My optimistic way of looking at it is like this (admittedly US-centric but, well, a lot of things about Israel are US-centric): Israel should be a global pariah state but has historically been showered with aid by the US and given carte blanche to do whatever it wants. We’re not going to flip the switch over night but America’s abstention in an important votes marks a real turning point. Not helping, but not protecting either. We’re then on the journey to eventual outright condemnation. Netanyahu, genocidal fascist, has just barely managed to remain in political power (and out of prison) over the years due to deep divisions in Israel. I think single-handedly turning Israel’s most important ally against it might be enough to convince the Israeli public to finally permanently remove him from power and prosecute him for his myriad crimes.
kirklennon
Because we have an elected government. If the government causes somebody a loss, voters, and by extension their representatives, and by extension, the government itself, wants to make them whole. Without allowing lawsuits, the only option is passing individual laws for each possible claim, and also creating a way to adjudicate those claims. We already have courts to handle the exact same kinds of issues between private parties. Congress decided to let it apply to the government too, when appropriate.
The government has sovereign immunity and can be sued only when it allows itself to be sued, such as under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
This is not correct. At no point can the offspring in a single generation be differnet enough to be called a different species.
I'm not saying we should call it a different species but if we're saying species Y is the direct descendant of species X, then, we can imagine a dividing line, and the line must always begin with an egg because eggs are different from their parents but adults are not different from the egg they started off as.
In reality things change very slowley over a large amount of time and there a no clear transition points.
Isn't that obvious?
Chickens evolved from earlier animals. The process is gradual, of course, but we can say that at some point some proto-chicken ancestor laid an egg that was different enough genetically that it counts as a chicken. In other words, a non-chicken laid a chicken egg, which eventually grew up to be the first chicken. Therefore, the egg came first.
Do you happen to know a good source for information on this?
Apple released detailed whitepapers and information about it when originally proposed but they shelved it so I don't think they're still readily available.
One in a trillion sounds like a probability of a hash collision.
Basically yes, but they're assuming a much greater likelihood of a single hash collision. The system would upload a receipt of the on-device scan along with each photo. A threshold number of matches would be set to achieve the one in a trillion confidence level. I believe the initial estimate was roughly 30 images. In other words, you'd need to be uploading literally dozens of CSAM images for your account to get flagged. And these accompanying receipts use advanced cryptography so it's not like they're seeing "oh this account has 5 potential matches and this one has 10"; anything below the threshold would have zero flags. Only when enough "bad" receipts showed up for the same account would they collectively flag it.
And I was under the impression that iPhones connected to the iCloud sync the pictures per default?
This is for people who use iCloud Photo Library, which you have to turn on.
The proposal was only for photos stored on iCloud. Apple has a legitimate interest in not wanting to actually host abuse material on their servers. The plan was also calibrated for one in one trillion false positives (it would require multiple matches before an account could be flagged), followed by a manual review by an employee before reporting to authorities. It was so very carefully designed.
As far as I know both platforms automatically scan pictures to help fight crime and child exploitation.
Apple doesn’t. They should but they don’t. They came up with a really clever system that would do the actual scanning on your device immediately before uploading to iCloud, so their servers would never need to analyze your photos, but people went insane after they announced the plan.
Some parties like Apple have decided to scan photos from your device for illegal material.
No they haven’t, they aren’t, and they never even discussed scanning your messages like that. There’s a communication safety feature available to enable in parental controls so that if a child’s phone locally recognizes (using machine learning) that they received or are about to send a nude photo, the receiving photo is blurred and they’re given information about making safe choices and then allowed to continue or not.
How ‘Dark Fate’ Visual Effects Team Brought ‘Terminator’ Stars Back to the ’90s
For the flashback sequence in Dark Fate, the team did digital head replacement on younger actors who functioned as body doubles and were filmed on set. The digital work started with a scan of each original actor. Then the team used a markerless facial capture system called Anyma, developed by Disney Research, to capture each actor’s performance.
I think it's a group of obnoxiously self-righteous people who get to tell themselves that they're taking real action to make a difference but really aren't doing anything useful at all, and their stunts probably actively turn some people against environmental causes. They're the exact same kind of people as the NIMBYs who pat themselves on the back for getting a new 50% affordable-housing apartment building canceled because it wasn't 100% affordable.
No, because aspartame is not unhealthy.