I remember the scandal when an American Apparel ad depicted a young woman in a thong. People were outraged because she looked minor. In fact, she was 21 years old. I wonder if people think she shouldn’t get any jobs modeling lingerie just because she appears to be underage. To be clear, the ad had nothing to suggest underage girls, just a girl in a thong which I hope everyone agrees does not have any connection to being underage, quite the opposite.
The "height of consent" is a topic that's been circulating among petite women online lately. A lot of people (mostly in western countries) seem to be of the mind that if women don't exceed a certain stature and level of buxomness, they're not an adult (or at least, shouldn't be treated as one), which is directly at odds with the hundreds of millions of women who live out their entire lives never making it past 5'4"/1.63m and/or never developing a shapely figure.
In these online discussions, the affected women express frustration with constant infantilization, being treated as adolescents even well into their 40s, ranging from suspicious glares when in public with their partners to being told that they should never marry because by doing so they'd being enabling deleterious tendencies, which is pretty screwed up.
On the flip side, girls who develop unusually early have historically been treated as if they were adults, which is also extremely screwed up and has resulted in a lot of trauma that routinely gets swept under the rug.
The west has some really weird ideas and hangups that they need to work through. How about treating people their actual age instead of using their physical appearance as a proxy?
I know it's HN and we love her numbers but legislation that requires interpretation by judge or jury isn't at all unusual. There are also several layers of oversight and courts of appeal in the UK, which are separate from the government.
For a long time there was push to handle some of that under magistrate courts and other approaches so that to properly defend you have to appeal to actually get in front of proper court.
There was at least one case where prosecution never, ever, seen the evidence of supposed CSAM found on accused's computer, and if not for the lucky person having a slightly less overworked public defender, they had high chances of being found "guilty" if of minor offense for having what used to be staple of family photo albums - photo of the toddler grand-kids playing in kiddy pool, which was reported by computer tech at a laptop repair business.
50kph is a number, but that number is (in my jurisdiction) determined by the police. The laws describe a number of things they must consider when making the decision, and for every one of those aspects, reasonable people can disagree.
Then there's the fact that such a number is nearly impossible to assess in messy reality, so we usually have a bit of leeway. Who is to say I was going 52 and not 49kph? Reasonable minds can disagree, but if we do, the judge gets the final say.
> "Sexualized drawings of children" is certainly open to discussion.
I think you'll find that discussion to be very short if you show "average" people the kinds of things that are posted online. It's like Megan Kelly arguing that Epstein wasn't really a pedophile because they were 15 and not 8. That argument might work in certain circles of the internet, but nobody outside of those circles find that distinction interesting.
The problem as stated in the original comment isn't that child porn as drawings is forbidden, or even that the interpretation of such is ambiguous. Or to be precise, it is not the only problem. The argument made is that these laws do not exist for their apparent intent (safety of children), but only as an excuse to exercise otherwise unlawful oppression and suppression of freedoms.
I don't find this assertion very plausible honestly, especially if this would be an argument against the existence of these very laws, because its not really an argument against government backdoors and such.
You could make the same argument (of ambiguity) with almost any crime, because there are always cases where a crime is hard to prove completely without any risk of failure, especially in the realm of sexual assault.
I'm not taking a position here, honestly I'm unsure about it, but the reasoning is sloppy and the allegations of abuse seemingly pulled out of thin air. There is also no case for why the poster is being investigated other than the pornography. It would be more plausible if there was some kind of civil disobedience involved. As stated, I'm inclined to put this in the category conspiracy theory.
Driving on public roads is prohibited until a certain age.
That age is 17 here in the UK but me and many of my friends growing up in a rural area learned to drive from the age of 14 or 15 on private land. Our parents would take us there/back, provide the car and be our "instructor". Some friends who lived on farms had cars/trucks/etc of their own that they could use to drive around and their parents were fine to let us try too. But we knew that we were never allowed on public roads.
By the time we all got to 17 we applied for our tests and had a few lessons with an real instructor on real public roads. We still had to learn all of the rules/etiquette/etc but most of us where completely happy with the physical aspects of controlling the vehicle, that saved us a huge amount of time.
My kid is 15 and if a suitable opportunity arises I'll let them have a go behind the wheel (not illegally obviously). Unfortunately I live in a city not a rural area, and don't own a car, so there hasn't been the chance yet.
(In the UK land like a supermarket car park is still considered as public roads despite being privately owned. Generally anywhere where the public can access it easily is not considered "private" in terms of the Road Traffic Act.)
"Claims" in the title is misleading. He (It/They, I guess it is an organism, not a single person) is _warning_ about that, same as this page always does. So, it is not an infamous claim, it is a warning to all affected parties (i.e. also the government).
I guess some kind of hard (repetitive) steganography where the private key signature of the original photo is somehow encoded lots of times; also watermarking everything and asking the reader for some kind of verification if they want their non-watermarked copy.
There seems to be no other way (apart from air-gapping everything, as others say).
> Claude, on occasion, will give a plausible-sounding argument designed to agree with the user rather than to follow logical steps. We show this by asking it for help on a hard math problem while giving it an incorrect hint. We are able to “catch it in the act” as it makes up its fake reasoning, providing a proof of concept that our tools can be useful for flagging concerning mechanisms in models...
> Claude seems to be unaware of the sophisticated "mental math" strategies that it learned during training. If you ask how it figured out that 36+59 is 95, it describes the standard algorithm involving carrying the 1. This may reflect the fact that the model learns to explain math by simulating explanations written by people, but that it has to learn to do math "in its head" directly, without any such hints, and develops its own internal strategies to do so.
That's basically a variant of the halting problem and what you hope to get is a supervisor responding. If people expected this I don't think they would be as confused about the difference between statistical analysis of responses requiring emotions to be convincing and an LLM showing atonement.
I am surprised as davmail with the Exchange protocol has worked for me since I set it up. They made offlineimap unusable but davmail works (it even has a small web client for the login when more than a month has passed). ??
Edit: they (my Uni) made offlineimap unusable, but it works with davmail.
I actually haven’t tried DavMail (but have heard about it), so if it manages to get around this sort of shenanigans I’ll happily give that a shot.
In my previous org I could also use offlineimap and msmtp to connect to their Microsoft mail server via standard protocols. But in this org I’ve so far tried the built-in Exchange support in Thunderbird as well as in Evolution Data Server based exchange clients (Evolution and KMail). All of them manage to connect to the server, kinda, but then I get an error message saying basically that my mail client is not approved and I’ll have to contact my admin to use it.
EDIT: I might add that the IT deliberately blocked non-Outlook mail clients a year ago or so, other Linux users told me that it worked fine before that. It’s supposedly a crackdown on people using shady third-party apps that they are concerned might exfiltrate data, but somehow they don’t allow exceptions even for reputable clients like Thunderbird.
You are repeating the very same history and excuses (from the IT Dpt.) I lived and heard. Davmail works for me on Linux and MacOS even from outside the intranet. Give it a try and I would be happy to help, I have a gmail account with my nick.
