Many, many years back I used Symphony21[0] for an events website. It’s whole premise was build an XML structure via blueprints and then your theme is just XSLT templates for pages.
Gave it up because it turns out the little things are just a pain. Formatting dates, showing article numbers and counts etc.
I remember a lot of them initially struggled with the switch to CSS (but then got much better) and then eventually responsive design just hit them hard. Normal users just didn't know how to handle making things flow and the tools struggled to explain the necessary primitives to them. IMO.
Question for the crowd: if using the OpenAI service in Azure, is that included in the retention? OpenAI say API access but don’t specify if that’s just their endpoints or anyone running their models.
You’d have to check with Microsoft. OpenAI says that this doesn’t apply to customers with a Zero Data Retention endpoint policy, but my recollection is that Azure OpenAI doesn’t fall into that category unless it’s something that is explicitly paid for. That said, OpenAI also says that ChatGPT Enterprise customers aren’t impacted (aside from their standard policies around how long it takes to delete data, which they say is within 30 days), but only Microsoft would know if their API usage counts as “enterprise” or not.
Why would this work? Spies are trained to behave like the host country would expect, why wouldn't hackers?
If hackers have access to the outside world (something they would need to be effective), they'd know the world thinks Kim is fat.
"He's very fat, haha!", end of story.
Edit: wait, or better yet: "how on earth would I know, and why are you asking this in a job interview? Is this because I'm Korean? I'd like to file a complaint with HR, what was your name again?"
These aren't spies first. They are often children of well to do, high loyalty group North Koreans. It's just a privileged job.
The skill and IQ level varies widely, from super smart to super unskilled. And these roughly get sorted out into different groups with different MO's. North Koreans aren't some uniformly skilled group. You could be targeted by a team of world class bytecode exploit geniuses who rehearses every move, or by the equivalent of Milton from Office Space.
Dissing Kim is something that is not currently widely permitted in NK. Just isn't worth personally.
Not saying no one from NK never will, but so far almost everyone will immediately stop the conversation at this point. There are plenty of crypto people who have monthly or weekly encounters with NK job applicants.
I find this answer highly implausible, not the least because maintaining cover doesn't count as dissing ("I infiltrated the org by telling them the lies they wanted to hear" is hacking 101). Also, North Koreans aren't dumb.
I find some people's attitude to NK hackers slightly schizophrenic: either they are a credible threat or they are amateurs. Which one is it?
> Dissing Kim is something that is not currently widely permitted in NK
This wouldn't be "widely", this would be a specific interaction with a hostile foreigner for the purpose of infiltrating them. It's not the same as being allowed to say this to fellow North Koreans.
> Not saying no one from NK never will, but so far almost everyone will immediately stop the conversation at this point.
Legitimate candidates would at this point too, so as a tactic this is useless.
> I find some people's attitude to NK hackers slightly schizophrenic: either they are a credible threat or they are amateurs. Which one is it?
I have no clue whether the proposed approach works, but there's a pretty coherent model that explains how it could, no schizophrenia needed: They are competent people in a cult.
Being unable/unwilling to diss Dear Leader even when it's advantageous to do so is very typical cult stuff. In fact, it's sort of why cults are dangerous. They compel people to do maladaptive things in service of the "ideals" of the group/leader.
This applies both to the spy directly (perhaps they would personally be unwilling to say such a thing), but also to their entire chain of command. Cults by their nature are not good at passing nuanced instruction like "you can say bad things about Dear Leader under these circumstances." Just because you're willing to diss KJU to get in the door doesn't mean you know your entire chain of superiors are cool with it.
So you're saying NK agents are completely different to, say, Soviet era agents, who could and would say anything as long as it furthered their mission?
Ok, fair enough. In common perception of NK, they do seem bizarre, not like the Soviets during the Cold War.
I think it's unwise to dismiss them as lunatics incapable of deceit. If I were a NK agent, I'd work towards this notion, "NK are incapable of lying if it would diss their leader, that's how we get them!". In fact, I would spread this notion in Reddit, like the OP mentioned.
By the way, this still leaves the easy way out of "why are you asking about Kim Jong Un in a job interview, is it because I'm Korean? I'd like to speak to your HR department please".
I'm just guessing but comparing the NK hacker to a late Cold War era Soviet professional spy is the wrong comparison. Maybe the closer comparison is asking a Soviet party member belonging to the professional middle class with a bit of spy training during the Great Purges to talk negatively about Stalin out of the blue.
Yeah I never got the impression that Soviets were as successfully isolated from the world as North Koreans are. But I’m not an expert on the matter!
I mean, I totally agree that this should not be relayed as a working method to identify spies haha. Just that it’s not beyond believability it’d work in some circumstances.
I am saying they are both a credible threat and many are amateurs. Those are not mutually exclusive.
You are talking about North Korea attackers from a theoretical point of view. For many people dealing with them is just a normal part of work. It's not an unknown that needs to be worked out logically from an armchair.
I'm saying this as someone who personally chatted with a North Korea persona that later tried to drop exploits on people, and the persona belonged to hacking group with at least one 50 million dollar heist. I've also seen the screenshots on many chats with North Koreans.
I don't consider screenshots evidence of anything, so I'll completely disregard that bit.
I'm curious about your personal experience though. Did you try this tactic, and did it work? And how sure are you these weren't random hackers or trolls, but actual NK agents?
> many are amateurs
So basically this would only get rid of the amateurs, low hanging fruit that would have been caught soon enough anyway, and do a "natural selection" of only the non-stupid NK hackers to infiltrate your org?
> And how sure are you these weren't random hackers or trolls, but actual NK agents?
"Agents" is way too big of a word. Just cogs in a corporate theft machine.
There's a lot of reasons I'm sure, but the biggest is because before a hack they asked for help doing something simple with a crypto address that was later used to test run the 50 million dollar theft that was North Korea. And also trying to drop North Korean linked malware is another data point.
This also hits my point about both dangerous and amateurs. They pulled off pretty sophisticated heist but, had to ask for help, asked for help using a crypto address tied to the theft, and blew the cover on an identity they had been building up for a year.
Here's a twitter thread I put together of both my conversation and others with this particular account:
If he's acting under NK command, this wouldn't be insulting, it's just doing a hacker's work.
Besides, you cannot have it both ways: either North Korean hackers are a "50ct army" or they are a credible threat. Most seem to be arguing they are a credible threat.
Also, he can always take the second option: "why are you asking about this in a job interview?", something many legitimate Korean candidates could ask.
> If he's acting under NK command, this wouldn't be insulting, it's just doing a hacker's work.
I understand where you are coming from, I wanted to express my idea that their person cult shaped culture might be so alien to us, that what seems obvious to us, might be a non-option to them. At least at the level where I imagine such operators.
> you cannot have it both ways: either North Korean hackers are a "50ct army" or they are a credible threat
I assume the people performing the en-masse long term infiltration are not the same with technical skills who the execute technical attacks.
I'm with others: This is a silly anecdote from Crowdstrike of all companies. If I was asked how fat Kim Jong Un was, I would probably wait for some kind of "I'm kidding," and hang up if I didn't get it.
I don't believe they are earnestly identifying spies, even if they believe it. Not that they need spies to hack our system anyway, they managed to bring half the country to a halt by themselves.
Fun fact that was dredged up because the author mentions Australia: GPS points change. Their example coordinates give 6 decimal places, accurate to about 10-15cm. Australia a few years back shifted all locations 1.8m because of continental drift they’re moving north at ~7cm/year). So even storing coordinates as a source of truth can be hazardous. We had to move several thousand points for a client when this happened.
Even accounting for tectonic drift, there is a concept of positioning reproducibility that is separate from precision. In general the precision of the measurements is much higher than the reproducibility of the same measurements. That is, you may be able to measure a fixed point on the Earth using an instrument with 1cm precision at a specific point in time but if you measure that same point every hour for a year with the same instrument, the disagreement across measurements will often be >10cm (sometimes much greater), which is much larger than e.g. tectonic drift effects.
For this reason, many people use the reproducibility rather than instrument precision as the noise floor. It doesn’t matter how precise an instrument you use if the “fixed point” you are measuring doesn’t sit still relative to any spatial reference system you care to use.
> if the “fixed point” you are measuring doesn’t sit still relative to any spatial reference system you care to use.
But do those points actually move or the air medium changes the measurements?
I ask because I saw a very interesting documentary once about how they started accurate mapping in England with fixed points and measuring the angles between those points to a high degrees of precision.
My mental model has always been that those points are all fixed, but now that you mention it, why should they be fixed?
After all, my 7 grade teacher clearly demonstrated the thermal deformation or copper rods and all bridges have gaps that allow for thermal deformation, so indeed, this would apply to soil on the scale of tens of kms?
Fixed points actually move relative to each other. This is measurable even locally if you are doing high-precision localization e.g. with LIDAR. The geometry of relationships between objects is in constant motion but below the threshold of what a human can sense. There are many identifiable causes of this motion that vary with locality (tidal, thermal, hydrodynamic, tectonic, geophysical, et al). Additionally, there are local time dilation effects, both static and transient, that influence measurement but aren’t actually motion.
This comes up concretely when doing long-baseline interferometry. Lasers are used to precisely measure the distance between receivers in adjacent structures for use in time-of-flight calculations. Over the course of a day, the distance between those structures as measured may vary by multiple centimeters, which is why they measure it.
The air medium does add noise to the measurement depending on wavelength but it’s also small things adding up like the repeatability of the angle the satellite is at when it measures that same point. An arc-second of error at 400km is over a meter so even a fraction of an arc-second is enough to introduce a lot of noise between measurements.
A typical domestic GPS will give you accuracy to worst case 5m, but a good one will be sub metre, and taking enough measurements over time, especially with DGPS or RTK you'll get to less than 10cm.
After 20 years at 7cm per second that's 1.4m. That's the same order of magnitude of error as domestic.
Related but slightly different. The accuracy is real but it is only valid at a point in time. Consequently, you can have both high precision and high accuracy that nonetheless give different measurements depending on when the measurements were made.
In most scientific and engineering domains, a high-precision, high-accuracy measurement is assumed to be reproducible.
I think this is a charitable interpretation of the remark which deprives GP from learning something (sorry if this comes across as condescending, I'm genuinely trying to point out a imo relevant difference)
No it's not at all accuracy vs precision. That statement is about a property of the measurement tool, where one can have systematic offsets [0] (think about a manual clock, where the manufacturer clued the finger on with a slight shift) vs they can simply be inaccurate (think about a clock that only has a minute finger, but not one for seconds).
The thing pointed out by the original comment is about a change in the _measured_ system. Which is something fundamentally different. No improvement in the measurement tool [1] can help here as its reality that changes. Even writing down the measurement time is only going to help so much since typically you aren't interested in precisely the time of measurement and will do an implicit assumption of staticness of the real world.
[0] The real reason for those is that it is _much_ simpler to build a precise relative measurement tool (i.e. it's easier to say "bigger than that other thing" than "this large"). One example is CO2 concentration measurements, they are often relative to outdoor CO2, which is - unfortunately - not stable
[1] Assuming that the tool is only allowed to work on one point in time. If you include e.g. a weather modelling supercomputer in your definition of tools, that would again work.
GPS coordinates actually account for the motion of the Earth's tectonic plates. The problem is that it's a highly approximate model that doesn't accurately reflect areas like Australia very well.
There's a great visualizer of the coordinate velocity from the Earthscope team:
GPS coordinates do not account for tectonic motion. It is a synthetic spheroidal model that is not fixed to any point on Earth. The meridians are derived from the average motion of many objects, some of which are not on the planetary surface.
The motion of tectonic plates can be calculated relative to this spatial reference system but they are not part of the spatial reference system and would kind of defeat the purpose if they were.
The corrections are incorporated into the datum. WGS84 is updated every 6 months to follow ITRF by changing the tracking station locations as the plates move around.
That's about correcting the ground stations' coordinates. It doesn't help keeping your house's GPS coordinates fixed. If the tectonic plate your house is built on moves a meter over the course of a decade, then your house's GPS coords will change in the lower decimals, and eventually your government's land registry will need to update those values.
Hopefully there are still governments that don’t keep such in detail land registries, or any land registries at all, for that matter. Some of us don’t want the State to see everything, at almost every moment in time.
If you want to keep your land then you need to keep it in such detail in some registry.
Else it's trivial for someone to claim it or parts of it. Before such registries tons of people lost their land, lost part of their land, went bankrupt trying to save it, or murdered each other over their plots of land border dispute.
There are lots of records a state shouldn't have. Something fixed and stationary that needs protection from encroaching, like land limits, doesn't seem it should be one of them.
You made the very wrong assumption that land possession is mostly an individual thing, and second, that the State would be happy to award “common” ownership to communities big and small, and as such that it would allow said communities (in many cases much older than the State itself) to decide who gets to use what land inside of said communities. And the main reason is that the State doesn’t like, nor want, any sort of competition in this domain.
>You made the very wrong assumption that land possession is mostly an individual thing, and second, that the State would be happy to award “common” ownership to communities big and small, and as such that it would allow said communities (in many cases much older than the State itself) to decide who gets to use what land inside of said communities.
I made neither assumption, and both arguments are irrelevant to my point.
Take the current rights of anyone to one or more plots of land they own. As those are today, and also as they change while some are sold and bought etc.
To protect those rights of those onwers (of citizens and businesses and municipalities and so on) a registry or plots and their boundaries is very useful.
>to decide who gets to use what land inside of said communities
That's a totally irrelevant point, one that I didn't bring up.
I never said the state will happily "award “common” ownership to communities big and small, and as such that it would allow said communities (in many cases much older than the State itself) to decide who gets to use what land inside of said communities". In fact, for the purposes of my argument, whether the state will do that doesn't concern me at all.
Just that the state keeping a registry of plots and their boundaries helps keep track of ownership. Not transfer it to communities, to give it to someone else to administer: to keep track.
It's true in all countries to the extent that it's true in any countries, but it's only partially true to begin with. The reality is that ownership doesn't exist. What actually exists is a credible threat to use violence if certain conditions are violated. In a civilized society this comes from the state. In a failed state it comes from somewhere else.
If WGS84 was correcting for tectonic drift it would imply that the coordinates of the terrestrial fixed points used to compute the reference meridian never change under WGS84. Rebasing the coordinates of terrestrial fixed points prior to calculation disregards tectonic drift in the reference meridian calculation, it doesn’t correct it. It is a noise reduction exercise to minimize the influence of plate tectonics on meridian drift. The meridian uses non-terrestrial fixed points too that don’t have a concept of tectonic drift (but may introduce their own idiosyncratic sources of noise).
Basically, these are corrections to their “fixed points” to make them behave more like actual fixed points in the reference meridian model. It doesn’t eliminate tectonic drift effects when using coordinates in that spatial reference system.
I'm pretty positive that is showing the reverse, i.e. how much a given "location" is moving using gps coordinates. Not adjusting the gps coordinates to refer to a constant "location".
accounts for (something), phrasal verb meaning "considers; incorporates; takes on board" as opposed to the more obvious "gives rise to; is responsible for". I had to read twice too
I just can't comprehend how GPS coordinates could account for the tectonic plates' motion. Never heard of such a thing, and can't see how it would work on a conceptual, mathematical level.
In the past year or so I have thought a lot about how to design tables and columns within databases and there is nearly nothing that wouldn't get more robust by adding in a "valid_from" and "valid_till" and make it accept multiple values. Someone's name is Foo? What if they change it to Bar at some point and you need to access something from before with the old name?
If you have only a name field that has a single value that is going to be a crazy workaround. If your names are referencing a person with a date that is much easier. But you need to make that ddcision pretty early.
The tradeoff is that this is very expensive at the scale of large geospatial data models both in terms of performance and storage. In practice, it is much more common to just take regular snapshots of the database. If you want to go back in time, you have to spin-up an old snapshot of the database model.
A less obvious issue is that to make this work well, you need to do time interval intersection searches/joins at scale. There is a dearth of scalable data structures and algorithms for this in databases.
Anyone who works with human names should take a look at the HL7 V3 and FHIR data models, which were designed for healthcare. They support name validity ranges, and a bunch of other related metadata. It can be challenging to efficiently represent those abstract data models in a traditional traditional database because with a fully normalized schema you end up needing a lot of joins.
and if your schema doesn't change much, it's practically free to implement, much easier and simpler than copypasting audit tables, or relying on codegen to do the same.
The last time we did this, we basically hand-rolled our own, with a database trigger to insert data into a different table whenever an `UPDATE` statement happened.
But this seems like it's probably a better solution.
never had used pgaudit yet to vouch for it but have it on the backburner/log of things to try for such a use case!
I think the real magic is it lleverages the WAL (write ahead logs) from pg engine itself, which you could certainly hook up into too, but im not a db expert here
One that routinely surprises me is that this is not easy to do in any popular contacts application. I actually would like to keep every address I've ever had in there, in case I need to remember it for some reason later. Maybe I just want to reminisce. I don't want to accidentally have it as an "active" one, though.
Can this be solved by storing a timestamp of the record along with precise GPS coordinates? Could we then utilize some database to compute the drift from then and now?
Yes, in fact it should essentially be mandatory because the spatial reference system for GPS is not fixed to a point on Earth. This has become a major issue for old geospatial data sets in the US where no one remembered to record when the coordinates were collected.
To correct for these cases you need to be able to separately attribute drift vectors due to the spatial reference system, plate tectonics, and other geophysical phenomena. Without a timestamp that allows you to precisely subtract out the spatial reference system drift vector, the magnitude of the uncertainty is quite large.
You don’t need to store a timestamp, but the local coordinate reference system that the coordinates are in. When revisions like this are made, it’s by updating the specification of a specific local coordinate reference.
WGS84 is global, but for most precise local work more specific national coords are used instead.
I mean, certainly - if you store both GPS time and derived coordinates from the same sampling, then you can always later interpret it as needed - whether relative to legal or geographical boundaries etc as you might want to interpret in the future.
This is one of many reasons why property surveying records use so many seemingly obscure or redundant points of reference. In case anyone wonders why modern property surveying isn't only recording lots of GPS coordinates.
My knowledge of geospatial sets is fairly shallow, but I’ve worked a bit with Australian map data and I’m assuming are you referring to the different CRSs, GDA2020 and GDA1994?
I’d imagine older coordinates would work with the earlier CRS?
But I can understand not all coordinates specify their CRS. This have really been an issue for me personally, but I’ve mostly worked with NSW spatial and the Australian Bureau of statistics geodata.
Almost all continents have their own datum. For Japan there's a special case where they now have 18 geodetic zones. Each zone is defined as parts of the crust that tend to move somewhat homogeneously.
Basically after the 2011 Earthquake they had a geodetic mess at their hands, with all coordinates just being all over the place since the ground moved so much. That's why they later on changed their approach.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Except for a tectonic fault line between the point and the landmark, a relative grid of neighboring landmarks as extra reference would be useful as well. Once you establish a location of one point, it gets easier to establish the location of related points.
There are a couple of cases like this, including one about some racist remarks in liverpool -- both were overturned on appeal.
> Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction.
These are absolutely trivial cases to assume that somehow the UK has suspended the free expression rights of its citizens. These amount to over-reach by the lowest courts (staffed by volunteer judges, fyi) which were corrected. That's about as good as justice is in practice.
(It's also an unaddressed issue on exactly what social media is -- people tend to assume its some private conversation, but its at least as plausible to treat it as a acts of publishing to a public environment. When those actions constitue attacks on people, the UK/Europe have typically regarded public attacks as having fewer free expression protections).
Neverthless, these cases are used by the far right online to disguise what has been action taken by the UK gov against far right quasi-terrorist groups engaged in mass violence. The UK gov is not persecuting people for free expression, they have taken action against people using social media to organise murder.
One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
Is your argument really that as long as the conviction is eventually overturned, no harm no foul it's just a "trivial case" so everyone should just pretend it never happened? Really?
It's trivial with respect to the question of whether political free expression in the UK is somehow under threat, yes. A handful of weird cases of extremely mild police overreach, corrected by a court -- hardly add up to anything. Every legal system in the world has such cases, in almost every other, they are much more extreme. In the UK, no one is paying for legal cases they win, unlike in the US where "free speech" is obtainable only if you can pay for your defence.
I mean in the UK we aren't used to using the court system to obtain our rights, but this is basically the american system. It's extraordinary to hear americans express concern that a handful of people in the UK had to use the standard court procedure to have their rights enforced, which they did.
Would the UK be better if these cases did not happen? Sure. But there's no legal system, almost by definition, that isnt going to have these cases. That's what courts exist to do -- to prevent executive overreach.
The question is why are a handful of people, whose rights were enforced by the courts, being used as political agitprop against the UK? The answer is pretty obvious. It's a deliberate project of the far right to create popular resentement towards democractic governments in the west, at the time these governemnts are arresting rioters for attempting to murder immigrants.
This isnt hard to see. These stories are spread by a very narrow range of extremely famous propagandists with a very obvious agenda.
None of them mention that these cases were all thrown out on appeal. Nor that there's a tiny number of them. Nor that all the ones that result in conviction are basically domestic terrorism
Can you see how even the fact that police will knock on your door for a social media post will by definition have a chilling effect on free expression? Will low wage hourly workers in the UK feel secure in voicing their dissatisfaction with their child's school knowing that, while they might be convicted of a crime for doing so, it will probably get overturned on appeal even though they'll lose their job in the interim; or, will they just shut up and go along with whatever they're unhappy about?
Do you think it would be better to have people sue those who insult them on social media, in order to bankrupt them -- as in so-called Free Speech america? Where on earth do you imagine free speech is so protected that your worry is a (2 or 3) in 70 million-short that you'd have to talk to a police officier?
The idea that we have police investigating social media posts (and the like) is largely just made up. Its a handful of cases.
Do you understand that you cannot have 100% perfect decision making (of police, or anyone else) in a society -- and that the people who want you to demand this 100% are the ones organsising murders on these platforms? The ones kidnapping people and enslaving them in foreign prisons?
You're just playing a useful idiot. The idea that people in the UK are, at large, even aware of these cases is nonesense, let alone are worried about a police visit for a social media post. Just open twitter: are any of the millions of UK profiles in any sense "reserved" or chilled by these police visits?
The people who are spouting this nonesense are worried because they use these platforms to incite race riots whose aim is to kill people. Have a little perspective.
Apart from the fact that you have private prosecution in the UK, there's definitely a difference between private action for compensation and state action that might come with a criminal record.
The UK is the home of Cautions and ASBO's where you find out you have a criminal record just like that.
A place where you'd rather call the police than intervene to stop an ongoing crime because you might end up with a criminal record.
This subject is always framed by people like yourself as being all about the far-right racists and somewhat recent riots, when it has been going on a lot longer than that.
You are defending these these awful laws. There a plenty of cases that I've forgotten about because quite frankly there are so many.
> One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
This is disingenuous. Firstly, it doesn't matter who the criticism is coming from if it is valid (which it is). Secondly you can see there are plenty of well know public figures that aren't far right that have criticised the current laws in the link to the selected cases, these include MPs, Comedians and Well known authors.
OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them?
If you choose the first one, then you're preventing the investigation of mass riots, conspiracy to murder, mass disruption of public infrastructure -- and so on. All which have happened in the last 9mo, and gone through the courts. BUT you do have the advantage that police wont, once in a blue moon, turn up to someone's house and investigae them for a bit of nonesense that disappears within a day or at most a month when a real judge has looked at the case.
If you choose two, then you can still offer guidance to local police forces to be more careful in assessing complaints -- guidance which has almost certainly been given, since the gov arent happy theyre being distracted with this BS.
Now ask yourself: who at the moment really wants option number 1?
> OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them?
Yes. I do. I want them to put resources into catch the criminals in my area that have been stealing motor vehicles instead as that actually affect me and my community. Not policing social media.
They could you know arrest the person and search the phone under suspicion, or get a court order. They don't need mass surveillance. Maybe they should do their job and actually investigate it, which they don't do.
You can always justify more infringements on personal liberties under the guise of stopping crime, protecting the children, stopping the terrorists. That doesn't mean we should.
What we shouldn't be doing is using resources to find people saying naughty words on facebook (which is literally what they do).
This was literally posted here like last week, I suggest you read it:
>if you're sincere about catching criminals you would want even more intrusion into online spaces
Why?
For 40 years, Police in the US have been given basically carte-blanche to do whatever dragnet surveillance they want, as long as it "technically" is done by a third party they just buy services from. Police have had constant and perfect visibility into the digital world, with almost no moderating force, and yet they're so bad at finding culprits that violent crime clearance rates are still a coinflip.
Oh actually that's just in my State. ME claims the national violent crime clearance rate is ~20%. Jesus.
It seems obvious to me that police departments are either utterly incapable of, or utterly unwilling of, doing their damn job. We have given them near infinite power and zero responsibility and they've spent those immense resources being trained that everyone is trying to kill them, being taught how to shoot people first and ask questions later, and harassing people, often including journalists literally exposing their mob activity.
Please don't give them more power until they demonstrate an ability to productively use the power we have already given them.
No one's talking about pre-crime. I'm talking about crime.
It's a crime to conspire to murder; to commit fraud; to arrange an act of terrorism; and so on. And in all relevant cases, social media was used in court after-the-fact just as evidence.
So we're talking about activity on social media which are crimes themselves, just being used as evidence after other crimes have been committed.
This is the problem with the propaganda being put out there at the moment, none of it is true -- and all of it is in the service of disgusing the content of actual court cases.
People on the far-right like to use the phrase "posting to social media" when they mean "using online communication platforms to arrange a violent riot with the intent to murder people". And they like to pretend this evidence collection is happening before those actions -- when its after, and presented in court.
Is the "far right" in the room now with you now? When have you dealt with any of the "far right". How do you know they really exist? Most of the people I've encountered on the far right have been losers that literally live with their mother or edgy teenagers trolling people online.
It is you my friend that has been propagandised. They always point at a scary person and then say that they need to take away your rights and your privacy.
> It's a crime to conspire to murder; to commit fraud; to arrange an act of terrorism; and so on. And in all relevant cases, social media was used in court after-the-fact just as evidence.
Why should I lose privacy and my ability to speak freely because someone else committed an unrelated crime?
Why does this require mass surveillance, when they can get a warrant to search their electronic devices?
The answer is I shouldn't.
> So we're talking about activity on social media which are crimes themselves, just being used as evidence after other crimes have been committed.
Some of this activity that are crimes is making edgy comments on twitter while drunk and then deleting it the next day. That is illegal under the communications act of 2003.
The far right have just recently put ~130 unknowns into black vans, on to plans, to be sold into slavery in an elsavadorian prison. Of the two we have information on, both are legal residents of their own country. Of the rest, all we know is that they are innocent before the law, since theyve had no trial.
The oligarch who presently threatens the legislature of the largest democracy in the world with being having their opponents funded at the primary stage -- is also the same person who has had 100,000s of legal employees of the government fired and who has prompted these stories about the UK on the world's most imporatnt political media platform, that he owns. He did so after riots took place in the UK whose aim was to murder immigrants who had been falsely accused of crimes, these accusations also spread by the very same oligarch.
There's a line from the person trying to burn down a hotel with immigrants inside, in the UK, to social media, to the enslavement of unknown persons in the US. That line we call "the far right" and it's a pretty small group, at the top.
I cannot really grasp how a person would be confused by who the far right are and at the same time have at their fingertips news stories about girls in liverpool. One has to imagine you aren't really being serious.
This is exhausting. Now you are bringing up US politics. We are talking about the UK and the UK law.
I have linked you the communications act of 2003, I have linked you examples of cases where people have be prosecuted for speech and you are going on about the current Administration in the United States which is on the other-side of an ocean.
I am asking you when have you met someone in real life that is "far right"? You are unlikely to have done so because there is maybe a few thousand at most in a country of 80 million people.
I have seen the leaked membership details of the BNP. Do you know how many people were in the BNP? IIRC it was less than 500 people for the entire UK.
You are talking as if there are Brown Shirts marching up every UK high street.
The boogeymans are going to get control of the government! To stop them we better give the government all the tools needed to monitor everything at all times!
Boogeymans win an election. And gain all the tools needed.
Surprised picachu face as the kids say, I believe.
Yep. It is honestly tiresome. It is the same bad arguments are repeated ad-nauseam. The UK government and various public entities have been repeatedly shown to abuse the powers given to them.
It doesn't matter if you show all the times it was abused, or someone life has been ruined for because they drunkely said something stupid on facebook, it is just ignored or if it later gets overturned that it is no big deal even though they had to spent months or years dealing with the legal system.
I have spoken to a lot of young people (typically men) in their 20s that just want to leave the country because they can see where this is all going.
Anyway my top comment has been made dead. I hate this site.
> Are you really going to defend the conviction of a teenage girl quoting Snoop Dogg lyrics on facebook?
Can you link me to the evidence you have for this person having been convicted? Because she wasnt, the case was immediately over turned on appeal and the lower court volunteer judge basically reprimanded.
Do you have any evidence for any of these things you believe? Have you looked into any of them? Who told you about them? How do you know about a teenager in liverpool that upset a police officer? Why is that something you know about? Do you not find that odd? Isn't it strange that you "know" she was "convicted" but have no actual idea what happened?
Just reflect a moment on what the major actions of the UK gov. involving social media have been over the last year, and which of those have resulted in actual convinctions. HINT: ones involving plots to murder people by the far right.
Hmm... who exactly has been talking about all these "free speech" cases? Coincidence?
> Can you link me to the evidence you have for this person having been convicted? Because she wasnt, the case was immediately over turned on appeal and the lower court volunteer judge basically reprimanded.
I am aware of this and I deliberately used this as bait, quite predictably you defended what took place.
You must have missed the bit where the police literally go looking for offensive words on social media. They literally have software that flags up speech.
It matters not that later on it was "corrected". The reason it was "corrected" I suspect was because of the amount of pressure put on politicians after it was featured in the media.
* There should not be entire police departments dedicated to prosecuting things said on social media.
* There should not be software that flags up the fact that you said naughty words.
* This should not have never even got to court in the first place.
> Just reflect a moment on what the major actions of the UK gov. involving social media have been over the last year, and which of those have resulted in actual convinctions. HINT: ones involving plots to murder people by the far right.
Argh yes the terrifying "far right".
The fact is that the government point at scary people like the Islamic Extremists (I am old enough to remember that), the neo-nazis, homo-phobes and other generally nasty people to sell these awful laws and then they are (mis)used against normal people.
> Hmm... who exactly has been talking about all these "free speech" cases? Coincidence?
Why does it matter? If Adolf Hitler/Francisco Franco/Mussolini/Stalin/<insert despot> rose from the dead tomorrow and was making valid criticisms of the various laws in the UK that stifle speech that doesn't mean that they are incorrect about those facts. It would make them hypocrites, but not incorrect.
>Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still
Lots of "idiocy" is explicitly illegal. Being dumb isn't an excuse to commit a crime. Literal children in the US get in trouble (legally, as in, sent to juvie) for bomb threats all the time.
Making a bad judgement call, like "surely everyone will understand I'm just joking about my threat to literally murder people" often has legal ramifications.
Sure, I agree, but why take this person out of society for something like this when you can fine them or make them so community service? Certainly that's a deterrent?
Would you be willing to share what went wrong with your experience of Laravel? I haven't used it for over 5 years, but it was pretty pleasant when I did.
I loved dreamweaver when starting out. Never got on with the WYSIWYG (hence moving on), but its ability to read your CSS file and suggest classes was great. MX was the pinnacle in early 2000s.
More relevant to me though, I miss Fireworks so much. Nothing comes closer. Figma is great but web based and already shown willing to sell out everyone who trusts them.
I think you’re being a bit disingenuous here. Almost all packages are vendor and package prefixed yes, but your own code from very easily be as simple as:
namespace Me;
function test(){}
———
use function Me\test;
test();
Conflicting package names require you to be working on a very poorly written project (not using PSR-1) or a dependency that is even worse which is fewer and further between since composer.
It becomes a problem if you want to use multiple versions of the same library, which may happen if you are using composer, e.g two different dependencies uses the same dependency but different major releases.
It is valid. I’m running 8.4 and with autoloading etc it all works as expected. Maybe the language you’re arguing against isn’t the same language anymore.
Gave it up because it turns out the little things are just a pain. Formatting dates, showing article numbers and counts etc.
[0] https://www.getsymphony.com/
reply