drawfloat

Requiring police to wear and use body cameras is judicial activism to achieve...?

There’s no evidence anything was false in the actual documentary.

Setting aside whether it’s true, that’s not a thought crime by any definition.

4K is big but certainly was not as big a leap forward as SD to HD

This applies to all users and isn’t related to OSA (though that will probably make leaks like this more likely).

Half of those are the same outlier iMac (note, from the 90s) as in the original article, and the rest are indeed grey boxes?

No. If you are operating a p2p video chat site that is accessed by minors and you have no way for users to block or report content, then you are indeed going to face issues.

If a user is downloading a Linux image via bit torrent, or using WebRTC data channels to synchronise many clients using a p2p mechanism, what is the risk that needs age restricting?

This is what I meant, the OP is factually incorrect that just adding P2P technology to a service means it must age gate.

Ofcom has a clear guide on how harmful to minors is defined. It is even clearly referenced in your own links:

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/cons...

Your own links also reference the fact that moderation of content by platforms will allow them to comply with the law.

I don’t like this law and not here to defend its existence. But it is factually untrue just adding this would mean you also need to age verify users.

Case in point (which is not a rare use case), I use webrtc signalling to establish data connections in a multiplayer online game. Why would that require age verification when users are unable to send random content to one another?

They do, but unlike what the OP claims, you do not need to age verify your site just because you added a social element. If the purpose is not to distribute pornography/other age restricted materials and you are able to moderate the site (ie: are not facebook scale), this is not required.

The law sucks but the misinformation around it is getting out of hand.

This is factually untrue and either venting or wilfully ignorant of the actual law.

Most of the non tech population know it as that website that can translate text or write an email. I would need to see actual evidence that anything more than a small, terminally online subsection of the average population thought LLMs were conscious.

""Sam Altman says the perfect AI is “a very tiny model with superhuman reasoning".""

It is being marketed as directly related to human reasoning.

Skeptics think A.I. is an overhyped tool, not an existential risk. Why would they be shouting about it from the roof tops?

Plenty of comment sections with reasonable skeptical takes, they’re just not good headline fodder.

The law was passed by the previous government and everyone assumed the next government would take great delight in reversing it.

I wouldn’t be so sure that any next government (which, by the way, there is still a non zero chance could be Labour) will necessarily reverse this. Maybe Reform would tweak the topics, but I’m not convinced any party can be totally trusted to reverse this.

This is like a news editor suggesting a future of development: zero bugs, never goes down, can be used anywhere, usable be anyone. Yes these all seem nice, but they're just a wishlist that is borderline impossible in practice.

Also personalisation of news is almost the number one 'hidden dopamine hooks', and in many ways the most insidious in its impact.

America has spent the last century proclaiming itself the greatest country on earth, whilst simultaneously causing untold political and social problems in "lesser countries" to its own benefit.

Some deep rooted resentment when an American criticises a place is natural.

Nigel Farage isn't part of Labour.

Your president is currently using tariffs and the threat of further economic damage as a weapon to push Europe in to dropping regulation of its tech sector. We have no recourse to challenge that either.

Nobody said they don’t care, they said it worries them less than America.

They probably will do that, but I think it’s naive to think the US military/intelligence/tech sector wouldn’t happily do the same. Given many of us likely see the hand of the US already trying to tip the scale in our local politics more than China, why would we be more worried of China?

"Cancer treatment is largely useless" is an objectively false statement.

But it’s still an additional expense that many do not need.

The government?

Because Recall would lose its entire purpose if it cannot recall any of your working day.

Something is going on with those comments. Either they’re pruned, staff leaving comments etc. You’re a weapons company posting stuff online and there isn’t a single negative comment? Plus half the replies clumsily force the company name in to the comment, which is a bit of a red flag they’re not natural.

Is there any alternative way of achieving a similar goal (shipping a container to non technical customers that they can run as if it were an application)?

Unfortunately I’m not sure this is true. My home town is one of the Crap Towns and in the last 25 years more or less the entire high street economy has collapsed and nothing has replaced it. It increasingly exists as a cheap undesirable housing spot with a 30 min commute to the next city.

Most people don’t want computers to know everything - ask the average person if they want more or less of their lives recorded and stored.

You’re probably lucky he didn’t speak to a lawyer, this could have been a very costly mistake in many many places. Sucks but also quite right too - you fucked him over.

Sure, I'm not saying Brexit was the solution to any of it, quite the opposite. But it wasn't a binary choice between X populist saying "Brexit will fix it immediately" and Y mainstream politician saying "here are the complex factors causing this issue, here's how we as a country can address them over so many years". It was a choice between "Brexit will bring sunlit uplands!" and "the country's doing well, don't ruin it!".

It's not hard to understand why, given that choice, someone stuck in a Northern ex-mining town facing zero prospects, poor housing, no local amenities, massive regional unemployment or unstable employment would listen to the one pretending to be listening to their issues. Again, we'd had 30 years before that where FPTP allowed the main parties to more or less ignore huge parts of the electorate.