fivefives55555

9 ms·

1.
by fivefives55555 1y ago
> I'd expect a decent food journalist to ask if their conditions of payment for endorsement required their support in these times. From the article: > Mr. Chang and Mr. Samuelsson did not respond to request for comment. In a text
2.
by fivefives55555 1y ago
I've been following this on X/Twitter and I think one of the most egregious things that's important to point out is that folks from Phrack reached out to Proton in private multiple times, and Proton ghosted them. Proton only
3.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
> If you only have the capability to ban 10 people, you are going to be very judicious in who you ban. But how do you arrive at this limit? Why 10? Why not 100? Why not 0?
4.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
> There's essentially a contract between people and the state whereby most people accept that there are traffic laws that they'll loosely follow and the state can enforce the laws but will almost universally ignore or miss mino
5.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
> If each security guard has the entire database What I meant was that each security guard has a certain subset of the database, so they're only responsible for scanning for those people. Say, instead of having 10 security guards ea
6.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
I'm having the same exact issue. I don't understand the argument that many here seem to implicitly be making, that "businesses should be allowed to ban as many people as they can without using automated technology". Firs
7.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
I guess my question is then, what is the limit? Should a business be allowed to bar as many people as it can do so without using automated technology?
8.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
> I think the difference between automated image recognition and security guards with clipboards is one of scale. It would simply be impossible to have images of lawyers from across 90 firms on clipboards and would take long enough to be
9.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
First just a disclaimer that I am not a proponent of facial recognition technology (I think it has a number of significant faults). That being said, it does not seem like facial recognition technology is the issue here, at all. The crux of
10.
NYT article accidentally leaked numbers of Russian soldiers who criticised war(independent.co.uk)
8 points by fivefives55555 4y ago|1 comments
11.
NYT Accidentally Leaked Russian War Critics’ Phone Numbers: Report(thedailybeast.com)
6 points by fivefives55555 4y ago|3 comments
12.
NYTimes Story Accidentally Leaked Phone Numbers of Russian Soldiers(vice.com)
4 points by fivefives55555 4y ago|0 comments
13.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
This was a paper in a journal titled Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. Which doesn't sound like a social science journal, but hard to tell nowadays.
14.
by fivefives55555 4y ago
The question the editors should be asking of their peer reviewers is: why was neither this, nor any of the other glaring errors spotted during the process of peer review, a process literally designed to catch things such as this? This is wh