This was just merged.

PayPal passes most billing information to the store where you purchased from. Card info is excluded, but in most cases PCI compliance checks ensure that card info is stored securely (or not at all).

when he was walking around the crowd offering water and medical assistance, for hours.

And he needed a rifle for that, did he? His stated purpose for being there was vigilantism. He literally said as such during the trial. He stated he was there to “protect property” and he brought a rifle to do so. Unless that was a water pistol, he was there intending to use lethal force.

Nobody gave a shit. You can’t look at all that video and act like he was this intimidating scary presence because he was armed, when it’s obvious ZERO people freaked out over it that day.

Yeah, except for the people that evidently did. And obviously you don’t need to immediately freak out if you see something not considered “mundane”.

digusting that you’re trying to turn Rosenbaum of all people, into this heroic figure

I’m literally not. Don’t put words into other people’s mouths. As stated by Rittenhouse himself, he came to Kenosha, armed, in order to at the very least intimidate the protestors/rioters (whatever tickles your fancy) there. Rosenbaum, who is not exactly a stable person, was not intimidated by these attempts. In a previous encounter, Rosenbaum threatened someone Rittenhouse was with at the time.

Instead of deescalating and leaving the scene, which Rittenhouse could have easily done, he decides to risk a confrontation and sticks around. When he runs into Rosenbaum again, something triggers Rosenbaum to chase him.

Oh, he decided that, did he? You know that forensics confirmed Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel when these shots were fired, don’t you? As if Rittenhouse shot once, hit Rosenbaum in the groin, and Rosenbaum INSTANTLY stopped attacking him and backed off

Well the tooth fairy didn’t decide for him. I don’t need forensics to see on the video used in the trial that after being shot once, Rosenbaum falls over and graps the barrel briefly, after which Rittenhouse shoots and kills him. Oh, and this is after Rittenhouse decided to stop running, turn around and shoot him.

I like how you left out that the first of the two only got shot AFTER nailing Rittenhouse in the head with a full swing of his skateboard, and that the third only got shot after HE tried to shoot Rittenhouse

Some would call them heroic after they saw Rittenhouse kill someone and tried to neutralize the shooter.

The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going on his vigilante-stint. He could have gone unarmed if he was only going to provide water and medical assistance, but that wasn’t why he went there. While the legality of his actions can be disputed, the morality of his actions is clear: what he did was deeply wrong, and he’s responsible for two people dead.

I didn’t say he was armed

Rittenhouse was, so that’s what my analogy is using too.

Meaning that, just like in Rittenhouse’s case, the fact that someone is openly armed is mundane and not a cause for concern in and of itself, at all.

Someone walking around openly armed is absolutely not mundane at all. If it’s police it’s a minor cause for concern, if it’s an untrained civilian who looks underage, it’s much greater cause for concern. If he’s walking around at a protest to supposedly “protect businesses”, he’s a clear and direct danger. What the law says doesn’t change what he can do with a weapon like that, and thus what threat he poses.

Rittenhouse provoked no one

You’re unaware of the basic facts of the case. Drone video clearly showed Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people, repeatedly. This direct threat to others is what eventually provoked Rosenbaum into trying to take his gun off him. After Rittenhouse neutralised him by shooting his pelvis, he then decided to execute him on the spot, which was well beyond self-defense. He then shot two others who believed him to be an active shooter (and he demonstrated he was by killing one of them).

You can’t expect to go to a protest, heavily armed, pointing your gun at people and expect people to be all okiedokie about that. It’s a clear provocation.

If a black guy went to a KKK meeting with a rifle and sat there provoking the KKK members, I’d argue he probably went there to stir up a fight. Not that I have any sympathy for KKK members or their actions.

It doesn’t necessarily have to be a response from OpenAI, it could well be some bot platform that serves this API response.

I’m pretty sure someone somewhere has created a product that allows you to generate bot responses from a variety of LLM sources. And if whatever is interacting with it is simply reading the response body and stripping out what it expects to be there to leave only the message, I could easily see a fairly bad programmer create something that outputs something like this.

It’s certainly possible this is just a troll account, but it could also just be shit software.

Aaand here’s your misunderstanding.

All messages detected by whatever algorithm/AI the provider implemented are sent to the authorities. The proposal specifically says that even if there is some doubt, the messages should be sent. Family photo or CSAM? Send it. Is it a raunchy text to a partner or might one of them be underage? Not 100% sure? Send it. The proposal is very explicit in this.

Providers are additionally required to review a subset of the messages sent over, for tweaking w.r.t. false positives. They do not do a manual review as an additional check before the messages are sent to the authorities.

If I send a letter to someone, the law forbids anyone from opening the letter if they’re not the intended recipient. E2E encryption ensures the same for digital communication. It’s why I know that Zuckerberg can’t read my messages, and neither can the people from Signal (metadata analysis is a different thing of course). But with this chat control proposal, suddenly they, as well as the authorities, would be able to read a part of the messages. This is why it’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Thankfully this nonsensical proposal didn’t get a majority.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=COM:2022:209:FIN

Here’s the text. There are no limits on which messages should be scanned anywhere in this text. Even worse: to address false positives, point 28 specifies that each provider should have human oversight to check if what the system finds is indeed CSAM/grooming. So it’s not only the authorities reading your messages, but Meta/Google/etc… as well.

You might be referring to when the EU can issue a detection order. This is not what is meant with the continued scanning of messages, which providers are always required to do, as outlined by the text. So either you are confused, or you’re a liar.

Cite directly from the text where it imposes limits on the automated scanning of messages. I’ll wait.

The point is is that it should never, under no circumstances monitor and eavesdrop private chats. It’s an unacceptable breach of privacy.

Also, please explain what “specific circumstances” you are referring to. The current proposal doesn’t limit the scanning of messages in any way whatsoever.

It can’t be effective. The risk of false-positives is huge.

It does require invasive oversight. If I send a picture of my kid to my wife, I don’t want some AI algorithm to have a brainfart and instead upload the picture to Europol for strangers to see and to put me on some list I don’t belong.

People sharing CSAM are unlikely to use apps that force these scans anyway.

Not Criticsquid, but Citricsquid! I actually remember the guys name after all these years and immediately saw the spelling mistake. A testimony to how influential he ended up being.

If you think Israel has carte-blanche under Biden, then you’re in for a rude awakening. Netanyahu is openly courting Republicans, because Biden doesn’t allow him to do everything he’d like to do. Military operations in Rafah remain limited, because of Biden’s pressure. Aid keeps trickling in because Biden set up the logistics to do so.

No, it’s not perfect. And he isn’t doing what you’d like him to do. But he does prevent worse, and Trump will do (and has promised to do) so much worse.

There’s nothing worse Trump can do??? With all due respect, but that sounds horribly naive. I fear you do not understand the real-world consequences of your non-vote here. Trump will come to power, and he’ll give Israel carte-blanche in Gaza, and possibly even provide direct military support (e.g. US soldiers on the ground or US airstrikes to provide support). The casualties will start racking up much faster than they do now. A Trump presidency allows Israel to go full mask-off.

In a two-party system, not voting isn’t an option. You risk giving power to the most pro-genocide candidate here. It sucks massive balls but it is the reality of the US electoral system. Your principles make a full-on genocide more likely to happen.

There’s a peace plan brokered by Biden that’s been accepted by Israel and that Hamas appears to be receptive to. It would end the genocide happening immediately. Trump is unlikely to make such efforts.

Your non-vote will further the genocide. That’s reality. I hope your principles can cope with that.

I’m sure the Democrats will consider your message carefully as Trump starts bombing those brown kids.

Parties cater to voters, not to non-voters. If the voters chose Trump, they will move towards his policies, including on Israel. You will achieve the opposite of what you want.

But I’m sure the Palestinians will appreciate the hollow gesture.

I can understand your principles, but the world, and specifically the US election system, doesn’t give a shit about them. Not voting always results in the party you dislike most gaining an advantage. That is the net result of your actions.

Hold your nose if you must, but Palestinians can’t afford a Republican president. Biden, for all his many faults, at least pushes for a peace.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

This sounds like a case of premature optimization to me. We have plenty of databases using strings as Ids and they’re all more than fast enough for any of our purposes. And that’s with considerable volume going through.

I’ve never seen bad performance from string ids be an issue.

It’s a bit more like stepping on the road in front of a vehicle that isn’t moving, and then hitting the gas pedal and claiming “shouldn’t have stepped on the road!”. It’s not wrong, but choosing this method to deal with it is simply not necessary.

If a child steals something, is keeping them at gunpoint a proportionate response? Sure, kid shouldn’t steal and just holding someone at gunpoint won’t kill them, but it’s also an unnecessary risk.

The penalty for something stupid isn’t death though. If less lethal options are available, why not use those?