hanbura

I am guaranteed to die at some point. Yet (at least in Germany) I can go to a private insurance company, agree to pay a few euros each month and in return they pay out 10000€ when I die to cover my funeral, no questions about cause of death asked. It's an insurance that is guaranteed to pay out, but it still insures against uncertainty because I don't know when I will die.

Flood insurance is fundamentally the same, the payouts are just not well spread, requiring a large geographically diverse insurance company.

>have no reason to be concerned about governments ...

Many aren't, but everyone has reason to.

Governments change. Telling your government your religion in 1920s Germany was harmless, in 1940 many would have preferred if the government didn't have their religion on file.

Circumstances change to. In 1920 being a Japanese in the US wasn't special. After Perl Harbor came the internment camps.

And then there's the mundane stuff. You protest a government policy, someone in the government takes issue and tries to put some of these annoying people in jail.

Given that you don't know when you might become an enemy of the state it's always a good idea to keep the power of the state over its citizens in check.

Determining whether anybody is in the car doesn't sound trivial beyond the driver seat. The seatbelt warnings are triggered by weight, but people frequently store stuff on their seats, and occasionally that stuff has a weight plausible for a human

That would lead to far more accidents where people leave kids or animals alone in a car in direct sunlight, assuming the AC will keep them cool. But as they step away from the vehicle, the engine and AC turn off, leaving anyone in the car to die from heat stroke.

Those people don't need to take the car key with them, but with a keyless car you don't think about the key (that's the entire point of keyless cars). The key is just one of many things in your pockets.

Sure, sending spam that I can opt out of isn't the worst thing they can do. But if you are selling security products I expect better morals than that. This is yubico squandering trust in exchange for sending a few more marketing emails.

Considering legislation: I live in Germany. Over here unsolicited marketing mail (snail mail) addressed to me is illegal. I fully support legislation that extends the same standard to email (and I'm pretty sure yubico's behaviour is illegal here). It's waisting my time and computing resources for somebody else's gain (and that on a massive scale: if you waste just one minute each from a million people, that's two full years wasted)

Yes, but in order to be useful for training, the fake detection algorithm has to be reasonably performant. Performance is less of an issue if you just want to test if one video is fake.

Unless of course the attacker has vastly more computational power than the person trying to detect the fake

Technological solutions will help, but software to spot fake videos will lead to an arms race between video creation and video classification.

The more promising angle is imho the society angle. Most people view their memory as the best source of truth, when in reality it's well established in psychology that our memory is incredibly unreliable. Previously this was mostly a problem for the justice system, now we risk entire nations being gaslighted. What we should be doing is trusting our written word, not our memory. Basically writing diaries and keeping newsletter articles, and checking both from time to time to keep wrong memories from manifesting

All of that is very teachable

>The press would absolutely hate that, and rightfully so.

Not only the press. Whoever is making the decision what's real is the ultimate censor and can decide which reality the voting public sees.

Of course convincing, largely circulated fakes have a similar effect. But in a largely unregulated scenario it will at least be possible to notice that conflicting versions exist

An individual fact isn't copyrightable, a collection of facts can be. Details vary by jurisdiction, but in an international project like OSM you have to comply with the strictest jurisdiction

Copying from Google Maps would violate copyright. Ideally you visit the place in question and correct them in OSM based on your observations. There are also some satellite maps that are licensed for use as OSM source (and that are often integrated in OSM editors)

db01 is taking it into meaninglessness. Is that running PostgreSQL, Redis or MongoDB? Was Redis on db05 or cache01? That's not far from naming them server01, server02, etc.

sql01 is good if you only use sql abstraction layers, otherwise you probably even want postgres01 and mysql01. Or even postgres-olap01 and postgres-oltp01, if that's what you do.

Satellites and space stations are neither aerodynamic nor dense. If anything survives reentry, drag will slow it down until it might still damage a regular building but will do nothing to an impact resistant concrete dome designed to resist plane crashes.

A big meteor could punch through both the concrete dome and the underlying steel containment. If that happens, we will probably be glad it hit the reactor and not nearby New York City. As long the meteor doesn't replace the steel containment structure with a crater but merely damages it (after obliterating the dome), we have at worst a second Fukushima. What made Chernobyl so bad was that the cooling water caused a giant steam explosion, carrying radioactive material high into the atmosphere. That failure mode is impossible in any reactor operated today.

If every email service prohibits a topic, that's indistinguishable from state censorship. I fail to see how only one is bad and the other isn't.

The free market isn't of any help here either. Censorship is about stopping the spread of information and ideas. What's not known can't affect the free market.

>Having said that, can't Mailchimp do whatever they want?

Sure, in the same sense we can be appalled by anything we want and boycott things for any or no reason.

There is no legal question here, but the moral question is far less clear cut.

An increasing number of subcommunities have learned to rely on sponsors and patreon because YouTube demonetizes most of their videos. Meanwhile YouTube's three strike system is a constant threat to channels operating on fair use (reviewers etc) or producing content that YouTube's algorithms flag as showing content violating guidelines.

There's plenty of content creators that would love to go anywhere else, but all alternatives fail to attract viewers.