Earlier quoted context omitted.
The party they want to ban are neo-Nazis.
[flagged]
Are you coming here to spread Russian propaganda? Please don't.
Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
131–140 of 385 posts
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
They support expelling certain ethnic and religious groups from Germany, but it's not clear if the Jews are one.
It's probably safer for them to be vague about who exactly they mean. Both to stay legal and to give voters the chance to project whichever people they hate most onto that policy.
[deleted]
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, and this is a perfect example of a base rate fallacy situation... even if the scanner is 99.99% accurate, because an even higher percentage of photos are innocent, most matches the scanner will find will be false positives.
Funny you bring this up. Back in the day when I was like 15 and DC++ was still a thing, I used to browse people's shared folders. One day I came across a file called "the paradox of false positive". It was a 1 pager that described how a machine which is 99.9% accurate at identifying terrorists would be completely useless due to this false positive base rate fallacy you're describing. It really stuck with me throughou…
The intuition I've built is that you can't talk about a false positive rate being high or low on its own - it's always relative to the actual occurrence rate of positives in the tested population. E.g. if there's a 1 in 10000 risk of a false positive, but real positives also are only 1 out of 10000 tested cases, then a positive case will have a 50/50 chance of being a false positive (because for every 10000 tests, you'll have on average one false positive and one real positive). So a false positive rate can only be said to be low if it's significantly lower than the real occurrence rate of positives.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
how is EU supposed to open hormuz? do you expect them to raise armies and go to war over a shipping lane? I think US demonstrated plenty enough this is not a viable strategy (this was known for the past 50 years)
yes that's what's known for the past million years, if you hurt people they stop bothering you and do what you want
[dead]
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it's privacy from private companies. The government still needs to see everything you do just in case. Its not like you have anything to do hide? Do you?
I keep trying to explain to people that private companies harvesting your data, while not good, is done solely for the purpose of trying to get you to voluntarily buy more toilet bowl cleaner. Meanwhile, Governments can take away your freedom, block your right to speech, ruin your entire life, seize your private assets/wealth, take away your children, deport you, etc...all depending on how the cultural wind is blowin…
Exactly. And it is also incredibly short-sided and naive to push for more power for the government when you think it is just going to be used by "your side" for the issues you care about. When you want to wield those powers to promote your own ends against those you oppose, don't be surprised when those you oppose come into power and use those same powers back against you.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either the EU opens Hormuz or the EU pays twice the pre war rate for gas / oil indefinitely. Of course at least they can put the subjects that bitch about it in jail now.
how is EU supposed to open hormuz? do you expect them to raise armies and go to war over a shipping lane? I think US demonstrated plenty enough this is not a viable strategy (this was known for the past 50 years)
One thing the EU might do is put some pressure on Israel to stop breaking the cease fire and just generally to stop bombing everybody.
It's unlikely to happen, but that's the one thing I can see that the EU could contribute to the opening of Hormuz.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Well the Americans are not particularly clean in this situation. For them it's all about creating a situation where Europe keeps buying overpriced weapons from the US to support Ukraine in their slow march to death. Most euro leaders have sold their souls to the devil and live in a bubble of illusions and wishful thinking. They are all employees of the the American system. You won't even make it to the selection leve…
Every American president since 1980 begged Europe and NATO to take responsibility and invest in is own security.
Re: Chat Control 1.0 and 2.0 Explained
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point I think it's obvious that EU is in turmoil. They're struggling to come to grips with the idea of a Russian invasion on their eastern borders, and simultaneously USA pivoting to Asia and not willing to front their defense after 40+ years of imploring them to do so themselves. They've outsourced nearly every critical component of a large sustainable society to the rest of the world: Russia, USA, China, In…
[flagged]
This comment adds zero value. Make a point if you have one.