yeet_yeet_yeet

Oh wow https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/CSAM_Detection_Techni... so they essentially just use CNN output to automatically determine whether to report people to the authorities? For some reason I assumed they were just comparing the files they knew to be CSAM.

Yeah that's bad. What about deepdream/CNN reversing? Couldn't a rogue apple engineer just create a innocuous looking false positive, say a cat picture, share it on Reddit, and everybody who downloads it is flagged to police for CSAM?

>not realistic

The odds are zero.

1/2^256 = 0.

In cryptography these odds are treated as zero until you generate close to 2^128 images.

Unfortunately there's no word in natural English to describe how unlikely. The most precise is "zero".

Could you provide an example?

The quality of the topic directly correlates with the quality of editors it attracts.

So of course The Great Gatsby is going to have a terrible article. Because it's a miserable book

If you care so much about The Great Gatsby, then you should invest your time improving the article.

Counterargument: none of these work if the page is edit-protected. There you just have to trust that the admins with edit access are acting in good faith. From my experience, they usually do, though.

> Wikipedia is not a reliable source for any controversial topics or people.

Maybe this is true for certain modern topics, but I was able to learn most of 20th century history due to Wikipedia. Want to read about MK Ultra? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra. Want to read about Japan's human experimentation program and how the US offered them immunity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731. Obviously this stuff is never going to be taught in school (maybe in undergrad history program, but who majors in history?). But it's on Wikipedia.

In terms of non-controversial topics, there's tons of value on Wikipedia as well. There is a broad collection of informative math and physics articles, I have read many of them and would argue they're useful. And also like one for every species of butterfly and virus.

In terms of modern AND controversial topics, I agree that Wikipedia is sometimes the target of some bullshit psyops and corporate whitewashing. But if you're willing to cut through that, lots of articles have useful information, like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War. Even the title is relatively unbiased (unless you're in the west :) ). You don't go to Wikipedia for a peer reviewed article that's 100% accurate and defensible, you go to get a straight answer that's 90% correct, when every journalist and public figure is spewing a load of hot shit. And that's why, for example, when you Google "Darrell Brooks" the top suggestion is "Darrell Brooks wiki".

So yeah, I gave them 100 bucks. I don't care what they do with it. If they donate it to the Dr. Evil Foundation for Evil or somebody, fine whatever. As long as Wikipedia stays up.

I have a backup as well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download

There are consequences of this. For sbf, orange man, elmo, maybe not yet, but there will be. Which is why most people stay in line.

Pretty sure he's given up at this point. Nobody would do something this dumb otherwise. And then confirm it the next morning.

What about you just keep custody of your own damn coins? Isn't that the point of cryptocurrency, that it's like cash except you don't have to physically carry it.