I know nothing of agriculture but I would think corn is much more sustainable than coffee beans. So it’s a step in the right direction at least, isn’t it?
Looking corn farming's environmental impact in the US (eutrophication & Gulf of Mexico deadzone, top soil erosion, biodiversity losses), I wouldn't be so sure.
What’s the argument against this exactly?
Your doctor measures your healthiness and if you try to get insured, it’s priced accordingly.
Older driver feel like they’re being discriminated against? Just take a simulation like this and prove your reflexes are within their defined spectrum of acceptability.
This attitude is insane, and i can't believe how many people on HN exhibit this. The US is going mad and we are watching it like a car crash in slow-motion.
Am I the only one who doesnt use cloud services/iot for these very reasons? Never felt “right” handing all my personal photos and messages to Apple or M$, and owning an appliance or gadget that’s connected to the big bad internet just seems like a privacy violation waiting to happen.
Dark City’s changes, like most of the time a studio interferes with a creator’s vision, is all about profitability. It’s too risky financially to make a film that does not have wide appeal. It’s nothing personal, just business. And when they test these films they take any criticism rather harshly. They simply don’t have the time or the foresight to find out if people will like it after a little bit.
About 2/3rds of their original letter was spent characterizing the system to warn kids about dick pics with on-device inference as an iMessage backdoor, which literally nobody serious believes.
More astounding was the privacy issue they raised with it, which I've not seen raised by anyone else.
Let's review how this feature works. It is only on if parent's explicitly enable it for their child's phone when they set up the child's phone for parental controls.
If it is on, images sent to the child's phone are scanned using a ML system to recognize sex images. When such an image is found, the child is given a screen that warns that the image contains content that may be harmful to the child, and may be an image of someone who did not consent to having it sent.
The child is asked if they want to reject the image or view it.
If the child elects to view it and is 13-17 they are shown a blurred version of the image and that is the end of it.
If the child elects to view it and is under 13, they get another screen that says that if they view it their parents will be notified because the parents want to be able to check to make sure the child is safe. They are again asked if they want to reject it or view it.
If they reject it, that's the end of it. If they view it they get a blurred version and the parents are notified.
The privacy issue the EFF has with this? If I send your 12 or under child a dick pic and they elect to view it knowing that their parents will be notified and see a copy of the image, my privacy might be violated because I did not consent to the child's parents being told I'm sending their child dick pics or to the parents seeing my dick pic.
I wonder what the EFF's opinion would be if I sent a dick pic to a 12 year old whose device does not have parental controls, but the kid decided to show it to the parents. Has the child violated my privacy? If we are in a state that has a civil law against nonconsensual image sharing would the EFF help me sue the child?
I have nothing to add except that once a child accepts the risk at each prompt, I believe they get to see the original image and not a blurred version.
When I first read their objection, I thought that the system would transmit the image from the child’s device to the parent’s device. I could see how that could be problematic. Except it doesn’t: the record of the image stays with the child’s device, and the parent is simply told the record has been created. At this point, the most charitable interpretation I could give is that they’re worried the model will have many false positives and ping parents about every photo a child receives. iMessage back door, this is not.
Their “concern” is literally as absurd as you describe.
>Because Heidegger's writing is so difficult and so open to interpretation (and re-interpretation), many philosophers disagree strongly about what he actually meant.
There’s a bit of a joke out there about Heidegger’s difficulty. “Heidegger is impossible to translate - especially into German”
