a9entroy

Can also please add a license.

I would love to give this a try if it has an MIT license.

He has been caught of cheating online. Where you just open a new window and follow engine moves. Or you have a friend sitting beside you giving engine moves.

In his over-the-board match, he didn't have a laptop. He didn't have a friend giving him moves. He didn't have any communication device. He was mostly looking at the board or into the distance while he was playing. He was scanned with a metal detector. So we know he definitely didn't use any of his earlier methods of cheating if he even did cheat. Carlsen's statement confirms that his preparation wasn't leaked or hacked. I count these as evidence of him not cheating with his usual MO.

But in your analogy, it's completely possible for the guy to have used his usual MO to steal the new shiny car.

Now of course I'm not saying he didn't cheat. It's possible he used some other sophisticated method of cheating. But it would not be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft using his usual MO is the most likely explanation.

That's not a complete analogy tho. Everyone knows Hans cheated in the past. But Magnus is going beyond that and saying that Hans cheated in the over-the-board game against him.

Coming back to your analogy. So now imagine this person suddenly has a new shiny car but he also has the Title and registration for that car. Not only that, someone reported him to the cops and the cops said that the car is not stolen. He also has income tax returns that show that he has a legit source of income. Would it be natural for a reasonable person to assume that theft is the most likely explanation?

Because YouTube is doing it at the behest of the public. People voted in representatives that brought laws that force YouTube to do this. Your outrage is misplaced.

You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.

Anyone who is living in India knows that cases are severely underreported in India. Government is publishing statistics saying city a has x covid deaths in a day. But crematoriums are seeing 10-20x body bags.

You don't even have to believe me. Just look up covid deaths for your city and then go to the city's largest crematorium and count the number of bodies in covid body bags.

(I know you just posted a tl;dr of the article and this is not necessarily your opinion.)

You're not the audience. I think art has always been a game of finding something unique in the sea of mainstream. If there were 50 other artists who made art similar to Pollock, he would never have achieved this fame.

I'm sure you've encountered someone saying something along the lines of "Oh, I like it a lot but it's so common, literally every other person has it.". That's the kind of audience art is targeted towards. It's easy to classify if art is good or bad:

1. Is unique. If something is very similar to other famous and sought-after pieces of art then it's not good. 2. Is popular in the art-community and sought after among the rich.

If something satisfies these two requirements then it's good art. Otherwise it's not.

Remember the $120,000 banana? It satisfies both conditions. So it was "good art". It also got three buyers apparently.

I'd like to buy this. Where can I send the $50 million?

I don't agree. Millions (maybe even billions) of people user their devices and the country absolutely should regulate their systems. As an extreme example imagine if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut and all customers have to pay $20/month to use Wifi or internet on their iPhone. Obviously this is unlikely to happen but then I would expect the govt. to intervene.

If Apple want to impose rules without any government oversight, they are free to start their own country with their own government and impose their own rules.

> You cannot send power to the camera without also sending power to the LED, which will in turn cause the LED to light up. Unless the LED is broken, in which case you will know because it will never light up.

You make multiple assumptions here

1) You assume that the during the time that passes between the LED breaking and the user noticing, there was not a single attack or a single blunder that caused the camera to turn on and record/capture something that was unintended.

2) You assume that the LED breaks deterministically. The LED can break randomly. Maybe it lights up when nothing is being recorded resulting in a false positive. The user has no way of differentiating between a false positive and a true positive which can result in unintended captures.

3) Similarly the LED can break in a way where it sometimes doesn't light up when something is being recorded even though power is always sent to the LED when the camera is on resulting in a false negative. Again, the user has no idea of differentiating between a false negative and a true negative.

That's not what incognito mode is. It literally says on the first page when you open incognito window. People want to skip reading technical details when provided but then get angry when a company does the exact thing they warned about.

Also where does this end? Should car dealerships be allowed to analyze your data? Cars you've bought, cars you test drove etc.?

(Trying to act devil's advocate)

Google is a publicly listed company. Members of the public, either directly or indirectly partially own Google. Google has a duty towards its shareholders. Isn't that some accountability?

I know that not everyone owns Google stock. But I'm guessing hundreds of thousands of people do.

It's hard to take an action. Google cares about recall right now to avoid liability. In theory it could be easily solved by lowering the threshold which will certainly improve precision. But you know what that will also do? It will lower recall which will just open Google up to litigation or regulation. See what regulation did to YouTube. It's the same reason YouTube has such a weird copyright strike process. Google is not secretly conspiring against YouTube creators like the creators would like you to believe.

What will breaking up Google accomplish? I think the individual orgs inside Google already act as separate businesses. So they are already split internally.

Firing someone because they didnt obey your order to break the law is not duress?