Until you learn that they all have a cam... Honestly, privacy is an illusion no matter where you go. A sufficiently resourced actor will always be able to get footage of you picking your nose, scratching yourself, or fondling your seatmate. Even if you didn't actually do any of those things, there's always deepfakes. It might offend your sensibilities, but it's a reality that you're probably going to want to get comfortable with lest you be driven mad by it.
You don't need to be 100%. You don't need to have the ML remove 100% and you don't need to match 100% to improve the situation in a significant and meaningful way. An example ML involved strategy that I believe would be very effective would be a multi-stage filtration system system. Stage one, the ML, grabs the low hanging fruit--everything hitting a sufficiently high confidence threshold. Stage two, Google staff get handed stuff the ML flagged as likely, but not having sufficient confidence to automatically filter. Stage three, end-users flag inappropriate material missed by one and two.
Of course there is. ML algorithms could easily screen stuff. Those 400,000 daily hours uploaded is backed by the computational horsepower to support that. You're not asking your personal Dell PC to check this stuff. There's any number of low cost risk mitigation strategies that could be employed. For example, while helping my kids navigate Youtube I've found that much of the pervy stuff comes in the form of reposts. That is, someone ripping off content from a legitimate channel and posting the trimmed lascivious versions on their own channel. Simply scanning for reposts would be a boon to huge swaths of content creators, in addition to keeping the pervs at bay. As a parent I'd love it if there was a kid friendly "whitelist" ability where my kids would be allowed to search around and find stuff, but post a popup asking for parent permission before allowing them enter an unlisted channel. Or, perhaps something a bit more sophisticated where content creators could get a "reputation" score and I could set the threshold for when I'd need to give the OK.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but believe it or not, there's more than one reason for children to be present on the Internet. It would be wrong to allow some pervs from eastern Europe, et al. to spoil it for the overwhelming majority of the legitimate, innocent content out there for and by children. There seems to be a lot of hand waving surrounding this topic arguing for the equivalent of shutting down playgrounds, water parks, etc. because some perverted letch might be leveraging them for his jollies. As a father of two, with connected kids I'm keenly aware of all the great content out there. I'm also aware of the filth. The alternative Elsa-Anna videos were especially frustrating for a time. Its a reality and a reason for ensuring we educate our kids, as well as watch out for them. You know, a reason to do our job as parents.
I'm also pretty sure Google could do more to address the pervs. Hopefully this guy's video suffices for a sufficient kick in the pants to patrol the comments, reposts, etc. a bit better. I find it a bit challenging to believe they don't have the reasonable ability to put some algorithms on the job. It doesn't take much for ML algorithms to be trained to detect children in a video coinciding with timestamp links and lecherous comments.
I got a weird one of a man with frameless glasses, kind of. On his left is the stalk for the ear leading up to a lens. Then it gets bizarre as the nose piece sinks under the skin to resurface on his right side, just at the right most of his eye socket to form the stalk for the right ear.
Close to useless. The voltage is actually pretty important as it is in a sense a measure of efficiency, S = dV / dT (see Seeback Coefficient). The power is scalable by surface area. For reference a 1 inch square TEG will give you maybe 7W @ 300C/30C (572F hot vs. 86F cold).
You misunderstand. The right to life is meant as an assurance to companies that they shall be able to poison/kill you for profit after you enter the third-trimester of gestation. The right to life was really just a play on words suggesting one thing and meaning another. In reality it's "right to your life" not the right to live. The most zealous quite cleverly seek to further boost supply by rewinding control all the way back to pre-conception by removing access to birth control. Of course they need to also reduce costs, so, no food stamps, no government sponsored health care, education, etc..
Knowledge can be good or evil dependent upon how that knowledge was obtains
Refusing knowledge because of unethical origins will deter the future gathering of knowledge by the same means
For the first point, the example used to illustrate this while disturbing and graphic, is but an emotional appeal. Knowledge does not have an ethical character. It is a comprehension of reality that cannot be altered by how it was obtained. That the sky is blue does not vary dependent upon whether it is witnessed through the eyes of a free citizen or those stolen from an innocent slave.
Point two makes the assumption that our rejection of knowledge obtained by immoral actors will deter further immoral acts. I would suggest that it is quite probable that Mengele would have conducted his research regardless of whether he knew the allies would later reject knowledge derived from it.
Rejecting knowledge does not make you more ethical, it makes you less knowledgeable. Rejecting knowledge does not demonstrate the value of the lives of the victims, it simply results in nothing being gained for the sacrifice.
The ends justifying means argument does not apply here. The idea behind the argument is that the net gain shall outweigh the costs of obtaining something. This might be an argument against future research conducted in the mentioned manner. It does not however, logically apply to something already performed. Knowledge is not evil. The acts surrounding that knowledge are what may or may not be evil. To apply sentiment to the situation, it could be argued that to destroy the knowledge gained would in and of itself be an act that cheapens the lives lost to acquire it.
Believe it or not, there once was an occasion when Republican wasn't synonymous with Trump, McConnell, or Ryan. You didn't always agree with them, but at least you could respect them, even accomplish things of significant benefit. McCain, style Republicans I think still exist. Sadly too quiet to be heard over the former's loud, execrable bemoaning and clamor as they exact self-destructive vengeance upon a world that no longer resembles them. Nevertheless for the sake of those bystanders whom we very much need as allies once this Hegelian dialectic regains the center please consider where you send your jabs.
The time to get a drug to market is far less affected by safety considerations than you would expect. More over, in most people's minds I would expect that context would make a great deal of difference between when "slow and confident" or "fast but uncertain" are considered preferred. You know, common sleep aid, and potentially life saving cancer therapy.
So it is more ethical to have in your hands the tools by which to save lives but sit on them because using them would make some bureaucrats and religious leaders are uncomfortable? I'm sorry, but I cannot subscribe to that philosophy.
I'm having a really hard time trying to decide if you are criticizing ICE vehicles or EVs. I guess I'll assume you're referring to ICE vehicles and agree with you whole heartedly. They absolutely should stop subsidizing the petrol industry and the internal combustion engine. It's quite shortsighted to be disadvantaging EVs.
If you set up a hab on Mars you surely aren't able to just go home because of an electrical burn, nor malfunctioning equipment. You have to tough it out at the very least until a favorable transfer window, and presumably in most cases for the duration of the mission. Tell them folks to go take their 30-second shower and get back to work. Use the opportunity to learn how to deal with things going to sh*t. I can all but guarantee they will on Mars.
It's a delta. With each discovery, new paths of research and exploration fork off from it and recombine. Learning how briskly rubbing hard and softwood together in a certain way to produce fire was civilization altering, but I doubt it was cheap knowledge to come by. When yours and your family's survival depends upon spending every waking minute looking for food and you jagging around rubbing sticks together... But, look at what spun off from that in every way imaginable. Look at what it enabled, and the next things, and the next...
Scientific progress is not logarithmic, it's exponential. Meanwhile the costs are getting cheaper and cheaper. Society could only afford to dedicate so many resources to the pursuit of knowledge if that knowledge was multiplying the product of the efforts of others. Or, said another way, our inventions are freeing up human resources to be spent otherwise. The author was either lazy, or an ignorant fool. Writing crap like this can be dangerous in the minds of certain people. We don't need to give the willfully ignorant any more fuel for their anti-science, anti-education ideology.
Slashdot Mirror
Enjoy your game of wack-a-mole.
Until you learn that they all have a cam... Honestly, privacy is an illusion no matter where you go. A sufficiently resourced actor will always be able to get footage of you picking your nose, scratching yourself, or fondling your seatmate. Even if you didn't actually do any of those things, there's always deepfakes. It might offend your sensibilities, but it's a reality that you're probably going to want to get comfortable with lest you be driven mad by it.
You don't need to be 100%. You don't need to have the ML remove 100% and you don't need to match 100% to improve the situation in a significant and meaningful way. An example ML involved strategy that I believe would be very effective would be a multi-stage filtration system system. Stage one, the ML, grabs the low hanging fruit--everything hitting a sufficiently high confidence threshold. Stage two, Google staff get handed stuff the ML flagged as likely, but not having sufficient confidence to automatically filter. Stage three, end-users flag inappropriate material missed by one and two.
Of course there is. ML algorithms could easily screen stuff. Those 400,000 daily hours uploaded is backed by the computational horsepower to support that. You're not asking your personal Dell PC to check this stuff. There's any number of low cost risk mitigation strategies that could be employed. For example, while helping my kids navigate Youtube I've found that much of the pervy stuff comes in the form of reposts. That is, someone ripping off content from a legitimate channel and posting the trimmed lascivious versions on their own channel. Simply scanning for reposts would be a boon to huge swaths of content creators, in addition to keeping the pervs at bay. As a parent I'd love it if there was a kid friendly "whitelist" ability where my kids would be allowed to search around and find stuff, but post a popup asking for parent permission before allowing them enter an unlisted channel. Or, perhaps something a bit more sophisticated where content creators could get a "reputation" score and I could set the threshold for when I'd need to give the OK.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but believe it or not, there's more than one reason for children to be present on the Internet. It would be wrong to allow some pervs from eastern Europe, et al. to spoil it for the overwhelming majority of the legitimate, innocent content out there for and by children. There seems to be a lot of hand waving surrounding this topic arguing for the equivalent of shutting down playgrounds, water parks, etc. because some perverted letch might be leveraging them for his jollies. As a father of two, with connected kids I'm keenly aware of all the great content out there. I'm also aware of the filth. The alternative Elsa-Anna videos were especially frustrating for a time. Its a reality and a reason for ensuring we educate our kids, as well as watch out for them. You know, a reason to do our job as parents.
I'm also pretty sure Google could do more to address the pervs. Hopefully this guy's video suffices for a sufficient kick in the pants to patrol the comments, reposts, etc. a bit better. I find it a bit challenging to believe they don't have the reasonable ability to put some algorithms on the job. It doesn't take much for ML algorithms to be trained to detect children in a video coinciding with timestamp links and lecherous comments.
I got a weird one of a man with frameless glasses, kind of. On his left is the stalk for the ear leading up to a lens. Then it gets bizarre as the nose piece sinks under the skin to resurface on his right side, just at the right most of his eye socket to form the stalk for the right ear.
Close to useless. The voltage is actually pretty important as it is in a sense a measure of efficiency, S = dV / dT (see Seeback Coefficient). The power is scalable by surface area. For reference a 1 inch square TEG will give you maybe 7W @ 300C/30C (572F hot vs. 86F cold).
You misunderstand. The right to life is meant as an assurance to companies that they shall be able to poison/kill you for profit after you enter the third-trimester of gestation. The right to life was really just a play on words suggesting one thing and meaning another. In reality it's "right to your life" not the right to live. The most zealous quite cleverly seek to further boost supply by rewinding control all the way back to pre-conception by removing access to birth control. Of course they need to also reduce costs, so, no food stamps, no government sponsored health care, education, etc..
For the first point, the example used to illustrate this while disturbing and graphic, is but an emotional appeal. Knowledge does not have an ethical character. It is a comprehension of reality that cannot be altered by how it was obtained. That the sky is blue does not vary dependent upon whether it is witnessed through the eyes of a free citizen or those stolen from an innocent slave.
Point two makes the assumption that our rejection of knowledge obtained by immoral actors will deter further immoral acts. I would suggest that it is quite probable that Mengele would have conducted his research regardless of whether he knew the allies would later reject knowledge derived from it.
Rejecting knowledge does not make you more ethical, it makes you less knowledgeable. Rejecting knowledge does not demonstrate the value of the lives of the victims, it simply results in nothing being gained for the sacrifice.
The ends justifying means argument does not apply here. The idea behind the argument is that the net gain shall outweigh the costs of obtaining something. This might be an argument against future research conducted in the mentioned manner. It does not however, logically apply to something already performed. Knowledge is not evil. The acts surrounding that knowledge are what may or may not be evil. To apply sentiment to the situation, it could be argued that to destroy the knowledge gained would in and of itself be an act that cheapens the lives lost to acquire it.
Believe it or not, there once was an occasion when Republican wasn't synonymous with Trump, McConnell, or Ryan. You didn't always agree with them, but at least you could respect them, even accomplish things of significant benefit. McCain, style Republicans I think still exist. Sadly too quiet to be heard over the former's loud, execrable bemoaning and clamor as they exact self-destructive vengeance upon a world that no longer resembles them. Nevertheless for the sake of those bystanders whom we very much need as allies once this Hegelian dialectic regains the center please consider where you send your jabs.
I suspect glass would be difficult to reuse given how easily it breaks, and recycling glass is very energy intensive.
You would be surprised by what lawyers can do with subjective terms like "insubstantial".
One person's "getting it wrong" is another's profitable business venture.
The time to get a drug to market is far less affected by safety considerations than you would expect. More over, in most people's minds I would expect that context would make a great deal of difference between when "slow and confident" or "fast but uncertain" are considered preferred. You know, common sleep aid, and potentially life saving cancer therapy.
So it is more ethical to have in your hands the tools by which to save lives but sit on them because using them would make some bureaucrats and religious leaders are uncomfortable? I'm sorry, but I cannot subscribe to that philosophy.
That little slogan on US currency is actually quite hollow. Private businesses have no obligation to accept US currency for payment in the absence of federal statue mandating its acceptance. It is possible for a state, or local laws to require its acceptance but I'm guessing such laws are basically non-existent.
Best turn around; scrap everything. Drill baby drill!
I'm having a really hard time trying to decide if you are criticizing ICE vehicles or EVs. I guess I'll assume you're referring to ICE vehicles and agree with you whole heartedly. They absolutely should stop subsidizing the petrol industry and the internal combustion engine. It's quite shortsighted to be disadvantaging EVs.
It looks like they've redefined those rules. That is not the common interpretation. I wonder what a court would do with this...?
Absolutely, just need to make sure you pronounce "shi" correctly.
Yes, like the freedom to become buried in debt from educational costs run amok.
*sigh* Beat me to it. But, I'm not going to take it lying down. I'll see your telegraph and raise you an onion.
If you set up a hab on Mars you surely aren't able to just go home because of an electrical burn, nor malfunctioning equipment. You have to tough it out at the very least until a favorable transfer window, and presumably in most cases for the duration of the mission. Tell them folks to go take their 30-second shower and get back to work. Use the opportunity to learn how to deal with things going to sh*t. I can all but guarantee they will on Mars.
It's a delta. With each discovery, new paths of research and exploration fork off from it and recombine. Learning how briskly rubbing hard and softwood together in a certain way to produce fire was civilization altering, but I doubt it was cheap knowledge to come by. When yours and your family's survival depends upon spending every waking minute looking for food and you jagging around rubbing sticks together... But, look at what spun off from that in every way imaginable. Look at what it enabled, and the next things, and the next...
Scientific progress is not logarithmic, it's exponential. Meanwhile the costs are getting cheaper and cheaper. Society could only afford to dedicate so many resources to the pursuit of knowledge if that knowledge was multiplying the product of the efforts of others. Or, said another way, our inventions are freeing up human resources to be spent otherwise. The author was either lazy, or an ignorant fool. Writing crap like this can be dangerous in the minds of certain people. We don't need to give the willfully ignorant any more fuel for their anti-science, anti-education ideology.