Not everyone reading these discussions is going to be expecting humor, and will take any commentary affirming their prior indoctrination at face value.
That sounds like a YP not an MP though. Everyone jokes about the sarcasm font being hard to use, but the printed word has been around for a long time, much longer than the internet, yet the sarcasm font complaint has only been an internet thing.
Courts and law enforcement certainly provide these things, but they are not required. The inherent design of blockchains makes them trustworthy (an oversimplified statement), which is even better.
Blockchains don’t, and can’t, solve for the risk of the off chain component of an exchange.
The transactions aren’t atomic so someone is taking on counterparty risk. One of governments prime responsibilities is dealing with that risk, no matter the currency in question.
The prediction algorithms are so good that indirect behaviors and data can be informative.
You might also be profiled by Google and bucketed into a group of similar people who leak their data. They also went to this website and their YT recommendations became a signal to inform your own.
Not claiming any certainty here just possible ideas.
I was a bit peeved by the title, but I think its a fair use of clickbait as the article has a lot of little details about acoustics in humans that I was unfamiliar with (i.e. a link to a primer on the the transduction implementation of cochlear cilia)
But yeah there is a strict vs colloquial collision here.
- iPhone wobble is real. Mostly mitigated by a proper case. Does the iPhone get a better camera in return? Usually in my experience.
- I don’t sort my photos. The semantic search has been sufficient, and I back everything up to my NAS via an iCloud docker shim.
- Chrome/chromium is adware garbage now. FireFox is the only browser I use. The FS API does sound great though. Enviable given how annoying it is to do work on an iPhone sometimes.
> - Chrome/chromium is adware garbage now. FireFox is the only browser I use
This is actually one of the stronger arguments in favour of Android's though, you can install (real) firefox and (fully functional) ublock origin, while Apple prevents you from doing so on their non-macos products.
Safari on iOS worldwide supports extensions. There is UBlock origin lite and i.e vinagre for youtube background videos. I am still amazed google does not allow extensions on their default browser.
Microsoft Edge on Android now also supports some extensions, one being uBlock Origin. Seems just as powerful as the real thing. And has the benefit of using the Chrome engine.
This is tricky. Most Android phones apply heavy color saturation and contrast adjustments, by default, to the images and the display itself, where iPhone tends to keep things more "raw". But, "pop" is what the average person usually prefers. It's post processing step that can heavily influence favor, unrelated to the camera. The Samsung cameras are still objectively better though, in many metrics.
My work involves showing images accurately on screens, and I always have dig through all the settings to make the Android phones just to show an image without heavy modification (for Samsung, it's 3 separate settings!). There is no such setting for iPhone, where the default experience is a (literally) color calibrated screen.
In my view Pixels have been dominating in still photos for years but their video has never been on par with iPhone. I'd put my old Pixel 3's still camera up against my iPhone 13 any day (if my Pixel hadn't bricked itself a little out of warranty like all of mine seemed to).
The difference between the photos on any flagship phone for the past 5 or so years is insignificant and mostly up to personal preference, but the difference between iPhone and anything else in videos is massive.
This is because iPhone photos are ubiquitous which causes photos from less common phones to stand out. And the less common phones likely optimize for this A/B test scenario by e.g. increasing contrast and saturation. Meanwhile Apple likely has little to no interest in optimizing for A/B tests with minor smartphone players, and instead optimizes merely for delivering satisfying photos in the widest range of scenarios.
Pixel photos are very good too, for the record. I just think the "blind camera test" is worthless.
That's quite an interesting way to explain why Apple does poorly in blind tests. The real reason though is that Apple's cameras are just not as good, but I suppose it's easier to explain away by making up biases.
My and your personal preferences for one camera over the other isn't the issue. Nor am I claiming that one is objectively better than another. My point is that blind tests (between two cameras of similar quality) are worthless simply because they don't reflect the preferences the test-taker would actually have given extensive use of each camera.
The issues with blind tests like this are well-known. I assure you I have no interest in persuading you to alter your own preferences.
> I back everything up to my NAS via an iCloud docker shim
As someone who refuses to pay extra for iCloud storage, can you tell me how to do this?
I haven't figured out a good (read: easy) way to backup photos from my iPhone to computer/external storage (I don't want to use iTunes software cause I don't need everything syncing both ways).
Image Capture used to be the simple way, but they removed the "delete imported items from phone" option and made it default instead now, which is quite the landmine.
I'd be curious too. Family fills up iCloud very quickly. I use a self hosted immich instance on my nas to back photos up and share with family members.
No, we most certainly should not! Zero knowledge proofs are not some magic privacy faerie dust that can be sprinkled around to provide any desired security property.
For this use ZKPs are trivially proxyable, and thus this type of system also requires additional security properties from treacherous computing [0] - specifically remote attestation which prevents your ability to run code of your choosing on your own device.
And Google (et al) are quite eager to supply this type of environment ("Safety" Net, WEI, etc). This is exactly why the new UK system requires the use of a locked down corpo-controlled phone, and why corpos are pushing this idea that there is a "secure" way this can be done.
Essentially they are advertising the cool privacy-preserving half of the system, without mentioning the necessary other half that destroys privacy and freedom.
[0] "trusted" computing in corpo speak. In other words, a crippled model of computing that the corpos can trust us to have.
Yes, you could use someone elses ID to access the porn.
That someone else could also sit next to you and press the button.
There is no solution that isn't 'proxyable' with the aid of the approved party. No solutions being considered are even particularly resistant to borrowing someone's ID or credit card, etc..
ZKP are no worse in this respect.
Adding treacherous computing doesn't improve any of them other than "approved software says its okay" is just a cheap (and fairly insecure!) way of implementing looksalike functionality to an actual cryptographic technique.
It's the old dynamic when customary things are made into digital systems, those digital sytems need to be perfect because exploiting the flaws is also made extremely efficient.
Someone else sitting next to you follows meatspace rules. They need to know a minor, be trusted enough to be reasonably left alone with said minor, and they will also be aware of possible legal consequences for facilitating a minor's access to porn. Society has been dealing with this for quite a long time.
This extends to directly using someone else's ID from behind a keyboard - whether they trust you (above scenario), or you've got remote access to their system (rare), or it's the type of ID that is copyable from data leaks (revokable, I guess). The barrier is still pretty high.
Whereas if parties are able to run any software of their choosing, the ZKP approach allows anybody on the Internet to decide to "help out" with minors viewing porn. Either for some ideological cause (which might not even be about helping 17 year olds access porn, but rather just about privacy with distrust of fancy crypto), or simply for money or other things of value.
The basic promised properties of the ZKP approach are that that the ID provider won't know what sites you're going to, and that sites won't be able to get your identity, right? The first one removes the downside to an individual creating extra credentials for others - they must just like porn sites more than the average person. And the second one makes it so abuse of issued proofs can't be traced back to the person granting use of their ID. So in real world usage, something has to give about this situation.
With the way the computing landscape is setup, that something is likely to be focusing on the ability to split the client into two parts being run by different parties. There are alternative responses, of course - one would be to gradually walk back the security provided by the ZKP, spilling more and more information to the site.
But treacherous computing (aka computational disenfranchisement) seems to be what people used to customary meatspace systems reflexively reach for when confronted with the frustrating realities of clients having computational freedom. And as I pointed out, the UK system is already demanding treacherous computing, and Google has already been pushing it for their own purposes.
The problem with ZKPs, especially for age verification in the US, is that it you obviously still need some digital identity to perform the proof against. That not only doesn't exist in the US, but introduces a sensitive identity that like any other can be leaked.
The same is true for cryptocurrency of course but that risk is implicit in holding a private key to spend in the first place.
If there is no provable link between the service and the identity, however, there isn't that much harm in the leak itself. It just becomes a list of names and ages which are a dime a dozen on the internet. Hell, if the identity service was the government itself then it would be entirely useless outside of getting a list of people who have a driver's license (is this public info already?)
In the Google and Apple systems you have to load your driver's license and all its contents and then your phone issues a proof of age. However a bug could leak the entire contents.
I'd prefer zkp if we're doing this at all, but I think you could go simpler still. Google is skipping it for accounts with an associated credit card, that would work in lots of sites really
Zero knowledge proof smart contract verification called by the site interested in your age. You provide your public key wallet with its government issued soul bound NFT of your identification.
This can be done, its not that crazy, it just requires a bunch of people to get their heads out of their sand in regards to tech and blockchain, which admittedly might be a harder problem.
——
Additonal thought- if you don’t understand what I’m saying or have a negative reaction just plug the comment + thread context into an LLM and see what it says / ask for a clearer explanation.
All energy on earth derives from 1) the sun or 2) geothermal
Energy is lost as you move further from those sources. Plants converting sunlight directly to usable energy are more efficient than a higher order animal eating another animal that ate another animal that ate a plant.
Now nature normally balances this hierarchy in a myriad of ways that you can go read about yourself.
The problem is humans have rapidly expanded and want to consume more than nature can provide and restock. We have exceeded the capacity for people surviving off animal products.
Attempts to produce more animal products is one of the major drivers of climate change, alongside things like concrete.
Short answer indeed. Cellulose, which is most of the plant mass, has a ton of energy stored in it but we can't access that while many animals we eat can.
reply