I can kind of see regulations coming that make neurally compressed image or video data are require to have a little Ⓝ on-screen graphic in one of the corners, in addition to (not necessarily perceivable) watermarks that can make even small crops of the image identifiable as neurally generated. And that is probably the best case.
In the worst case (and more likely?), we are going to ban computational substrates large enough to perfectly forge important data altogether because it will be too easy to misuse. We‘d essentially go back to ~1960s electronics to have at least halfway functioning mechanisms of creating social trust, namely high-bandwidth personal interactions where every thought and every action has a high chance of leaving a trace in the real world and thus contributing to someone’s reputation. No blockchain and no other technology can create nearly as much trust as that without being highly prone to misuse.
Stolen personal information which is later exposed in a data leak can certainly kill someone. In expectation it is less likely than food poisoning, but it still seems ridiculous to downplay the gravity of all of it.
That has got to be the most fucked up thing about capitalism: Correction signals are painfully slow, delayed and weak. You can mostly only penalize a company by boycotting their products (unless they seriously break a law), but for the individual, there is often more utility in continuing buying their products than in sending a corrective signal, so the overall signal mostly vanishes except for a small, intellectual minority that can afford extremely high moral standards.
It is basically the prisoner's dilemma. The free publication platforms do not yet have prestige because few prestigious researchers publish there; but only few prestigious researchers publish on free publication platforms because they are not prestigious enough.
The only way to overcome a prisoner's dilemma is education and trust.
Oops, thanks. I've always had struggle remembering these terms because they are so confusing. "Specific" means that something only relates to one particular element X in a set of more than one thing. Given that meaning, one would expect specificity to mean "how good is the test at correctly reporting the thing it is designed to report X rather than confusing a different thing (an element from the complement of X) for X", but that is sensitivity. Instead, specificity means that with respect to the complement: "how good is the test at correctly reporting all the other elements in the set ¬X as negative rather than confusing an element from ¬X for X".
"Sensitive" has a clearer intuition: For example when you want to detect a weak signal, then if your antenna is more sensitive, you can better pick up the signal, thus you are better at telling whether the signal is really there (you have a better true positive rate).
I cannot think of a better name for TNR, though, other than simply sticking with TNR and TPR.
I don’t think this is a good explanation. Having played with Poser [0] as a kid a lot, my intuition is that extreme feature parameter settings usually look rather disfigured and unattractive. The chicken brain more likely forms two clusters [1] (one for each sex) and responds more strongly the closer the sensory input is to either of the cluster means. Average faces tend to look attractive, e.g. [2].
Another, related explanation might be Occam’s razor (the preference for simple things [3]): Beautiful things are beautiful because they are simple. They require fewer bits to be represented and brains prefer such representations. This is a fact that possibly also explains intrinsic motivation and our interest in art and science [4].
Another explanation might be that chickens have evolved abilities to recognize symmetric body shapes and a uniform skin texture for their own intraspecies visual (sexual) attraction. Sexual attraction to symmetry likely mainly exists because asymmetry is reliable evidence that growth hormone signaling was not only out of tune in some regions of the body (e.g. the face), but throughout the entire system and this is the root cause of all kinds of diseases (e.g. faster wearing joints) [5].
The patch for Meltdown (CVE-2017-5754) for High Sierra, Sierra and El Capitan was contained in these security updates from December 6: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208331
I'm on 10.12.6 on a Mid 2011 MacBook Air 13": "No Updates Available"
Edit: I see, there is a confusing typo in om2's comment (it should be 10.12.6 not 10.12.7). I am wondering why this update does not show up in my list of installed updates. What a mess.
