Regarding the Pinocchio thing: Local police said „that‘s probably insult“ and sent it to public prosecutors. Public prosecutors investigated and said „nope, free speech“.
If you can disturb enough people that think differently, independent of the final result, you can end up silencing them. Is the same that happens with bogus DCMA claims in Youtube channels, when they negative reviews of products. For a normal guy, having the police showing up, going to court, lawyer, etc, can be a significant burden. I DO see a problem.
Indeed, police misusing their authority is a problem, and they require constant oversight. But this is true completely independently from if you need to provide an age to order drugs online.
> Prosecution needs to look into all reported cases.
The ramifications of that sentence in terms of cost, effort and possibly other nuances, makes me shiver.
Note how a minimal misbehavior of a relatively small portion of the population could render any police and judicial system totally inoperative. Just 2000 people across the country go doing light insults to random people… again, I can think of much better systems.
The investigation and the threat against your freedom and safety (the implication of prison is always that you'll be harmed in there) WAS the punishment.
Sure, but the fact remains that it was referred for criminal prosecution. They didn't follow through, this time, but the victim still had his "lesson" about insulting his betters.
And Germany really did sentence people for calling Mr. Habeck "Schwachkopf", which is about as mild an insult as you can find.
Weeeeeell .. to counter that argument there is pimmelgate. I know it was not legit, but they searched his house, even after he was at the police station and confessed.
That leads to selv censorship, even if what you did was legal.
Yes, I think I am with you. That search should not have happened (and consequently was ruled unlawful by a court afterwards). But it should not have happened in the first place.
I hope (but do not know) that in the Schwachkopf-case, they just took the shortcut via insult instead of opening an investigation for the Nazi stuff.
But we don’t know that.
I believe, that we can express our opinions and discuss them without insulting people (in the legal sense).
And I hope, that prosecutors do not lightly investigate each Schwachkopf they find on the internet.
And for all the other cases, the courts need to be involved.
> Bulgaria is unusual in that it pegged its currency, the lev, to the euro right from the beginning of monetary union in 1999, even before it joined the European Union in 2007.
Apparently, they did not use that control in the last 26 years.
This is down from $23B in 2019, and is basically just fertilizer and minerals used to make fertilizer.
Fertilizer is not sanctioned due to the fact it’s needed for food security in the EU (surprise suprise, the EU is not just insecure domestically in terms of military and energy and technology, but also in terms of fertilizers needed to grow food, fantastic governance they have over there…leaving potash mining or nat gas extraction to other countries does look good for those domestic net zero calculations though!).
EU peace is assured by inter-locking trade within the block. Countries within the EU are gently encouraged to trade essential goods with one another instead of producing them themselves.
This policy dates back to the end of WW2 as an attempt to prevent one country getting too aggressive and hence starting another war.
Since the fall of the wall, Russia was seen as a legitimate trading partner for the block and, in the long term (just as Türkiye), as member of the block.
Hence sourcing fertiliser from Russia was taken to be a strategic positive since it tired Russia to Europe.
I think we should be aware of history, that does not imply acceptance nor agreement.
Instead had I said this ten years ago, the majority of politicians in the EU would have been d’accord. What does that imply about our political systems?
There have been a bunch of alliances in Europe over the centuries, none have been permanent.
It was a rational and logical thing to do, assuming Russia wants prosperity. Sadly, it turns out people with power in Russia don't really care about that for regular people.
So... I think it was a good thing after all. It could've worked out, and bring us peace. A moonshot with great payoff but some chance of failing is often a risk worth taking, HN should know that :)
You can certainly not produce inversions. The data that is left in the hash is not enough to produce anything vaguely photorealistic.
However, you can fill the gaps and generate photorealistic photos that fit to the extremely reduced information you get from the hash. You are generating believable (as defined by the training data) photos that fit the hash.
That’s a huge difference.
Statements like yours are extremely dangerous. Without proper understanding of what GenAI can and can not do, people start relying on things that are not there.
Imagine your photorealistic inversion AI putting a mole or a wrinkle in the face of somebody without any foundation in the actual hash. Just because it fits better to the trained data. Explain that to the judge, when the person with just the right facial features sits in front of them.
>Imagine your photorealistic inversion AI putting a mole or a wrinkle in the face of somebody without any foundation in the actual hash. Just because it fits better to the trained data.
Seeing as AI was trained on 99999999999999 images of 9999 people, if the image in question is of one of those people, it's well conceivable that the AI will implicitly ID the person and attach their corresponding mole. Or in other words, it's possible a good portion of PhotoDNA's database is in the AI training set, so in principle there are cases where the AI does know.
There are only 144 Bytes in a PhotoDNA hash and they are used to identify the whole picture. This is definitely not enough data to identify a face reliably.
The proposed AI does not identify people and it will not report that it "found" the person in the training data. It does not know. And it won't tell you.
Assume twins, one is in the training data, one isn't. The one in the training data has a scar, the other one does not. We "invert" a picture of the twin without the scar and who is not in the training set. As you explained, the resulting image will have the twin from the data set including a highly detailed picture of the scar. And for some reason, that is a good thing.
You are attributing more to this AI than it conceivably can do. Even going as far as finding an excuse for putting false or unfounded data.
It is tremendously important to make clear: most (if not all) of current AI technology is not fit for forensic analysis beyond guiding humans in their own analysis.
This modern narrative of people posting their opinions or assumptions somewhere being "dangerous" because someone could just believe it is much more dangerous because it can be applied to any opinion anywhere that was ever published.
No judge will ever rule on something based on a comment they read in the Internet.
Judges usually rely on experts in forensic science who, of course, are infallible and absolutely not influenced by what they read online during their day.
It is dangerous to push the narrative that GenAI can "put information back" where it was once removed. Especially dangerous, because most GenAI is built to put something there that is extremely believable. And while an innocent comment on HN might not play the biggest role, the linked project claims exactly what it can - by definition - not do ("a PhotoDNA hash can be used to produce thumbnail-quality reproductions of the original image") and it looks scientific, too.
You have already assumed that “judges” are somehow better suited to make such decisions than “regular people”, even though they are simply cogs in the wheels of social machines, and will mostly automatically approve anything up to mass murders if “general direction” of the society is like that. But it's convenient for you to believe that they have certain qualities.
Needless to say, when people are so brainwashed that they are ready to pray to actual machines, decisions of those machines won't be questioned. It would just be inconvenient.
There's some gain to be had in that I can reliably expect md5 to be available and compatible with pretty much anything back as far as Perl4 or PHP from the 90s, right up to bleeding edge version of Rust or Clojure or exotic language de jour.
Whether that's actually worth anything for a particular use case is a good question, and the answer will mostly be "not just no but HELL NO!"
Putting second factor material in password managers is terrible advice. For reasons unknown to me, it might be the right solution for you. But in general, it defeats the two factor authentication purpose if you reduce the factors again to knowledge alone.
The whole point of tfa is, that the second factor is something you possess and not something you know (which is the first factor).
There are multiple attack vectors that 2-factor helps with, and storing your 2-factor alongside your password does still help in some, just not all.
For the more common attacks I expect to encounter, namely a single password being leaked, a password manager is still based on something I "possess" (to an extent) - the decrypted password vault. It's separate from the single password that's likely to have been compromised in the most common scenario.
Of course, if my whole vault is compromised, then yes, storing my 2-factor in there made my life worse than the alternative. I just don't see that as anywhere near as likely a scenario as an individual account being compromised. Having 2-factor enabled in a less secure method is still better than not having 2-factor enabled at all.
It makes perfect sense if you consider the right abstraction. TCP connections are streams. There are no packets on that abstraction level. You’re not supposed to care about packets. You’re not supposed to know how large a packet even is.
The default is an efficient stream of bytes that has some trade-off to latency. If you care about latency, then you can set a flag.
There is no perfect abstraction. Speed matters. A stream where data is delivered ASAP is better than a stream where the data gets delayed... maybe... because the OS decides you didn't write enough data.
The default actually violates the abstraction more because now you care how large a packet is, because somehow writing a smaller amount of data causes your latency to spike for some mysterious reason.
> A stream where data is delivered ASAP is better than a stream where the data gets delayed
That depends on your situation, because as you say no abstraction is perfect. Having a stream delivered “faster” isn’t helpful if means your overhead makes up 50% of your traffic, exactly what nagle avoids.
Nagles algorithm is also pretty smart, it’s only going to delay your next packet until it’s either full, or the far end has acknowledged your preceding packet. If your got a crap ton of data to send, and you’re dumping straight into the TCP buffer, then Nagle won’t delay anything because there’s enough data to fill packets. Nagle only kicks in if you’re doing many frequent tiny writes to a TCP connection, which is rarely a valid thing to do if you care about latency and throughput, so Nagles algorithm assuming the dev has made a mistake is reasonable.
If you really care about stream latency, then UDP is your friend. Then you can completely dispense with all the traffic control processes in TCP and have stuff sent exactly when you want it sent.
I guess parent is focusing on the point, that PDFs can render as perfectly human-readable documents, but can be completely non-machine readable at the same time.
I really don’t see the problem.