And don’t worry they have defenses against spammers and bots.
I don't think we do, actually. I fully expect it will become a major problem as Lemmy grows.
I hate punching in something identifying too, and avoid it when possible, but the internet has collectively gone there for a reason. And that reason is that if you can make an anonymous account, a guy in Nigeria can make 1000.
(Sorry, I think I came across a little aggressive in OP, not my intention)
For whatever reason, people want it to be more complicated than "2463 households need 2463 houses". I mean, at the nitty-gritty level it is, but at scale that's the sort of complexity that cancels itself out if you just leave it alone enough, as all the Western countries do last I checked.
You see a weird sort of symbiosis between affluent NIMBYs and some of the less sophisticated antipoverty activists, sometimes. In a housing crisis, would it be better to build small apartments rather than luxury apartments, given a fixed square footage? Yes. Are luxury apartments still houses? Also yes. Both groups want to ignore the second bit, but for completely opposite reasons relative to the first bit. Sometimes, they work together and manage to get no houses built at all.
Why, so spammers can find them?
I guess the crisis itself could be and was, but at the time nobody was really talking about the concept of a cold war, and the nuclear threat stayed heightened for decades. Actually, opinions vary on how long a nuclear-power conflict can reliably stay cold, even now.
AI and nuclear war seem like the main direct threats right now. Climate change will suck and I'll miss coral reefs, but it's not planet killing unless it sets something else more deliberate off. The world looks unstable, but I'm not expecting WWIII this year, and AI isn't going to be very dangerous by 2025 either. The Cuban missile crisis should have ended the world as we know it in the span of a few months. We basically just won a few coin flips in a row; I bet other parallel universes weren't so lucky.
It broke in the 90's. History was "over" so they kind of adjusted the scale, and now that shit's real again they keep having to shave off tiny increments closer and closer to midnight.
We're still way better off than during the Cuban missile crisis, imminent existential risk-wise.
Historically, because it breaks fairly often. Building an OS that runs on all reasonable hardware without explicit cooperation from hardware manufacturers is tough.
From the perspective of the people who make the crap, corporations are the users.
He got a hand-me-down iPhone because he's poor, and has decided it's better than no phone, but is sad it's still a walled garden despite other people being rescued.
Is there a joke I'm missing?
New Guam, maybe.
I guess that makes sense, if you understand nothing about how any of the underlying technologies work.
Soon after launching, however, the company’s law enforcement clients started asking about the viability of running phenotype-generated faces through facial recognition tools. “We were surprised when we heard this,” Greytak says. “It’s just not the intended purpose of the composite images.”
... And I guess that makes sense if you know nothing about how people other than your colleagues work. Seriously, how did they not see that coming?
In another infamous example that Garvie cites in her report, a detective from the NYPD’s Facial Identification Section, after noting that a suspect looked like the actor Woody Harrelson, put a photo of the actor through the department’s facial recognition tool.
Actually, that just doesn't make sense, haha.
For anyone reading and confused, this face rendering thing probably barely works, and definitely isn't going to be accurate in just the right way to complement a blackbox face recogniser trained on actual photos. Before you even get close to "is it too powerful" questions about privacy and abuse, "does it work at all" has to be considered.
Not particularly related, but neat. I learned some things.