matz1

16 ms·

91.
by matz1 5y ago
Instead of 100% return to the office how about having (optional) get together offline meetup every once in a while, it can be about work or simple lunch.
92.
by matz1 5y ago
>You say "just fix it to detect whether it's legit data" - how? Deep fakes are getting better by the day, we already have problems with recognizing them ourselve Again, I'm not the expert, every situation will may req
93.
by matz1 5y ago
>If it is, then you're admitting that you just don't care about the harm that could occur (and trying to minimize the responsibility you'd have by hand-waving the issue as being "other people") No, to minimize ha
94.
by matz1 5y ago
There are tons of problem with secret being leaked, forgotten, thats why we should start figuring out a better way.
95.
by matz1 5y ago
>Can you understand how a lack of the ability to have private conversations, relationships, etc. could cause serious problems for some people? Yes it could cause serious problem but not the privacy itself that the problem, its other peop
96.
by matz1 5y ago
>Without some expectation of privacy it would have been impossible for people to gather together with others who had been similarly criminalized.. Impossible is a really strong word. I'm not saying that its going to be easy but I do
97.
by matz1 5y ago
> I want to know how do you imagine a method of authentication not requiring any privacy could work >Facial Recognition? That could be one way > I will just grab your profile picture. Then maybe fix it to detect whether its a real
98.
by matz1 5y ago
I'm obviously not the expert, my point is we should try to seek the solution to the problem that arise when the information is public instead of trying to hide the information. Here is another example: some people argue for privacy bec
99.
by matz1 5y ago
Why ? because some one could stole my money or because someone else could log in without my authorization? What if there is a way to prevent that without PIN or private key ?
100.
by matz1 5y ago
>I don’t know anyone that would want to spend money on a hotel if there was a security camera in the room why do you think is that ? >Do you think doctors should be able to tell advertisers what their patients are going through Why do
101.
by matz1 5y ago
Good example but there so much information a person can keep up with so surprise can still possible.
102.
by matz1 5y ago
>There are some countries where being gay is a criminal offense; So that is the actual problem, not the privacy.
103.
by matz1 5y ago
>I don't think that means we don't need privacy. It absolutely has value. I never heard any convincing argument about why privacy has value. >but that doesn't mean we should allow everything to be collected. Why ?
104.
by matz1 5y ago
I'm not advocating to outlaw invasive tracking, rather advocating on solving the problem of the use of invasive tracking to harm people.
105.
by matz1 5y ago
This is the way to go in the future. It will be more and more impractical, very costly, and inconvenient to hide information as technology get better. The problem that need to be solves is not how to hide information but how to fix the issu
106.
by matz1 5y ago
The government simply record, observe and judge every single thing a person does is not problem, in fact it can be used for my benefit. The problem is when they use it to harm me. What need to be fixed is The government record, observe and
107.
by matz1 5y ago
No, I am okay for them to be able to know. Them knowing is not the problem. Them using it to harm me is the problem. These are different thing, latter is a problem, former is not. Let pick this one example : 'your restaurant visits and
108.
by matz1 5y ago
Then basically you says its boil down to matter of subjective preference. So you don't like it, fine fair enough then don't be surprised that other people may like it.
109.
by matz1 5y ago
why would i want to make it impossible for government to monitor people ? government monitoring people by itself is not a problem, government monitoring people to harm people is the problem. What need to be fixed is the usage of tools to
110.
by matz1 5y ago
>The problem is automated identification of faces Whats the problem with this ?
111.
by matz1 5y ago
So then that is the actual problem, try to fix that problem instead of banning it. Allowing people to own gun also make it trivially easy to kill people. So ban gun ?
112.
by matz1 5y ago
> Surveillance technology enables all sorts of new attacks Sure, but like any other tools it also enable all sorts of new benefit. The preferable action would be to take advantage of the benefit while also try to fix whatever it is that
113.
by matz1 5y ago
>Are you suggesting hunting enemies in countries like Russia/China is going to go down well? Anything has risk of course, any hunting need be covert and expertly done. >How would you feel if they decided to declare some enemies o
114.
by matz1 5y ago
as a whole ? I believe there can't be such thing. Fair for one may not be fair for other. 'Better' for one may not be better for other.
115.
by matz1 5y ago
well, content creators doesn't have to pay the infrastructure/storage cost either.
116.
by matz1 5y ago
Whatever the law I would like to be would depends on whether I'm Toyota or I'm the customer.
117.
by matz1 5y ago
Depends, If I'm the buyer I don't want it but if I'm Toyota and if I can get a way with it while making more money then its no brainer.
118.
by matz1 5y ago
They should if they could get a way with it.
119.
by matz1 5y ago
unsustainable ? It sustained alright for many years and has brought lots of profit for apple immoral? Its subjective. I disagree and apple likely don't think its immoral illegal? isn't that what the trial is for ? to decide whethe
120.
by matz1 5y ago
Being paid a lot doesn't necessarily make the job less annoying.

More ›