eivarv

You only prove which was timestamped first, though - not which is the original.

Why not just put less trust in video?

The courts should know that videos can be doctored, just as images can be photoshopped.

As the burden of proof lies with the accuser, it is they that would need a bullet proof argument that you did in face do what the video claims you did – and video is not alone in and of itself to establish truth.

As for the data gathering: the existence of the proposed data presents a threat for the subjects (and society) in and of itself.

Or you could just be critical, and be aware of the limitations of media as it pertains to representation of truth and reality.

Besides, techniques for identifying fakes is likely to lag closely behind the techniques for producing them.

The first time we talked about "DeepFakes", someone I know pointed out that there is nothing inherently new in this issue. Media has been faked to manipulate the truth as long as there has been media.

Wether you trust the medium, a person, or a blockchain, trust is only as good as the information you base it upon – and there's always ways to circumvent it, or otherwise deceive you.

Also: There are some pretty big privacy issues (from what I understand) with what you describe.

How would blockchain solve the issue?

Sure, but what they do is really a "non-action" – as the entire premise is built upon a logical fallacy it can't guarantee truth, won't end the problem, and can (obviously) be gamed.

I don't understand why the big players such as Facebook and Google keeps insisting on using (appeals to) authority as a proxy to truth, when we have rules and systems for critical thinking.

It seems to me that if the claims and stories in question could be re-posed (e.g. as falsifiable, logically coherent statements or arguments) the worst of "fake news" could be weeded out.

The rest (and biases, etc.) would likely have to be left as an exercise for the (critical) reader.

It's not about foreign intelligence, but rather the systematic surveillance and persecution of politically troublesome ethnic minorities – even abroad.

    "Now..."

This has been going on (at least elsewhere) for a while [0] now.

[0]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8556736.stm

This is a generator I made while working on my Twitter bot "Karl Jobs"[0], which is a Markov chain trained on a corpora of Karl Marx and Steve Jobs.

Due to the limits of the corpora and major differences in language between Marx and Jobs, my results were so-so - but I hope other people can have som use and/or fun with the generator :)

[0]: https://twitter.com/karljobs

Pyinstaller solves the problem for me, but it can (in some particular cases) be a real bitch to configure properly with your dependencies at first.

... not necessarily.

The existence of the effect really means that it wasn't selected against.

What is reasoning, really?

Does the internal operations of "artificial" systems necessarily differ the (automatic) processes of our own mind?

And how do we know that we're _really_ reasoning?

I don't suffer under some illusion that current machine learning algorithms have reached AGI, consciousness or sentience – but we need to define these terms before arguing about them.

It seems to me that there's a general problem of definition when people talk about what systems can and can't do - and I think it all might just be a convoluted form of an "Appeal to nature" [0] in the case of these endless, unoriginal criticisms of current AI-efforts.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Honest question: what does licensing solve/prove that transcripts and/or certifications don't?

My point is that there may not be an obvious hack for complicated issues like depression.

I don’t have absolute faith in professionals; Don’t know what gave you that idea. I’m saying they’re better than the alternatives, and that expertise is worth something.

I agree with some of your criticisms of the status quo, but it seems to me like you’re conflating your own views of society with an objective view that serves as a legitimate basis for a depressive reaction/sadness.

As for your claims regarding endogenous depression: I don’t know what you base them on. I’ve seen nothing to support this position, at least.

There might be psychologically unhealthy sides to modern society, but what you and others present as alternatives is, in my opinion, glorified guesswork - as opposed to a somewhat systematic search for knowledge (flawed as it is).

Seek professional help.

Threads like these are typically filled with unverified claims, anecdotes, well-meaning tips and what others think helped them or someone they know in what they believe are similar circumstances.

Some people aren't diagnosed, but make their own assumptions. Others don't differentiate between a mood (sadness) and pathology (clinical depression).

TLDR: There are too many variables, unknowns and right-sounding wrongs out there. A professional third party is better suited to interpret your situation than anyone else - including yourself.

> I’ve always been extremely sceptical of “its vestigial” or “that body part is bad for you”. I mean, surely if either were true, selection would have done away with it.

That's not necessarily true - if something is vestigial it is no longer affected by positive selection pressures; it won't be selected against until it is harmful. [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

Have you tried Amethyst[0]? It's a dynamic, automatic tiling WM for macOS; I enjoy it very much.

[0]: https://ianyh.com/amethyst/

NRK (government-owned broadcasting corp. - about as "mainstream" as it gets) covered it yesterday [0], and has published comments [1-2] today.

[0]: https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/xl/antennene-som-samler-inn-da...

[1]: https://www.nrk.no/ytring/sviket-mot-grunnloven-1.13940422

[2]: https://www.nrk.no/ytring/e-tjenesten-folger-norsk-lov-1.139...

Doesn't this line of thinking break down from the fact that you can replace the religious concepts with litteraly anything else you can dream up, as you don't really demand any evidence or even a cogent argument from the answers to these metaphysical questions?

That doesn't necessarily mean it's reasonable to be suspicious towards an entire ethnic group. Not many Uyghurs support violence, and not all Uyghurs are separatists.

Spotify actually uses the Chromium Embedded Framework, but it's pretty bad nonetheless.

That's the descriptivist view anyway.

What's really "enough RAM & CPU cycles"? I think one can argue that this is really offloading development cost as a a resource cost onto the users - who must run "native", inefficient applications.

This means not only implicitly making a choice about the users' hardware, but it may in some cases exclude certain user segments as well.

Serious question: Why do so many people think building desktop application GUIs with web-technologies is a good idea?

I'm currently trying to formulate some thoughts on this; While I understand that HTML/CSS generally seems more flexible and may be more easily accessible to more/newer devs, it carries huge, negative implications in the forms of HCI (not having consistent interface elements on the user platform), performance and energy usage (particularly Electron), OS-integration, and accessibility features.

Can someone please give me some arguments as to why this not only seems like a good idea, but also why it's the best tool for the job?

I'm sorry, but I don't know how I'd make it available for others; It's not a feed, but just basically just a bunch of RSS feeds that I've categorized into my reader's equivalent of folders.

I built a collection of feeds over the last few years, originally using Feedly; Nowadays I access my collection of RSS using Reeder on my Mac and my iPhone (because of the sync between devices - but any similar client would do).

The feeds are grouped by category, for instance:

- Journals (various machine learning stuff)

- Music (MetalSucks, etc.)

- Politics (mostly think tanks and political publications)

- Tech (Verge, Ars, Wired, HN, The Register...)

- Web dev (Smashing mag, Google, Mozilla...)

- Local News (Norwegian news)

Other categories include world news, privacy, NGOs, infosec, games, economics, popsci, compsci, etc.

I think they're referring to the "appeal to nature" [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

What do you base that on? The studies I've read about remote CBT seem promising

I'm very skeptical of apps and products that claim to be based on CBT or "mindfulness" and/or claim to cure various mental illnesses (mostly because these commercial actors use buzzwords rather than conform with the formal definitions used in research), but I don't think we should offhandedly discount all possibilities.

I think that depends on what you mean; Jupyter lets you run magic[0] commands (run bash commands in subprocesses), and there's also a bash kernel[1].

[0]: https://blog.dominodatalab.com/lesser-known-ways-of-using-no...

[1]: https://github.com/takluyver/bash_kernel

As a person who might point out a fallacious argument on the internet, what do you see as a more useful alternative?

From my perspective it's not so much about the structure of a debate as it is about excluding that which is not true - which is, of course, not to say that the conclusion itself must be false (though if I cannot formulate a coherent/valid argument, I suppose that doesn't bode well...)