Rather them work on natural reading of the books with Text To Speech. People with disabilities such as Dyslexia, ADHD, partial or total Blindness have to hobble on with the terrible TTS available. You have to select the text to get it to read, which means you will have to do that each page. A simple play & stop button for "read aloud" would solve this. They love to think about use cases to make things easier for their users, but have they hired disabled people to give comment? This has been a glaring issue to me, and I've told Apple, but nothing ever comes of it. Cool animation though .
Oh Crazy. It is so frustrating, for people with ADHD, in order to have our brains stimulated enough to keep focus, we have to read and hear it at the same time, so our option is to buy it twice.
Not a fan of any authoritarianism, but USA could also be described the same way. We have massive data warehouses that just collect everything, phone calls, texts, internet packets. We just have different owners, but its the same game.
If you haven't read up on the unclassified docs that have been released about the secret agencies of this country, you should. We've done everything and worse to our own citizens. Including firebombing entire cities, sending the military to kill people striking, dosing unaware Americans with LSD... the list is long.
> Not a fan of any authoritarianism, but USA could also be described the same way. We have massive data warehouses that just collect everything, phone calls, texts, internet packets. We just have different owners, but its the same game
This is hardly a reasonable comparison. Most of the crazy shit you're talking about like breaking protests with the military and the LSD trails are from 60 years ago. Firebombing cities happened during WWII and was the accepted (though terrible and it turns out strategically wrong) air doctrine of all sides.
Yes, US bulk data collection is wrong, but we know it isn't being used to round up people en masse for wrong think. We don't run massive reeducation/forced labor camps for ethnic minorities. The Xinjiang internment camps have housed basically the equivalent of the whole US prison population and where there is institutionalized forced sterilization, mass rape, water boarding, torture involving electrical shock, and beatings. Even the worst US prison is basically day camp by comparison, and the people of Xinjiang are being rounded up largely for their ethnic identity.
You false equivalence is frankly, fucking bullshit.
Your ego is getting in the way of seeing the facts friend. Just because it happened before your lifetime doesn’t make it somehow less of an atrocity. US was founded on slavery and genocide. Now we outsource genocide for oil, and do slave labor in our prisons in accordance with the 13th amendment.
With respect to the injustices of the FBI and CIA, there was a congressional commission that investigated abuses, held people to account, and enacted some laws to change the situation. Such a process is impossible in China today which has no separation of powers. Hell you can’t even talk about the Tiananmen massacre without being locked up and it’s scrubbed from the internet but we can openly discuss domestic police abuses all day long without fear of reprisal.
As for WWII it isn’t even relevant to the discussion of domestic policy, notwithstanding the fact that it was near total war.
The US was not founded on slavery and genocide, this is bullshit history. Half if the original colonies barely ever had slavery and had banned it before the revolution. The founders, if you’ve read any of their writings hoped to see the young republic end the institution within a generation, and expected to fade away due to epidemic pressures from the more productive north.
War for oil is a stupid conspiracy theory. The Iraq invasion never took oil resources and immediately handed them over to the Iraqi state which sold them on the global market just like before. There was no US genocide there or anywhere for oil. This is just nonsense.
Yes we do still technically have forced labor in prison, though it’s actually usually voluntary these days. This is totally different in kind and character from what is happening in Xianxjang, again where people are actual victims of a real modern
genocide.
You’re engaging in giahgallop and whataboutism here.
>The US was not founded on slavery and genocide, this is bullshit history. Half of the original colonies barely ever had slavery and had banned it before the revolution.
>Half of the original colonies barely ever had slavery and had banned it before the revolution.
>Half of the original colonies
So.... you're saying that half of them had full on slavery, and the other half had reduced to no slavery....to me it seems "founded" on slavery is absolutely accurate, especially considering that is literally enshrined in our highest governing document via the 3/5ths compromise, and went on to be the heart of the southern economy, becoming near and dear to enough people's hearts that half the country went to war to preserve it. And what would you call what we did to Native Americans if not genocide?
You're very much ignoring the actual historical context and the writing of the founders. That even half of the new nation outlawed slavery was pretty unique in the world of 1776 where slavery was globally ubiquitous. Article 1 section 9 of the constitution set a sort of cooling off period after which congress could end the Atlantic slave trade, which it did. The writing of the framers from the time makes it clear that their intention was to end importation in 1808 under the theory that it would cause slavery to end. They were trying to do so without fracturing their unstable union, it was a compromise just like the 3/5 compromise. But again, this was an unusually emancipatory direction for any new nation in the 18th century when every other nation had slavery, serfdom, or both.
I didn't address native peoples or genocide in my previous comment. But, if I were to do so I would probably argue that it was mostly carried out in the 19th century and was not a feature of the founding but its not an area of history I feel well enough versed in to make a super strong argument off the top of my head.
But that's not even the point, I'm arguing that the OP is acting in bad faith by arguing that CHina's current crimes are excused by the bad behavior of the US 250 years ago. Modern day slavery and genocide on the scale that exists in Xinjang are inexcusable and unparalleled since WWII. The US has made moral progress and the CCP is committing crimes against humanity.
I'm not a fan of any authoritarianism either.... and if you're describing the US the same way you describe China, then you're missing the forest for the trees.
Two things can be and often are _true_ at the same time, but often the difference between them is that, for a given conversation, one of them is a proportionate contribution, and the other is a troll.
Also, what do you mean firebombing our own cities. U.S. "strategic" bombing during Vietnam and WWII was on our enemies, not U.S. citizens as you claim. MKUltra was, sure, but it wasn't millions of people. And who cares about wiretapping; that's not even in the same ballpark. For most people in the U.S., we can live a free, safe, and open life, and so did our parents and grandparents.
One example of how the U.S. is not currently authoritarian is that we're all able to have this exact discussion strongly criticizing the U.S., on a U.S. website, over the U.S. internet, and still no one from the government is going to have us whacked.
If they're still hashing files, its not end to end.
An anecdote, an activist had a document in their Google Drive. It was not something people high up wanted being distributed. It was deleted not just from their account, but platform wide. Guess how they did that? Its hash.
People need to demand sources for some of the stuff said on this site. Unless you can provide an example of that incident of an activist having a file deleted, you're just spewing stuff.
It's not inconceivable, but you need to source it.
You are correct, but how could Apple solve this issue without hashing? Syncing files alone without E2E is tricky. I can't imagine a way to sync files between devices without having some sort of hash or id.
Big...deal...? That wouldn't be a "you" problem. That would be an Apple problem. If you pay for cloud service (say 100GB), Apple has no business "optimizing" or de-duplicating anyways. If you want it as an option, sure.
But let's not pretend this isn't a subtle backdoor that can invalidate the entire "E2E" implementation. I believe that in the US, having the filename and/or hash/checksum is most of what is necessary to trigger the Foregone conclusion doctrine and force the person to lose their 5th amendment protection and be compelled to decrypt their data to be used against themselves.
I'd like if someone with legal knowledge could comment if my understanding is correct.
Activists could always salt their own files by adding some junk content to the end (or cropping images by one pixel, cropping video clips by a fraction of a second, etc)
It also allows them to track the contact/social graph of all users based on clusters of who has the same unique file hashes.
Then again, they already have everyone's address books and iMessage traffic, so I guess they already have that data for most of the industrialized world. I wonder who else will preserve copies?
100% - this was my largest concern when they announced perceptual hashing, and it seems to be the big takeaway here. Of course, this is a concern with most online hosting services, but at Apple's scale it's pretty scary to consider the possibilities.
If only our government wasn't beholden to corporate power, they'd enforce the union busting laws. They know that if enough big companies become unionized, the workers would be able to exert democratic corporate power and influence government.
Agreed, also there were several high-profile reports of retaliation (Starbucks, et al) against union members. While they might have been settled out of court, it is not a good outlook for labor rights.
Don’t forget that the interests of unions are often the same interest as the employers.
My daughter has special needs, and we want to send her to a nearby public school. But the school isn’t in our district. So we have to pay for private school.
Teachers unions fought tooth and nail to prevent cross district enrollment using arguments from the 19th century.
Code isn't going to solve anything unless the people deciding on what to code are the people who are directly affected by it. Code today written by America's engineers is dictated top down by their CEO's or board who are only looking to enrich themselves, so the result will be the same.
> The instrument can look for methane in the same way. “It turns out that methane also has a spectral signature in the same wavelength range, and that’s what has allowed us to be sensitive to methane,” EMIT principal investigator Robert Green said at a press conference, according to Space.com’s Mike Wall.
Lol "it turns out". Did they troll Congress and sell them a mineral detector? Of course they knew methane had a spectral signature.
EDIT: No idea why people downvoting, I think it's hilarious and good we can detect it.
I read that as "we built the detector to be sensitive to the wavelengths of the minerals we wanted to monitor, and methane's spectra are in that range, so it works well for picking it up".
Of course they could have known that beforehand, but it sounds like they weren’t designing a methane detector so the fact that it works so well as one is what “turned out” I think. Also articles are really good and taking one quote from a big technical answer and making the speaker sound stupid
Cool. Interesting to note that the original is not necessarily the "correct" real world color palette (it's accuracy is subject to camera settings, sensor response, lighting, etc), so the colorized version could in theory be even better than the original in some or all areas of the photo.
Github makes money from private repo subscriptions, Sourceforge was ad based. Also Github focuses on source code hosting, a lot / most Sourceforge projects just hosted the release files to a project.
The quality of the site went down hill, even with ads showing download buttons trying to trick the user.
So whomever is majority gets to decide what information is trustworthy? I understand it's supposed to utilize sensors and all sorts of criteria to come up with a logical & reasonable trustworthiness check. But what if one of your majority voting blocs doesn't believe in science? It's humans doing the verification, which can be corrupted.
It's irrelevant if there will be people who refuse to trust these sources, as long as they can establish a pedigree by continuously providing accurate information. If info from one node can be invalidated by other trusted sources after its original reporting (by publishing the facts after the dust cloud clears), the node will have the incentive to stick to the truth.
Any group that holds to principles and establishes a strong reputation would tend to become a target for activists to take over and push their agenda. At least this seems to be how things work out in the US.
The spectacular implosion of the ACLU in recent years comes to mind. They spend so much time sniping each other over tweets that we lost Roe vs Wade on their watch.
The entire organization spent each working day sending tweets and nothing else?
How long do you think a tweet takes to write?
What are they supposed to do about roe v wade? Are you passing the blame for that being overturned to them instead of Trump and republicans who are responsible?
Is this a way to help republicans win in the midterms, deflect the blame for roe v wade to some unrelated organization?
I can definitely see how fake or real activism would benefit hedge funds to drive attention away from news about how they've been destroying the financial markets and economy through deregulation and corruption.
I can also see why they would want to own newspapers to just directly trade on whatever they know will be in their own newspaper tomorrow (or news website in 1 second).
Everyone has biases, that includes companies since they are composed of and controlled by people It's difficult to determine if a person or companies biases affected the information they provide with certainty. Further I'll state that since everyone has these biases it's basically a wash and pointless to discuss on an individual level.
"Higher probability of being truthful is actually too low a low bar"
We can't set some minimum level of reliability that needs to be passed because we are ranking sources against each other not against an undefined value. Even figuring out what that value is seems extremely difficult. This reminds me of the corruption discussion a few weeks ago, people were comparing the US to nothing, just making statements like "There's alot of corruption".
Since we need to get information about what's going on around us we have to use one or more sources of information. Therefore if there is a contradiction between sources we use reputation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"You should simply believe what I say due to my strong reputation on social networks"
I don't know your reputation nor has anyone else told me about you. However let's talk about why, in general, individuals on the internet are more likely to be less trust worthy than dedicated news outlets. This is assuming you are only using reputation and there's no other variables.
1. People on the internet can and normally do use a pseudonym. Having to create a new account with a new name isn't that painful if your reputation is destroyed for some reason. This is much more difficult for a business.
Since the consequences of starting over are less for a person it increases the probability of they are lying because it reduces the effect of a punishment
2. An individuals primary function isn't the distribution of information nor are they funded by it. CNN is a news network, that's their main function. If people stop watching them they can go out of business whereas a person on the internet just continue living even if their reputation is ruined.
Since the stakes are so low for a person that increases the probability they'll lie (This is similar to 1)
3. Due to anonymity it would be difficult to sue individuals on the internet for defamation or to hold them accountable in. CNN is a company that is registered as a corporation.
It's difficult to enact punishments for a person on the internet vs companies and the less likely a punishment will occur or the less painful the punishment the higher the probability a person will commit the crime
No it's the difference between probability and conditional probability. Both individuals and authorities have demonstrated the same probability of just delivering their preconceived bias when it really matters.
As for social networks. Both businesses and reddit'ers gain reputation by simply saying things others want them to say. Your theories all depend on people wanting the truth, as opposed to being told what they want to hear. And my statement was actually a joke because of how you so quickly pivoted from asking what alternative there was to reputation, to then asking me for thorough evidence.
What is the difference between between conditional probability and probability?
The reason I asked you for proof was because the website you linked doesn't show that activists have taken over us news and are pushing an agends. Most of the points are about money, hedgefunds , and it also talks about how local papers are better to determine local corruption.
Conditional probability in this case is the probability computed with samples restricted to only the politically-charged topics, when the nuanced facts might not lead to public behavior they felt was right.
I'm not sure if it's going to be effective at all. How do you even know that an authorative data source is actually authorative and correct?
It's also kind of funny that this idea comes from Japan, where school history textbooks, an authorative data source of sorts, have had a rather optimistic view on the world during 1937–1945.
"Despite the efforts of the nationalist textbook reformers, by the late 1990s the most common Japanese schoolbooks contained references to, for instance, the Nanjing Massacre, Unit 731, and the comfort women of World War II,[2] all historical issues which have faced challenges from ultranationalists in the past.[3] The most recent of the controversial textbooks, the New History Textbook, published in 2000, which significantly downplays Japanese aggression, was shunned by nearly all of Japan's school districts.[2]"
Seems like that's been cleaned up and they were omitting information, which is bad, but when I think of misinformation I think of lies.
EDIT: Just to be clear, your statement was "where school history textbooks, an authorative data source of sorts, have had a rather optimistic view " which implies it is widespread and happening now. My counter shows that not to be true.
