This kinda seems like a continuation of the problem with revenge porn, child porn, etc just at a much larger scale and able to impact a lot more people.
And that is a real problem and we should do what we can to product the victims.
But I struggle with this quote:
>. “Google has ruined lives and is shamefully inflexible at responding to developing problems,” Goldberg said, joining others decrying Google's move as "too little, too late."
Google isn't the service that is generating these images, they are not hosting them, they are just the search engine to find where they are.
Unless google blocks all porn related searches, I just don't know what realistically can be done about this from Google's prospective at any reasonable scale. The idea of a human looking at everything that google crawls just isn't realistic.
And I have a lot of problems with Google. I just, am struggling with putting this on them specifically. Instead the legislation going after those that are hosting it, making it, etc which is mentioned in the article.
They are facilitators. If Google weren't so money hungry these kind of results wouldn't rank high enough to be discovered. They should probably continuously get fined until they alter their behavior.
What should they be getting fined for? Ranking individual links according to some generic algorithm? Is there a law specifying what algorithms may be or not be used for individual or types of links?
Fwiw, I agree w you. I think business incentives are sometimes misaligned w what is holistically good for a society. Just because what is good for society cannot be clearly defined, all effort to do so must not be given up. For instance Laws punishing google when ranking CP high will def bring a change in Google's attitude towards dealing with this stuff.
I don't follow what this has to do with money hunger. Is your contention that Google profits somehow from having these images be higher rather than lower in search results? Why would that be more profitable?
I firmly believe that the problem in the US regarding how we handle drugs in the US is that it is so focused on Shame. Same with how we do sex ed and many other things.
We shame it so much, that when you have questions or you start thinking about it, you don't have people who you can go to and ask questions without judgement or being preached at.
And then of course once you do try something, it is criminalized so you can't go talk to someone to get help without being worried about going to Jail (depending on where you are).
It also doesn't help that so many of these systems love to talk about how Pot is just as bad as every other drug, which of course it isn't.
I feel like we need more of a focus on compassion instead of just beating us over the head with "Drugs are Bad mkay" so of course we are going to rebel against adults telling us this. Especially when we know we can't have alcohol but they can, so are they telling the truth about drugs?
Same with Smoking. The message gets mixed up when we are being told all these things that we shouldn't do but adults are able to do some of them.
Am I crazy in thinking that we heard about this several years ago? Is this just a continuation of that study or am I mis-remembering/my timeline way off?
This is really exciting though, especially when mixed with other cancer treatments the ability to catch and deal with this is fascinating. How long until a theoretical, "Oh we detected some cancer cells in your regular blood work, here is a shot to deal with it" like we treat many other things.
with the addition of an mRNA treatment approach I'm willing to think 8 years off from at least a dozen cancers that currently only get detected after they've metastasized.
I was really hoping we would just... not. Not looking forward to those ads being all over showing gimmick that most probably don't want. Hopefully we don't start seeing "AI PC Ready" parts for custom builds.
Hopefully the LTSC version of Windows 11 doesn't have any of this crap in it.
Also great, so the hardware will be fine. Still not convinced Microsoft can pull off ARM in any meaningful way compared to Apple. I highly doubt the entire PC market will switch over anytime soon unlike Mac.
Very rarely has Apple truly been the first to a market, their strategy has always been to see an upcoming technology and... well make it good. (not always the first time, but still).
Smartphones, tablets, smart watches, even AR. Sure the price is insane but you can't ignore just how polished it is compared to a lot of what is out there. Apple was not the first to any of these, but when they came out with theirs they redefined expectations.
Before anyone says AI, AI isn't a product. It's a feature.
I really hate that we see the Vision Pro being considered a Flop. It feels like from the beginning Apple knew where this device geared towards and that it was not going to be a mass market device. But it gets it out the door so people can start playing with it while the hardware catches up with the software. And like the Apple Watch, they can see what customers actually want and refocus their software efforts.
The fact is, Apple's products are the best they have been. The Apple silicone continues to be regarded as the best out there. The new iPad is getting rave reviews, even if iPad OS may be holding it back a bit. Apple TV+ keeps putting out amazing shows.
I just don't buy this article, it feels like we are in a weird quiet period in tech. There are a lot of things that could be done, but we just don't have the hardware to really back it up for things like AR and other wearables. But in the meantime we will just be doing a bunch of AI features.
Also, if we are going to call the Car a "flop" but then criticize them for not finding a new product. You don't get it both ways. Same with the Vision Pro.
> A "Steam Deck" matches none of those for example.
That usage is from cyberpunk. It's from Burning Chrome (1982) by William Gibson. "She took a little simstim deck from her belt and showed me the broken hinge
on the cassette cover". What he's describing is similar to the belt pack of the Apple Vision headgear. Gibson's headgear is a headband that transmits into the brain, not clunky goggles.
School largely ruined my interest in reading until I became an adult and re-found it.
Being regularly told to read boring books, of course any interest in doing it casually was going to go out the Window.
Sure there is value in needing to read certain things from an academic standpoint, Beowulf is a good example. But there was zero reason I needed to read "The Outsiders" when we just watched the movie after reading it anyways.
Just because something is a classic, doesn't mean we have to consume it in its original form to get the meaning.
Instead fill the library with a diverse collection of books, let the kid choose what they want to read, don't rush them, and importantly if it just isn't working let them move on to a new book.
Side note:
I know some people are going to groan at this. But seriously, books based on video games can be a fantastic gateway towards actually caring about reading. It is how I re-discovered by interest in reading as an adult.
A bit disappointed that it seems like the Live Multicam is iPad only. Unless they are just glossing over its addition to Mac.
I was hoping we would keep feature parity between the 2, or at least Mac having everything and iPad a subset. Unless I am mistaken I think this is the first iPad only feature?
I would argue that the second learning is to make it impossible to comply with these subpoenas where possible by making it so the company itself is unable to decrypt it.
Admittedly this is not really an easy solution with something as open as emails, it's possible within corporations but I don't know of a solution between "random" people.
But outside of email and things that have to be unencrypted for interoperability, everything should be encrypted and inaccessible to the company so this situation is impossible.
I think the ship has sailed on the idea of electing people who will actually care about privacy of their citizens.
This kinda seems like a continuation of the problem with revenge porn, child porn, etc just at a much larger scale and able to impact a lot more people.
And that is a real problem and we should do what we can to product the victims.
But I struggle with this quote:
>. “Google has ruined lives and is shamefully inflexible at responding to developing problems,” Goldberg said, joining others decrying Google's move as "too little, too late."
Google isn't the service that is generating these images, they are not hosting them, they are just the search engine to find where they are.
Unless google blocks all porn related searches, I just don't know what realistically can be done about this from Google's prospective at any reasonable scale. The idea of a human looking at everything that google crawls just isn't realistic.
And I have a lot of problems with Google. I just, am struggling with putting this on them specifically. Instead the legislation going after those that are hosting it, making it, etc which is mentioned in the article.
reply