argvargc

17 ms·

91.
by argvargc 5y ago
What we're describing at this point is effectively the same as a system of automatically flagging users as potential criminals based on something as manipulable as a filename.
92.
by argvargc 5y ago
"Apple said that there is a one in one trillion chance of a false positive" https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/05/apple-icloud-photos-scanni... Versus: https://blog.roboflow.com/nerualha
93.
by argvargc 5y ago
Were the first point accurate, it would instantly become not so upon recognition of the existence of the concept of delegation. The point about selectively choosing data, how to process it, etc is important, and often overlooked. People are
94.
by argvargc 5y ago
It's one thing to fake or massage a summary, it's an entirely different thing to fake the whole data set. This divergence increases based on the amount of data. Your question is essentially equivalent to: "If you don't b
95.
by argvargc 5y ago
What part of "they already totally fucked up how their own process is supposed to work" don't you understand?
96.
by argvargc 5y ago
The real world and the computer world intersect. This is precisely typified by what is being discussed, surely? Apple is trying to automate and computerise a process that was not automated previously, apply it to a huge number of people, an
97.
by argvargc 5y ago
It didn't even last a week. Introducing the people asking us to trust them with the responsibility of mass, automated crime accusations.
98.
by argvargc 5y ago
It seems the problem is often mis-stated - there is no calculation problem, the problem is in adequately defining/sampling the initial data. It's maybe similar to predicting the weather - we can have all the perfect equations in
99.
by argvargc 5y ago
So if cancer went down, which could happen for all kinds of reasons, good luck finding any causal relationship that may yet still be there hidden beneath such noise. As far as I'm concerned, if rats are shown to get cancer from somethi
100.
by argvargc 5y ago
Not the OP but I think you've made their point quite well.
101.
by argvargc 5y ago
Well, cancer is a leading cause of death so it may not be easy to tease that one out. Regardless, where did you get the idea it's "practically universally" consumed? Taking soda for example, people typically either do or don&
102.
by argvargc 5y ago
> Severe loss of marketshare? It wouldn't even register. Disagree. Something this ludicrously intrusive, over-reaching, reckless and trust-destroying is a dealbreaker for exactly the demographic of technology enthusiasts who influen
103.
by argvargc 5y ago
Who wants their printer to scan every document they print, and if it sees something the printer manufacturer thinks is illegal it's reported to the police? Or their TV scans every frame displayed and every word said if it sees anything
104.
by argvargc 5y ago
Have I not typed enough?
105.
by argvargc 5y ago
They exclusively follow the edge of the police line and mostly focuses on them throughout. Typically therefore, coverage shows limited numbers of people, and most of any violence that occurs. But, it's better than nothing, and at least
106.
by argvargc 5y ago
Country-wide. It's typically in the 100k's per major city. The last Yellow Vest protest in France was organised in 80 cities & towns. For an example of underrepresentation, "160k" was the "official" figure
107.
by argvargc 5y ago
I sympathise, and appreciate your summary. I was intentionally vague about exactly what I was referring to, for the very reasons that form the subject matter. Specifically, stating it directly leads to wild denials, ostracisation, persecuti
108.
by argvargc 5y ago
This and other dysfunction like it are just ordinary run-of-the-mill, well-documented societal effects of the rise of the kind of socio-political order proliferating lately. It hides - and so persists - deep beneath people's therefore
109.
by argvargc 5y ago
See also Tess Lawrie's response to the Guardian article, that they rated it "unclear" in bias versus low and high, and how the meta analysis is affected if Elgazzar is removed (12 min excerpt): https://mobile.twitt
110.
by argvargc 5y ago
Looks great, thank you for presenting it so thoughtfully too. Do I read correctly to mean Nebulus could potentially be used as a replacement for p2p file xfer, such as per wormhole? Any caveats with such a usecase? (Also, just FYI there&#x2
111.
by argvargc 5y ago
Yes, though it's not much of a problem for those unwilling to take the leap based on only one or two emergent studies, who might prefer relying on decades of safety data. Oh, but then that entirely sensible and understandable action mi
112.
by argvargc 5y ago
Police only exist in a complex enough form of social consequence worth arguing about, where people don't have the material and mental means to comfortably enjoy life. Concepts such as law, order and defence are topics that readily devo
113.
by argvargc 5y ago
No, that's the entire point of the statement. The debating of such things is counter to the stated goal weapons are purported to be brought into existence to achieve. We don't stop people killing and harming each other by figuring
114.
by argvargc 5y ago
I can reel off a list longer than recorded history of entirely unprecedented events of worldwide impact that have happened in the past few decades versus the past 5000. The imagination being entertained here is your own; that humanity'
115.
by argvargc 5y ago
How about we spend less time debating which horrifically powerful weapons to make or not, and more time on how to foster a society that doesn't have any use for them?
116.
by argvargc 5y ago
I honestly can't make head nor tails of what you've said here, and am left wondering if you're a bot? I made a statement, on-topic, about the nature and history of censorship, Google's credibility as arbiter of truth, an
117.
by argvargc 5y ago
Those engaging in widespread censorship create disinformation and falsehood, by omission. In history, it has always been those engaging in widespread censorship who turn out to be disastrously and/or maliciously wrong. The science no
118.
by argvargc 5y ago
Would this mean all a non-EU website needs to do to safely serve GDPR-bound persons is trash any data collected from them?
119.
by argvargc 5y ago
Thank you. This made my day. I didn't feel put-out (well, no more than I'm used to!), but it's refreshing and affirming to see empathy and self-accountability here on HN. I will try to do better myself. I'm sure I am som
120.
by argvargc 5y ago
Isn't it more like a website in one country rightly stating it's not bound by the laws in another country?

More ›