Yeah I mean it’s just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.
Photoshop has the same technology baked into it now. Sure, it has “safeguards” so it may not generate nudes, but it would have no trouble depicting someone “having dinner with Bill Cosby” or whatever you feel is reputation destroying.
Technically and legally the photos would be considered child porn
I don’t think that has been tested in court. It would be a reasonable legal argument to say that the image isn’t a photo of anyone. It doesn’t depict reality, so it can’t depict anyone.
I think at best you can argue it’s a form of photo manipulation, and the intent is to create a false impression about someone. A form of image based libel, but I don’t think that’s currently a legal concept. It’s also a concept where you would have to protect works of fiction otherwise you’ve just made the visual effects industry illegal if you’re not careful.
In fact, that raises an interesting simily. We do not allow animals to be abused, but we allow images of animal abuse in films as long as they are faked. We allow images of human physical abuse as long as they are faked. Children are often in horror films, and creating the images we see is very strictly managed so that the child actor is not exposed to anything that could distress them. The resulting “works of art” are not under such limitations as far as I’m aware.
What’s the line here? Parental consent? I think that could lead to some very concerning outcomes. We all know abusive parents exist.
I say all of this, not because I want to defend anyone, but because I think we’re about to set some really bad legal precidents if we’re not careful. Ones that will potentially do a lot of harm. Personally, I don’t think the concept of any image, or any other piece of data, being illegal holds water. Police people’s actions, not data.
I wouldn’t be so quick to write it off.
It’s a proof of concept showing the weaknesses in Microsoft’s vetting process for extensions published on the store. They then used the process to get pseudo-malicious code inside hundreds of organisations (not hundred of installs) some of which are high profile.
Why is the cheque redacted?
Who and what is being protected?
Egads! My eyes.
I’d rather it was just written in assembly. It’s the do { opening a block under the case 0, but then proceeding to have further case statements inside that block. You now have case statements in two different scopes that are part of the same switch.
In most CPU instruction sets, the only conditional instruction is branch (aka goto).
…or the research is flawed. Gender identity was gained from social media accounts. So maybe it’s a general bias against social media users (half joking).
Not high. It tends to result in one of a few things.
They take the fix as offered. Probably it’s a smaller quiet project where the number of PRs is small. That, or very well run.
It remains forever open and gets lost in the masses of other out of date PRs. Maybe a bot comes along and closes it as stale. Biggest group, and these ones just tell me that I’ve got very little chance of getting the maintainer’s attention. I can see that 100s of others have experienced the same fate.
Somebody else finds it useful and adopts it, fighting for it to go in. Sometimes that someone is the maintainer. As you say, it can be inspiration for a rewrite of my contribution. That’s fine by me. Whatever works.
The maintainer makes a bunch of rework demands leading to rejection, or it gets rejected straight off. “My way or the highway” is always going to be highway. I offered a small piece of help, and if it’s not wanted I’ll happily go away.
Maybe 20% get in, but it depends on so many things.
Honestly, I run and gun. I make the change I want, and submit a merge request. I then move on. It’s then up to the maintainer to accept or reject it.
I’m not going to debate it. I’m not going to rework it over the course of months to make it perfect in the maintainer’s eyes. I don’t care enough about it. I’ve solved my problem. I’m just sharing it for others.
The things I submit are normally big fixes with the smallest possible code change, not refactorings to solve an underlying problem.
Second diagram, yes absolutely.
Short lived (1-2 day) branches, and a strong CI systems to catch regressions.
Be warned, the strength in the CI lies in its capacity to detect when some functionality that previously worked doesn’t work anymore. So, the flow must be green always, and it must evolve as the features evolve. Without good CI you’re destined for failure.
I don’t think anything works in that situation.
Maybe not peaked in terms of performance, but in terms of rate of development … Absolutely.
Slashdot.org and digg.com
I’m old school.
Our new moral guides.
Techno-priests
That’s a big fucking “if”
Totally understandable choice.
Half marks
Death by wasps
I don’t seen how else you do it.
“Removing the stigma” is desensitizing by definition. So you want to desensitize through… what? Education?