A big biometric security company in the UK, Facewatch, is in hot water after their facial recognition system caused a major snafu - the system wrongly identified a 19-year-old girl as a shoplifter.
Stores in most developed countries, UK included, can refuse service only for legitimate reasons, and they have to do so uniformly based on fair and unbiased rules. If they don’t, they’re at risk of an unlawful discrimination suite.
She didn’t do anything that would be considered a “legitimate reason”, and although applied uniformly, it’s difficult to prove that an AI model doesn’t discriminate against protected groups. Especially with so many studies showing the opposite.
I think she has as much standing as anyone to sue for discrimination. There was no legitimate reason to refuse service, AI models famously discriminate against women and minorities, especially when it comes to “lower class” criminal behavior like shoplifting.
The consequence is the water is shut off. There is no avoiding that.
The neighbour is PAYING for every drop of water that comes out of the hose. Who uses that water isn’t up to anyone except the neighbour since he owns the water he paid for.
Any other interpretation of property rights is due to people trying to punish the poor for their poverty.
It only means literally only one thing: the government isn’t allowed to punish you for saying something.
That’s literally it. No one is being punished. Bibi can say whatever depraved shit he wants to anyone who will listen, it just turns out that it’s not Congress.
You “free speech” literally don’t even understand the very basic thing you build your lives around. Less brain cells than an orange tabby.
Sure, if you change the definition of words then you’ll never be wrong. Of course when YOU said “free speech” you didn’t mean the commonly understood, legally defined term that people use when the government oppresses its citizens by restricting their ability to speak out against it. You meant some arbitrary broader concept that includes Bibi coming over and explaining why opposing genocide is anti-Semitism directly to Congress. As if any foreign agent has, or should have the right to address the government anytime they want.
I wonder what word you’ll redefine next to not be wrong.
Absolutely not! You may have a right to speak but you have no right to an audience. Just because someone wants to talk it doesn’t mean I have to “challenge their ideas”. I can just not listen. And if they want to come speak in my house I can trespass them. That’s what the Democrats are doing.
You can speak, but no one needs to listen. Some ideas don’t deserve the respect of a challenge. Anything Bibi wants to say right now is easily in that range.
I mean I was with you so far, a 17 year old can drive a car, so we agree that they’re capable of taking on significant risks to themselves and others, they’re not babies that need to be Molly-coddled. But if he had to take a course and pass a test before getting a gun this very well could have been avoided. Most countries have a gun safety course requirement and therefore much lower rates of this shit happening.
In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information…
Yes, good point. These people are desperate, so we should let a wildly irresponsible company, who during animal testing had identified the thread retraction issue and not fixed it, we should let them experiment on desperate humans because fuck them I guess.
Yeah the guy was able to do something cool for a while, but now he’s quickly getting back to where he was and with bonus bits of metal all over his brain and no way to fix the problem.
I don’t know if that’s a trade he or anyone would have made going in.
They need to stop messing around with this Musk “fail fast” approach, that’s not acceptable in medicine. You can’t speed up your research by endangering the most desperate people in society.
That’s just untrue. There are a lot of options between “give up” and “proceed irresponsibly”. After all the animals they’ve scrapped why are the human subjects having the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS that were identified in the animals. This is Musk’s typical “fail fast” strategy to advance research faster, but in the medical field the failures damage real humans.
Completely irresponsible!
The FDA regulatory failure with neuralink is as bad as the FAA’s failure with Boeing.
In an interview with the Journal, Neuralink’s first patient, 29-year-old Noland Arbaugh, opened up about the roller-coaster experience. “I was on such a high and then to be brought down that low. It was very, very hard,” Arbaugh said. “I cried.” He initially asked if Neuralink would perform another surgery to fix or replace the implant, but the company declined, telling him it wanted to wait for more information.
Oh yeah, words of happiness right here! So much QOL, I’m glad you enjoy this.
That’s just not how medical research works. Modern medicine isn’t built on trying unproven technology on desperate people and using their bodies as a fast track stairway to success. Medical experiments have to ensure human dignity and that doesn’t include “he was desperate enough to say yes” as a rationale.
An economist offered an explanation for a paradox that has emerged in recent data showing that spending has remained robust even as consumers report feeling pessimistic....
This is the kind of comment that the other dude was talking about. “I’m so smart I wish I was dumber” that’s cringe af. Use some of that intelligence to put a bit more empathy in your replies. Communication is about two people.
Even if it were true, telling someone you’re so smart you wish you were dumber says so many things that harm your ability to communicate clearly:
it’s likely I’m smarter than you
if you don’t agree with me it’s probably because you don’t understand. This is also supported by your statement that you’re happy people will see your downvoted comments
It hints that you’re probably not willing to engage with other people’s ideas because you might feel they’re beneath you
because you don’t see this discussion as being between peers (see the first point) you’re likely to be patronising
Even if you are so smart, and so right about these topics, the way you communicate actively impairs your message. If you read your messages through the eyes of a slightly insecure audience you’ll be able to fix these issues. Empathetic communication means you can say a lot of the same things and have people be receptive to your message instead of put off by your demeanor.
Yeah, housing can’t be an investment AND affordable. Investments have to grow faster than inflation. Affordable things can’t do that.
That being said it’s hard to blame “homeowners” because the goal is to make more people into homeowners, it’s kind of backwards to antagonize the goal itself.
Certainly though the current perception needs to change, you don’t buy a house as an investment, you buy it so that you get to keep your “rent” as equity, and you get to lock down your “rent” over 25+ years so that it effectively gets cheaper in relation to your income.
Everyone is out here defending landlords saying things like “there are good and bad landlords AND tenants”. Just the fact that 99.4% of rent is collected ON TIME shows the problem isn’t tenants. If 99.4% of landlords were “good landlords” we could have a “both sides suffer” argument but we’re at least 50% away from that.
Exactly. To me all the basics of life, the bottom tiers of Maslow’s pyramid can’t be privatised. Healthcare, utilities, education, infrastructure, social safety nets, you need those things as a PREREQUISITE to participation in the market. The market can’t provide its own prerequisites. If you don’t provide these things you simply cannot have a competitive free market in the first place.
If you listen to online libertarians they seem to believe everything is on the tables. Utilities have already been partially privatised and they’ve successfully impressed the classification of broadband as a utility which would have improved service, accessibility, and price at the cost of corporate profit.
Every graph of healthcare costs vs privatisation with the US in it is necessarily a comparison between private and public healthcare systems since most countries have single payer as most of their healthcare.
The US government healthcare programs are by far the most cost effective offering in the US but it’s hampered by regulations such as not having the ability to negotiate prices (until the recent tiny concession on a handful of drugs that has paid off in spades).
Finally, other large countries including India and China may have lower life expectancy, but they’re close and rising rapidly compared the stagnant US trends. Of course the bang for the buck they get is at least 5x what the US gets with its ridiculous system
It’s very frustrating seeing someone argue for disproven theories (like the government is less efficient than the free market in arenas most countries have socialised) using easily disprovable statements (like single payer healthcare would be more expensive to US citizens than the private system you have now). Especially when those ideologies can only hurt everyone.
I do apologize for the tone since you have been respectful and I have been less so. You don’t deserve the rudeness but your ideas don’t deserve the consideration they get in civilised society either.
Government programs IS US HELPING EACHOTHER. Sure corporations have been undermining democracy, but the government is OUR corporation. It’s the only one that we get the choose what it does. The fact we’re obligated to pay taxes is EXACTLY the implementation of your statement “we’re obligated to help eachother”
I don’t understand how you can make statements like this. The threat of violence? The government’s monopoly on violence is rephrased as the will of society to ban violence in public life by restricting violence only to the enforcement of democratically selected laws. There is no other way I can conceive. Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others? Should corporations have that right? If no one has that right how can we stop someone who decides THEY have that right?
The whole “government monopoly on violence” is for me the most absurd librarian statement of them all. What’s the alternative? Who should decide what deserves violence? Who should use violence? What do we do if someone breaks this compact? Because the current answers are at least ideally “the people, through democratically enacted, clear and transparent laws”, and “the people, through the police they pay for accountable only to the people” and “apply fair and balanced justice through the judiciary system, run by the people and accountable only to them”. I’m in no way saying that it’s working perfectly as is clear in recent politics, but it’s certainly trending in the right direction in social democracies. We’re closer to that ideal now than we have ever been. As far as I’ve seen libertarian ideology has only come up with absolutely HORRIFYING answers to these questions, or wishy washy nonsense.
Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That’s what “might makes right” is and it’s how gangs are run. It’s brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.
That’s how a lot of stuff works, true. I don’t agree that can work with violence. I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.
I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I’m not sure what other “equalizing distribution” you’re imagining and I’m not certain a better one exists.
I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I’m all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don’t destroy society. Like communism.
UK Woman Mistaken As Shoplifter By Facewatch, Now She's Banned From All Stores With Facial Recognition Tech (www.ibtimes.co.uk)
A big biometric security company in the UK, Facewatch, is in hot water after their facial recognition system caused a major snafu - the system wrongly identified a 19-year-old girl as a shoplifter.
choose your champion (slrpnk.net)
What Radicalized You? (lemmy.world)
More House Democrats Say 'No' to Netanyahu Speech to Congress (www.commondreams.org)
deleted_by_moderator
Neuralink to implant 2nd human with brain chip as 85% of threads retract in 1st (arstechnica.com)
Neuralink to implant 2nd human with brain chip as 75% of threads retract in 1st (arstechnica.com)
Consumers are so demoralized by inflation and high rates they've given up on saving for the American Dream and are spending money instead, economist says (fortune.com)
An economist offered an explanation for a paradox that has emerged in recent data showing that spending has remained robust even as consumers report feeling pessimistic....
How Canada’s media manufactures sympathy for the landlord class (breachmedia.ca)
If you are a Libertarian and hold liberty as your core value, why do you not believe in universal healthcare? Nothing impacts liberty more than sickness and death.