Just wondering what would happen if more people started wearing masks and perhaps questioning whether other people dressed similarly were really Ice agents. Is wearing a mask "impersonating an officer?"
Slightly puzzled that someone thinks saying 200 is "exponentially longer" than 78 means something. The exponent x in the equation [78^x = 200] is approximately 1.216. Impressive exponent.
So, if you mount pepper spray on a thing with fans, where's it going to go? I guess they could use the props to sort of waft the spray towards their target? I'm picturing a maneuver similar to a dragonfly laying eggs - sweep forward, deploy the spray while being pushed backwards, repeat?
It kinda feels like they should be allowed to confront their accusers, though? And that their accusers should be able to be questioned in some legal venue.
It feels less like tips and more ... like vigilantism or something? Not sure. Tips would be something like, "I saw my neighbor driving over a double-yellow and here's some evidence," followed up by the boys in blue surveilling the neighbor to catch them in the act. This is policing by proxy, or something.
Gimme a good AI to manipulate some images, and my neighbor can be find into bankruptcy.
I'm sure there's an issue here, and that we can draw a distinction between bad political robocalls, and the rest of the robocalls, or even scam calls. But why do so? I'm certain that most people regard scams, unsolicited sales robocalls or similar, and political robocalls as being the same thing: unwanted spam. And yet we privilege the political ones. I'm sorry, I would rather talk to an "honest" scammer than hear from a politician, whether they're "real" or simulated.
And are we going to allow "real" simulations? "Hi, I'm xxx and I want to tell you about" ... if they authorized the use of their simulated voice? Or simulated sales pitches, no human involved? Why allow any of this, and disallow us from opting out / screening them effectively?
I just wonder, do they not know that kids can Google? "...assists a child in disabling the pornography filters...."
What would happen if phone companies just decided not to sell to Utah? Would they be liable for mail order phones?
I'm sure i have the wrong end of the stick, but I'll whine anyway.
YouTube takedowns far exceed the problem described here, and they also do financial harm, potentially far more harm. It's a death by a thousand cuts kind of harm, but still harm.
But Google gets to keep the ad revenue, I guess, so won't be fixing that.
Does the product (by manufacturer, or Amazon) ship with a Material Safety Data Sheet? Because that would have covered any notification requirements, I'd think?
content from news outlets... will no longer be available to people accessing our platforms in Canada.
Does this mean that a Canadian user would be prevented from clicking a Canadian link, maybe that nobody in the world can click a Canadian link, and maybe also no news links at all?
Okay, I am not a lawyer and do not pretend. I am also perfectly happy to be totally wrong here. The thing is, I've always thought that confusion had to do with selling similar products. I don't think these guys do, do they? It sounds like they get some people together and have coffee and a chat, which is radically different from being a coffee shop. Again, I'm sure I'm being an idiot here, and at the mall is not designed to be understood nor used by anybody competent to accomplish anything good. Preaching to the converted.
No idea where to put this, so here we go.
When viewing an article via RSS, embedded video content does not show up. It's necessary to visit BestNetTech.com in order to see the John Oliver video, for example.
Would you consider linking to the videos from the article, as a hyperlink, rather than or in addition to embedding?
“As an officer, I’m definitely going to think twice about pulling anyone over. That’s the first thing they’re going to look at how many black and Hispanic people you pulled over,” the cop said.
Translation: I decide whom to pull over based solely on that person's skin color. I believe that my behavior will be exposed if I use this system and continue my racist policing practices.
Even the most discerning palate wouldn't be able to tell the difference between bourbon and vanilla once it had been baked in a pie, of course. But that's not the point.
I could argue:
"derby pie" is still a trademark, so it hasn't become a common term (resulting in "every" reader knowing about it well enough to know about vanilla vs bourbon).
the judge asserts that everyone would know, even while issuing a judgment maintaining the trademark.
My apologies. In the article, the final paragraph quoted: “No reader,” the judge wrote, “could possibly think that a so-called ‘Derby pie’ containing bourbon and no vanilla came from the company or companies associated with Derby-Pie.”
Seems over the top and also obviously false. So, it feels like they're making fun of the whole thing.
impersonating an "officer"
Just wondering what would happen if more people started wearing masks and perhaps questioning whether other people dressed similarly were really Ice agents. Is wearing a mask "impersonating an officer?"
Exponential
Slightly puzzled that someone thinks saying 200 is "exponentially longer" than 78 means something. The exponent x in the equation [78^x = 200] is approximately 1.216. Impressive exponent.
Pepper Spray + Powerful Fans?
So, if you mount pepper spray on a thing with fans, where's it going to go? I guess they could use the props to sort of waft the spray towards their target? I'm picturing a maneuver similar to a dragonfly laying eggs - sweep forward, deploy the spray while being pushed backwards, repeat?
Photoshop your enemies into bankruptcy?
It kinda feels like they should be allowed to confront their accusers, though? And that their accusers should be able to be questioned in some legal venue. It feels less like tips and more ... like vigilantism or something? Not sure. Tips would be something like, "I saw my neighbor driving over a double-yellow and here's some evidence," followed up by the boys in blue surveilling the neighbor to catch them in the act. This is policing by proxy, or something. Gimme a good AI to manipulate some images, and my neighbor can be find into bankruptcy.
Robocalls are universally unwanted, political or not.
I'm sure there's an issue here, and that we can draw a distinction between bad political robocalls, and the rest of the robocalls, or even scam calls. But why do so? I'm certain that most people regard scams, unsolicited sales robocalls or similar, and political robocalls as being the same thing: unwanted spam. And yet we privilege the political ones. I'm sorry, I would rather talk to an "honest" scammer than hear from a politician, whether they're "real" or simulated. And are we going to allow "real" simulations? "Hi, I'm xxx and I want to tell you about" ... if they authorized the use of their simulated voice? Or simulated sales pitches, no human involved? Why allow any of this, and disallow us from opting out / screening them effectively?
adult help?
I just wonder, do they not know that kids can Google? "...assists a child in disabling the pornography filters...." What would happen if phone companies just decided not to sell to Utah? Would they be liable for mail order phones?
but YouTube?
I'm sure i have the wrong end of the stick, but I'll whine anyway. YouTube takedowns far exceed the problem described here, and they also do financial harm, potentially far more harm. It's a death by a thousand cuts kind of harm, but still harm. But Google gets to keep the ad revenue, I guess, so won't be fixing that.
rural isolation
Thinking about this and the poor broadband in much of the country, this would tend to isolate those folks even further.
tangent, sorry
I'm imagining specialized AI to remove anything that a particular society finds offensive. Sex scene? Zap! Brisk walk!
probably not important...
Does the product (by manufacturer, or Amazon) ship with a Material Safety Data Sheet? Because that would have covered any notification requirements, I'd think?
Why violate procedure?
Why not just throw his tweets through the standard process? Or run him through a consensus process of some sort.
As an exec, I want no knowledge of and no control over that kind of decision. The process, sure, but not individual cases.Room for making it worse
Piper and Hens
*
*law
actual confusion?
Okay, I am not a lawyer and do not pretend. I am also perfectly happy to be totally wrong here. The thing is, I've always thought that confusion had to do with selling similar products. I don't think these guys do, do they? It sounds like they get some people together and have coffee and a chat, which is radically different from being a coffee shop. Again, I'm sure I'm being an idiot here, and at the mall is not designed to be understood nor used by anybody competent to accomplish anything good. Preaching to the converted.
curious turn of phrase
"...Ryan Coyne, the man (very temporarily, it seems)...." Just got me wondering what's in his future.
RSS Issue
No idea where to put this, so here we go. When viewing an article via RSS, embedded video content does not show up. It's necessary to visit BestNetTech.com in order to see the John Oliver video, for example. Would you consider linking to the videos from the article, as a hyperlink, rather than or in addition to embedding?
basically an admission of racist policing
Translation: I decide whom to pull over based solely on that person's skin color. I believe that my behavior will be exposed if I use this system and continue my racist policing practices.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarcasm?
Even the most discerning palate wouldn't be able to tell the difference between bourbon and vanilla once it had been baked in a pie, of course. But that's not the point. I could argue:
Re: Re: Sarcasm?
My apologies. In the article, the final paragraph quoted:
“No reader,” the judge wrote, “could possibly think that a so-called ‘Derby pie’ containing bourbon and no vanilla came from the company or companies associated with Derby-Pie.”
Seems over the top and also obviously false. So, it feels like they're making fun of the whole thing.