![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
The mishandling is indeed what I’m concerned about most. I now understand far better where you’re coming from, sincere thanks for taking the time to explain. Cheers
The mishandling is indeed what I’m concerned about most. I now understand far better where you’re coming from, sincere thanks for taking the time to explain. Cheers
Thanks for the response! It sounds like you had access to a higher quality system than the worst, to be sure. Based on your comments I feel that you’re projecting the confidence in that system onto the broader topic of facial recognition in general; you’re looking at a good example and people here are (perhaps cynically) pointing at the worst ones. Can you offer any perspective from your career experience that might bridge the gap? Why shouldn’t we treat all facial recognition implementations as unacceptable if only the best – and presumably most expensive – ones are?
A rhetorical question aside from that: is determining one’s identity an application where anything below the unachievable success rate of 100% is acceptable?
Can you please start linking studies? I think that might actually turn the conversation in your favor. I found a NIST study (pdf link), on page 32, in the discussion portion of 4.2 “False match rates under demographic pairing”:
The results above show that false match rates for imposter pairings in likely real-world scenarios are much higher than those from measured when imposters are paired with zero-effort.
This seems to say that the false match rate gets higher and higher as the subjects are more demographically similar; the highest error rate on the heat map below that is roughly 0.02.
Something else no one here has talked about yet – no one is actively trying to get identified as someone else by facial recognition algorithms yet. This study was done on public mugshots, so no effort to fool the algorithm, and the error rates between similar demographics is atrocious.
And my opinion: Entities using facial recognition are going to choose the lowest bidder for their system unless there’s a higher security need than, say, a grocery store. So, we have to look at the weakest performing algorithms.
Yeah I got the impression it was a recoverable condition after a search found a bunch of guides for “unbricking” (Android phones). Semantics are the true enemy it seems
So then it didn’t run after the car wash – unless we’re ignoring the mandatory steps needed to get it working again, the headline is pretty accurate. Or are you considering “bricked” a permanent condition?
That’s so cute, I can’t. Thanks for paying your taxes on time.
Crypto did unfortunate things to the space.
Wow do you even respect your dog?
That’s the intended effect – a condescending dismissal of being condescendingly dismissed. Not much you can say to a clear sign of disengagement.
I hear you, and those things seem nice at a glance, but I don’t agree with your sense of guarantee. We’re seeing an upending of things that “usually” happen, or that “definitely can” happen, especially with “self-managed” entities such as the SCOTUS. Have you seen judges actually get held accountable recently, even locally?
What are you basing this on?
This is a strange response for me because de-federating is an active step on behalf of its admin, usually after a vote amongst its users, at creating a virtual boundary between the two entities. How is that burying your head in the sand? And yeah, lemmy.world is big, but aside from the obvious loss of content/users, what other effect will that have on the mass of de-federated instances?
I didn’t realize until now, but I’ve been very fortunate to be able to take the bus to work recently, and the lack of fear of other vehicles on the road is probably a huge contributor to how much better I feel after the commute. I have that anxiety ever-present in the back of my mind while driving a sedan.
How are there two St. Martin parishes within a proverbial block of each other?
Edit: Oh, okay they’re the same parish, geographical locality be damned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Martin_Parish,_Louisiana
That guy has the BEST impersonation I’ve ever seen, it’s repulsive! Not just the voice, but the hands, the sucking air through the teeth, the head tilts and mouth movements, all spot-on. You know how you have to wonder about the mental state of horror game/movie artists looking at reference material all day? Same feeling about Shane Gillis.
The New York statue, in Union Square, was removed early that afternoon; the New York City Parks Department made a statement that it “stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small”.
I can’t
To clarify a point I don’t think the people replying have specifically pointed out enough already: this line of thinking is contrary to a representative democracy. If some people aren’t worthy of voting, then they aren’t worthy of being represented by their government (e.g. slaves, felons, children). That’s the main disagreement I have with that idea.
If you truly believe there’s a measurable line for intelligence/competence below which people shouldn’t vote, are you worried there are so many people in that group that it would affect the outcome? If that’s true, then don’t they deserve representation? This problem is solved if everyone votes. Shouldn’t we just try to educate people instead of creating another marginalized group?
35k is a pretty huge amount better than 150k. Are you just trying to say that it sucks either way? Because that I agree with, but when we criticize things, we should at least have the numbers right.
He’s saying lay off to 150k, not by 150k. He says getting down to that would be a 20% reduction, so that puts the then-current headcount at ~188k, so get rid of about 35-40k people.
What would be extremely rock and roll-- punk rock, even – is donating all of the proceeds from that show to pro-union efforts.
#DonateItDave, or something