If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created.
Is that an image of you?
It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human).
You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you without knowing where it came from, but I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, it is your exact likeness, it is a picture of you.
What do you think my comment was responding to? Literally those are the words that I was responding to.
Saying that the provenance of a naked image of myself is relevant to the fact that it's a naked image of _me_ and I don't have ownership over my own image is exactly the kind of lawyer-brained wording I was referring to when I made the comment about the mirror. "It's not a picture of you, it's a picture of a reflection of you."
> If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.
"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."
I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.
Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.
The giveaway was my Medical Professional father thinking that AI was really good at things outside of his area of expertise, and really bad at things inside of his area of expertise.
I think it's reasonable for governments to signal a decision like this that parents can ultimately choose to bypass. So it's both to explain the harms and posture to reduce those harms to children, and to leave the final decision to parents.
I think I'm looking at general "retirement funds" which are a little more opaque. e.g. Vanguard/TD retirement funds, when I looked into them, didn't have any information on "what is in them." Just general breakdowns.
Curious how someone with a 401k, who didn't want their retirement to be used by these companies to buy at an inflated price, would go about opting out of this.
Typically I just have my 401k in an index fund so that things have to become established before they're added. This seems like it's circumventing that, and I would be inclined to vote with my wallet. But everything around 401k index funds that I see are very opaque, so it's not totally clear to me how I would avoid this if I wanted to.
Everyone I know who invests in an index fund is doing so to mitigate the risks of things like "moonshots" which are typically much riskier investments.
This feels like the kind of thing where, "you must be at least this human to pass" and that it just otherwise mostly wastes your time if you're a robot would cover most of what Captchas are useful for.
Like, if it takes you 3-5 seconds to get through a captcha as a human, as long as every single event has that effort added, the impact to something trying to use/reuse the end-page is way worse if you're a robot than if you're a human.
I can see a few usecases where it would still be valuable to continue the game of cat-and-mouse, but I feel like solving for consistency of human experience of your website, may actually be more punishing to anything trying to bypass it.
Huh, for someone whose "about" page says: “Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.”
You seem to be pushing an ideological agenda around wikipedia by posting opinion pieces about "how biased" wikipedia is.
I think the thing you have to understand is, there is no "unbiased" so treating wikipedia as "biased" in a vacuum misrepresents the fact-checking processes that go into validating articles written on wikipedia. Wikipedia does more to unbias the topics than like, 99% of the news media, and probably 100% of the substack/op-eds you appear to be consuming about wikipedia...
For example, this op-ed doesn't site a single counter-factual primary source.
Seems like a pretty political take on a wikipedia article, and none of it seems to take issue with the facts presented in the wikipedia article either. Just general mistrust of wikipedia construed as "whitewashing" which isn't even a correct use of that term in this day and age.
This is not my reaction to just you. This is my reading of "any time a wealth tax is brought up." My recommendation to you, given you seem to be acting in good-faith:
Make it clear "What you want a wealth tax to look like instead" But also, it's easier to destroy than it is to create, so I think any state setting the grounds for how they're going to try this, is worth supporting and iterating on.
I feel like every opposition I read to wealth taxes is someone saying that we shouldn't do it, because it won't be perfect. Without offering an alternative to the status quo, which is nothing.
We can iterate on taxes if they're ineffective, but it's unforgivable to not try and do something in the face of so much inequality.
There's an old Chemistry joke, that I've reapplied to Software Engineering, and it goes something like:
A New Engineer (NE) shows up on their first day on the job, notebook in hand ready to learn. They get assigned to shadow an Experienced Engineer (EE) for their first day.
EE: Now, the thing is, for any project on our team, you only need to change about 3 lines of code.
NE, preparing to write down notes: Which 3?
EE: Well, it depends.
(Originally about Material Safety Data Sheets, and there only being 3 relevant lines on them).
I think this is what people miss about Software Development.
I feel like we need to hold Gov't Contractors to higher standards.
Like half of these ballooning budgets are things that Private Businesses brag about on the other side. "I got a $200B Private contract with the CA Gov't." Is a big win for the company, and a big loss for the taxpayer. To some extent I think CA should be able to reclaim a large portion of their contract (in some way) because costs ballooned.
The same for Military contractors. There needs to be better enforcement of "this is the budget that you bid, we won't increase that, and you still have to deliver."
Imagine if companies ended up having to sell part of their company to the gov't if they failed to deliver their contract.
If I show you a picture of yourself that is a perfect likeness of yourself, And do not tell you how it was collected/created.
Is that an image of you?
It looks exactly like you, and you have found yourself in a similar or same situation at some point (what do you know your memory is human).
You're saying you can't say one way or another whether or not that is a picture of you without knowing where it came from, but I'm saying it doesn't matter where it came from, it is your exact likeness, it is a picture of you.