowed this. But none of them agreed to their data possibly being used to create a political marketing tool or to it being placed in a vast campaign database.

How Cambridge Analytica works

Kogan maintains everything he did was legal and says he had a “close working relationship” with Facebook, which had granted him permission for his apps.

Facebook denies this was a data breach. Vice-president Paul Grewal said: “Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do, and we require the same from people who operate apps on Facebook. If these reports are true, it’s a serious abuse of our rules.”

Graphic to show key players in Cambridge Analytica story

The scale of the data collection Cambridge Analytica paid for was so large it triggered an automatic shutdown of the app’s ability to harvest profiles. But Kogan told a colleague he “spoke with an engineer” to get the restriction lifted and, within a day or two, work resumed.

Within months, Kogan and Cambridge Analytica had a database of millions of US voters that had its own algorithm to scan them, identifying likely political persuasions and personality traits. They could then decide who to target and craft their messages that was likely to appeal to them – a political approach known as “micro-targeting”.

Facebook announced on Friday that it was suspending Cambridge Analytica and Kogan from the platform pending information over misuse of data related to this project.

Facebook denies that the harvesting of tens of millions of profiles by GSR and Cambridge Analytica was a data breach. It said in a statement that Kogan “gained access to this information in a legitimate way and through the proper channels” but “did not subsequently abide by our rules” because he passed the information onto third parties.

Continue Reading