Again, as we are wondering into tumblr style debates here (ie not listening and just saying what you think they said)

There is a difference between being "right" and being "effective"

Or to put it another way: "perfect is the enemy of good"

However I will break it down a bit more. You agree with me that there is such thing as a horizon of "acceptable opinion" for people? Some have larger windows, some much narrower.

If we agree on that, I would ask, what happens if someone goes in hard (rhetorically) with a viewpoint that is outside of "acceptable opinion"? You begin to discount their opinion, regardless of evidence. Or it requires a much high bar to accept _any_ opinion from that person.

Which leads back to the original point, you may be correct, but you are unable to persuade anyone else that you are correct, because you are not speaking the same language and gently pulling them to your viewpoint.

Hence the "you can be right, or you can be effective"

It was slower than Kazaa/bittorrent, but it was far harder to work out who was shareing what. (if memory serves it also chunked files up so they weren;t on the same machine, but that could be me misremembering)

There are no reliable tools for the end user, normal person, to work out if an image is AI or not. This erodes trust and lets bad actors get away with "oh thats AI generated" or use AI to defraud users.

Then use a mask like everyone else. digital mask, one that obscures.

which is my main point, no, there isn't a legitimate need.

realtime avatars don't generally have invisible watermarks, also they are running from your machine, otherwise you've got a (normally credit card) trail to your front door. plus a video stream

also if you are generating stuff from a public provider, then tracing people isn't that hard to do.

but I also live in a society that requires trust to function. making a tool the obliterates that trust(genAI imagery pipelines) then creating a tool that makes it trivial for normal people to remove any hint of controls over said trust eroding system is, toxic.

I get the argument about not putting in fingerprints that identify users, Good I agree. But this also removes the things that identify this as an AI image.

Now, what are the legitimate uses of that?

No really, why would I _need_ to remove a watermark for _legitimate_ purposes? Assuming that watermark is generic, rather than a fingerprint of a specific person

New Zeeland is an outlier in that it doesn't have capital gains tax.

Its not the end of the world to have captial gains tax.

So why $work-1 spent so much time on this was quite logical. When you have point clouds generated from crappy head mounted cameras, you get models that are very complex.

for example, if you look at a point cloud of an Ikea LACK (https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/p/lack-nest-of-tables-set-of-2-wh...) It will be massively complex. this means that when you want to perform nay kind of interaction with it, its computationally difficult (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221064696/figure/fi...)

So an active area of research is point cloud to "CAD" model (ie simplyfied, where a LACK tabl would be ~40 triangles rather than 400k)

One of those ways is to say "oh this pointcloud looks like a table, lets generate a bunch of hypothesis tables and see if they fit." One way to do that is to have a model that understands parametric CAD, and can create a number of tables with parameters that can be adjusted until it fits.

A perhaps easier way is to take a point cloud, get an image model trained on CAD models to draw models, in 2d imagery, then use something like this to get an actual model out.

Its not efficient, but it might work.

There are also lots of other cases, like automatic plagiarism, which are less good.

Aha, now this is an interesting distinction. I'm not an expert in this, as you might imagine, but what counts as editorialising?

To my naive eyes, having an algorithm that re-arranges posts, or injects new subjects seems like editorialising to me.

wouldn't that violate free speech though? forcing a company to keep something up/take something down is entirely up to them no?

Have you read them? they are acutally quite good. its a shame they are not enforced evenly.

Kuwait's sovereign fund has about 1 trillion under management. A couple of phone calls about disposals and its surprising what changes.

However, its my understanding that this page was promoting/representing the Muslim Brotherhood.

The big problem is that because there is no real ventilation, the panels get hotter and don't produce as much power.

What you put under them also has an effect on how waterproof your roof is long term, plus when you need to replace them finding ones that are the right size are also a pain.

Or even better not yeeting it into an environment where its cooked/cooled every 90 minutes

Or even better where its not absolutely pelted by cosmic rays enough to obliterate a good GB a day of data.

Or space data centre.

You cannot get asylum on economic grounds.

> Australia did this

And it didn't work. They spent $12 billion(aussie dollars) on ~4000 people. which is a pointless waste of cash, even more so when they had to evacuate those granted asylum back to aus because they were so badly looked after.

> We have to find temporary accommodation anyway. Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy,

Correct, but temporary accommodation is >>£ than normal accommodation. If you can't progress a claim because the destination is blocked, then you need more temporary accommodation. The crucial thing is, when your claim is processing, you can't work, which means we have to pay for everything.

Once the claim is processed and they have asylum, they can work, which means we don't need to pay anywhere near as much to look after them.

> But this act is used to detain some illegal migrants in prison in some cases. Usually this is terrorism-related but, I believe, this has also been used in the many cases of sexual assault.

No this is just the law. anyone who commits those acts are meant to be in jail, because it's illegal. thats how the law works.

> detain anyone who comes to the UK by irregular means.

What the bill actually does is make it almost impossible to claim asylum in a catch 22 style. Basically if you come here any any means, with the intention of claiming asylum, it invalidates any visa you may have. This means your entry in the UK was illegal. So there are no legal routes to claim asylum out side of the two special schemes for ukrainains and Hong Kongers.

the problem is, because they didn't do the ground work that would remove the contradicting laws. Which means its not really possible to defend it in court.

> Rwanda changed absolutely nothing about that policy, I am not sure how anyone could think otherwise

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/illegal-migration-dealing...

Basically because it was illegal to send people to anywhere other than rwanda, and rwanda was ready, and wasn't legal to send anyone to for processing, it meant that no-one could be processed. This was a known and telegraphed problem of the bill. This act: https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/ill... made it legal to process claims again.

> the Tories put substantial resources into the Home Office

Yes, and it was spent on accommodation and rwanda.

> We are speeding down the path to balkanization,

No, we really are not. Go to Rotterdam and look at how integration happens there (hint, it fucking doesnt) In Britain we do integration really well. kids of immigrants have excellent outcomes in education and employment. For example out of the last 8 years there has only been 4 months where someone who isnt a child of a migrant held the top spot (6 out of 8)

> Labour went for student visas immediately,

Actually the tories did that first. The best part? now we have to pay more to bail out universities.

> There is a long historical record here of this happening in other countries that people are determined to ignore.

What record is that?

I was of that opinion, alas it was not £300k for 4000, it was £300k _per_ person. double checking again to make sure I am not talking bollocks the spread is 100k-450k per person depending on how you calculate (ie total cost or ignoring upper bounds on people being processed)

the NAO says it was expensive: https://www.nao.org.uk/press-releases/the-costs-of-the-uk-rw... Migrant observatory says more expensive: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries...

Its was an exceedingly badly designed policy, that meant that it was illegal to process any asylum claims outside of sending people to rwanda. So the actual cost is even higher, because we had to find a fuck tonne of temporary accommodation. Even worse was that we were sending people who were granted asylum to rwanda, not people who failed.

It prioritised optics over solving the problem.

hence my anger.

> Why not send people who are clearly from a safe country back immediately?

because it was illegal to process any claims until the Rwanda scheme was up and running. At its height, there could only be 4000 people processed.

My friend, I think we both want the same thing, We want fair and legal processing of migrants. We want to make sure that those in need are offered compassion and care, those that take the piss, sent packing.

An entire class of commentator and politician decided that performance was more important than delivery, and we end up where we are. The _most_ annoying thing is that it drives a wedge between people who would otherwise normally agree.

I would gently point out that if the immigration system worked like it used to, then we wouldn't need large amounts of detention centres. For two years it was illegal to process asylum claims. This meant that the backlog stacked up, costing a fuck tonne of cash.

More egregiously instead of sorting the problem. Various Home secretaries chose politics rather than building systems to track and efficiently process claims.

Detention centres are a massive sign of failure. I don't want them anywhere, I want my money to be spent on sorting the problem not showboating how cruel we are to people we don't like. (Which I would point out is directly against biblical teachings)

The Left has a fascination with Palestine, not islam. People who push the "the left love poltical islam" are usally trying to sell you that London is a wasteland, or that white people can't speak in public

The same one that threatening concentration camps in areas that don't vote for them? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c362e9p385yo

Farage is not the most extreme in his party. Sadly.