I read this headline, thoroughly confused as to why Francesca Albanese would be wasting her time talking about vegemite.
danielquinn
In Star Trek: Insurrection, the Enterprise protected the Baku from the So'na, though if I remember right, there was some debate as to whether the prime directive applied as the Baku weren't native to the planet.
I was one of the people who based my opinion of Proton on that tweet and swore off them until someone else shared that link with me. It's excellent, thorough, and makes a convincing case that Yang is actually left-leaning. I can only assume that you're getting downvotes from people who haven't read it.
What you're describing is winning elections by letting the public dictate your position. This is not the same thing as leadership. To be fair though, genuine leadership is in short supply all over the world right now, so it's easy to conflate cowardice with strategy.
Leadership is when someone steps away from the crowd, paints a picture of the world they want, and asks people to join them. Think: "I have a dream", or "we choose to go to the moon". Leaders are charismatic visionaries that take you with them rather than taking popular positions once the polling reports in.
Canada deserves the sort of leadership that understands the critical nature of the climate issue, and leaders who will convince us to come with them in building the world we want. May is criticising the other parties for their lack of conviction regarding the most important issue of our time, and she's right to do it.
It was Castlevania that did this to me.
Well, welcome to the Free side fellow traveller :-) I too ditched Windows for (different) political reasons 25 years ago, and haven't looked back. You'll love it here, 'cause if you don't, you now have the power to change it 'til you do.
Sorry, I was on mobile so I over-simplified 'cause digging up the details on Wikipedia wasn't so easy while also juggling my kid :-) I'll try to amend the original post.
I don't know what to tell you. I've been shouted down more than a few times for suggesting that Ubuntu is a bad gateway distro.
I'll likely be downvoted for this, but if you're committed to Linux, you might want to reconsider using Ubuntu (or Fedora for that matter). Ubuntu has a well-earned reputation for trying to make things "easy" by obfuscating what it's doing from the user (hence that useless error message). They're also a corporate distro, so their motivations are for their profit rather than your needs (wait 'til you had about Snap).
A good starting distro is Debian (known for stable, albeit older) software. It's a community Free software project and the 2nd-oldest Linux distro that's still running as well as the basis for a massive number of other distros (including Ubuntu). The installer is straightforward and easy too.
Or if you're feeling ambitious, I'd recommend Arch or Gentoo. These distros walk you through the install from a very "bare metal" perspective with excellent documentation. Your first install is a slog, but you learn a great deal about the OS in the process, ensuring that you have more intimate knowledge when something goes wrong.
If only he'd done that, I'd have respect for him. Instead he walked back a half-assed confirmation of someone else's question. Hardly the conviction we should expect from our Prime Minister.
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose behind projects like c2pa. They're not trying to guarantee that the image isn't AI. They're attaching the reputation of the author(s) to the image. If you don't trust the author, then you can't trust the image.
You're right that a chain isn't fool-proof. For example, imagine if we were to attach some metadata to each link in the chain, it might look something like this:
| Author | Type | |
|
| | Alice the Photographer | Created | | AP photo editing department | Cropping | | Facebook | Resizing/optimisation |
At any point in the chain, someone could change the image entirely, claim "cropping" and be done with it, but what's important is the chain of custody from source to your eyeballs. If you don't trust the AP photo editing department to act responsibly, then your trust in the image they've shared with you is already tainted.
Consider your own reaction to a chain that looks like this for example:
| Author | Type | |
|
| | Alice the Photographer | Created | | AP photo editing department | Cropping | | Infowars | Cropping | | Facebook | Resizing/optimisation |
It doesn't matter if you trust Alice, AP, and Facebook. The fact that Infowars is in the mix means you've lost trust in the image.
Addressing your points directly:
- I'm not sure how a TPM applies to this as I haven't dug deep into c2pa other than the quick review I did this morning. I'm more interested in the high-level: "can we solve this by guaranteeing the origin" question, and I think the answer to that is yes. See my other comment for my own take on this.
- I don't think we need any sort of controls on defining the types of edits at all. If AP said they cropped the image, and if I trust AP, then I trust them as a link in the chain.
- Worrying about MITM attacks is not a reasonable argument against using a technology. By the same token, we shouldn't use TLS for banking because it can be compromised.
- Absolutely, but you can prevent someone from taking a picture of an AI image and claiming that someone else took the picture. As with anything else, it comes down to whether I trust the photographer, rather than what they've produced.
I've been a Green supporter for a very long time. I even ran as a candidate for the BC Greens way back. I hate it, but I don't really have a problem with this ruling. The Greens rose to our highest levels of support when we ran a full slate of candidates across the country, and while we have on occasion chosen to not run in a few strategic ridings (don't blame us, it's FPTP), 15 ridings fewer wouldn't be a problem if we were running everywhere else.
The big caveat though is that it's really hard to run a full slate as a small party. The vetting alone is a brutal (and costly) amount of work, and getting 343 candidates mobilised in time for a short-notice election is near impossible for a small party. In other words, when election dates are controlled by the ruling party, elections (and debate rules) will inevitably favour larger parties, diminishing our democracy.
The rules seem reasonable to me, and objectively we didn't meet them, so we shouldn't be included. I just think it's worth noting exactly why we didn't meet them.