You did not, points for effort though.
I’ll try to make it simpler.
Ask for proof of claim they have made - YES 👍
Ask for proof to dispute/disprove claim you have made - NO 👎
if you suggest something is a fallacy , that’s a claim you have made.
edit : emojis for visual cues
edit : changed no description to be more accurate
Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?
I know, right ?
If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.
Absolutely, and if you’d asked for proof of their accusation you’d be correct in this instance.
They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.
They did and you could ask them to make a case for that, you didn’t.
You provided your own accusation:
You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
And proceeded to tell them that they are required to provide proof to dispute your new accusation.
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
Which is what i was addressing specifically when i said:
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.
It makes the field itself mostly a non issue in the single isolated context of “does this field, on it’s own, constitute age verification”.
The point most people are trying to make is that it’s a part of a larger context.
No, they don’t.
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.
Ah, this is probably my fault.
I’m not the person you were replying to so i wasn’t really arguing any of these points, i just a saw the request and knew of an example, so i provided it.
Just in case this was for me specifically I’ll answer:
Yea I have zero issue with the fact that accounts with pictures of children’s genitals on them should be referred to the the authorities.
Pictures of children’s genitals aren’t inherently CSAM, there are plenty of parents and family members with entirely innocent pictures of their kids on their phones.
There are examples of this in the reported cases of false positives leading to bad outcomes, this is easily searchable.
I’m not saying to not do anything, I’m saying blanket reporting is an ineffective brute-force approach.
If people want privacy, host the pictures locally.
In theory yes, in practice, not so much.
on-device scanning exists and is in use/has been in use on phones, examples of this are also easily searchable.
When you’re storing images with a cloud provider. They become responsible for the images that they store. If it’s a photo of a child’s genitals and that’s illegal for them to have those images on their servers and they need to protect themselves.
The need for legal protection is valid, scanning cloud uploaded photo’s is a user privacy nightmare, but expected.
End to end encryption (where only the users device can decrypt and see the photo) would probably stand up legally but then they wouldn’t be able to use the cloud photo’s to make money.
The problem comes with the recognition of illegal and the way it’s handled.
Yes, but also it’s the 4th result on that page.
Seems like reading 4 entries is a problem so here is a direct link
That’s just it, it’s not.
It’s a whole economy based on the threat of neverending warfare.
An actual war, where they aren’t just stomping on something from a great height, that is short term benefit compared to selling them the re-up every cycle, “just in case”
Military keeping up with the Joneses.
If you reach 20 companies that aren’t ad-centric for-profit companies you can qualify for the false equivalency pro-league.
It’s up there with mental gymnastics in the bad-faith Olympics, a lofty achievement.
well. i’ll give you ad-guard , canonical is also making great strides towards ad-centric so that one too.
Not who replied to you originally but,
You aren’t wrong (you even stated that more is probably better) , just not necessarily presenting the whole picture.
Ram compression isn’t a benefit only scenario, there is a cost in processing power to make that happen.
So it’s a trade off of memory utilisation vs processing requirements.
Whether or not it’s worth it is down to circumstance, though i agree that generally i think it’s worth the tradeoff.
Unified memory is useful in specific circumstances, most notably LLM/ML scenarios where high vram utilisation is part of the process.
It’s not an apples to apples comparison by any means.
Probably not one that stands up to scrutiny.
If they have fixed programming, the bias would be consistent, but still there, because it would be based upon systems that are already inherently bias.
Any current ML system is beholden to the data/constraints it was built with, if inherent bias exists in the data it will exist in the resulting system.
That’s before you even start taking in to account the infrastructure that would be managing them being potentially corrupt or having their own interpretations of “public safety”.
“These bots from <generic third party> are bringing in more cases against the <“good” people>, but these ones from <tech company with the same bigoted ideology as us> can be tweaked to target the <“bad” people>, which of these two companies should we purchase our inventory from ?”
Easy answer is , they don’t
Though that’s just the one admitting to it.
A lightly more nuanced answer is , it probably depends, there’s likely to be some inference made between age ranges but my guess is that it’d be sub-par given that it sometimes struggles with reproducing images it has a tonne of actual data for.
“anonymous” downvotes aren’t a good replacement for an actual response, but you do you.
and I’m saying it’s not a common occurrence, intentional or not.
Guns aren’t common enough in the UK for “they’ve got a gun” to be a go-to for the police.
“They’ve got a knife” or “They’ve got a sign the ruling class don’t want people to see” are more likely.
As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it’s by no means the norm.
Sure, that seems about right and the link is interesting.
I was just saying it’s not a common excuse for cops in the UK (right now).
The UK isn’t the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.
In very limited situations the police can, but it’s not the norm.
Don’t get me wrong, ACAB, they just don’t generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an ‘illegal’ protest.
That’s a very narrow slice of a supply chain to be using it as a basis for conclusions like that.
I don’t disagree that the “shortage” is artificial, i’m just saying that your local store having stock and raising prices isn’t a good basis for determining overall supply chain health.
Like looking out your window and seeing rain, so obviously it must be raining everywhere.
Not necessarily, they have been known to shut down accounts they think are trying to evade a ban.
Not sure how sophisticated it is, but it does exist.
@mods The rest of this chain was offensive, but this comment consisting solely of a personal attack is not ?
That would be covered by the
part.