In the near future, humanity lives in a technologically advanced, dystopian society. The government requires that everyone receive an ocular implant that records everything they see. The implant provides an augmented-reality head-up display to the user with information about anyone and anything they may see, as well as recording the user's view. Investigations into crimes amount to detectives reviewing video and assessing whether an alleged perpetrator is innocent or guilty.
Sal Friedland, a detective with the metropolitan police force, crosses paths with a young woman who appears to trigger a glitch in his ocular implant, as no data about her is retrieved. When he reviews his own record of that day, he finds that every single frame of her has been mysteriously deleted. At work, Sal is handed several homicide cases where the victims' own visual records of their deaths are replaced with the killer's point of view, thus hiding the killer's identity. At another murder scene, Sal chases the apparent killer only to nearly be killed when they hack his implant and change what he sees in real time.
I would have actually expected it to be more popular by now.
The hard part is not recognizing a well-lit passport-style face. The hard part is deciding how the system should fail when the real world gets messy or adversarial. If the fallback is bad, you either lock out legitimate users or quietly accept weak matches.
That is why I think the useful benchmark is not top-line accuracy. It is how gracefully the system handles weird, low-confidence, real-world inputs.
Gibson (and later Stephenson) were prescient enough to realize that anonymity would be a commodity in the near future.
https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Lupus_Yonderboy
Really excited to see what Apple does with these guys in the upcoming adaptation.
Edit found a link pretty fast.
It makes sense in a way. If you were actually successful in doing that, you could finally make the world in your image instead of having to work around all those pesky "legacy" viewpoints that hold back the True Progress of the Younger Generation. But alas, the older generation still exists, because the younger can't do it.
But do continue with the passive aggressive comments. While it keeps me spry, you still get paid entry-level wages when you should be kings.
We failed so hard
But if you say anything about it, you're an islamophobe.
Same way if you criticize Israel's actions, youre lambasted as a jew-hater. But at least now thats starting to change.
To them Islamic or Arab is monoculture.
Same way all countries in the Mid East are all barbaric and savage. But at least now thats starting to change.
I am NOT OK with you forcing me to follow some religion's rules.
And yes, I will look down on countries whom choose to force a specific religion on everyone. We can look in our own backyard, with multiple abortion bans, which lead to many women dying due to miscarriage and needing abortion. Was illegal (cause of baby Jesus, spit) so women died.
Or we can look at Saudi Arabia school fire in 2002 where the girls didn't have headdresses and were shoved back in. They died due to radical Islamic bullshit. Or the idea of "Religious police".
Religion and government should never mix. Not ever. Our founding fathers and Marx were all right about that.
Meanwhile people in the latter group tend to be very specific that their criticism is of a state and its policies, rather than the religion of Judaism or Jews in general, even though their efforts tend to fall on deaf ears.
Islam is ontologically evil. People who believe in ontologically evil are ontologically evil people.
In before you whataboutism Christianity/Judaism.
But because you believe this, you yourself believe in ontological evil, and therefore are ontologically evil.
Weird flex but OK.
Observing Islam does not make one Islamic. Observing ontological evil does not make one ontological evil.
>Weird flex but OK.
Dumb flex but OK.
No, by your own words, "People who believe in ontological[sic] evil are ontologically evil people"
If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Ipso facto you are an ontologically evil person.
This is basic kindergarten logic if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement. You did not make a subjective statement about observation, you made an objective statement about belief.
>Dumb flex but OK.
I agree. It was dumb - "only Sith deal in absolutes" level stupid, and I don't know why you came back to double down on it.
Yes, people who believe in ontologically evil beliefs (such as Islam) are ontologically evil people. Not belief in the concept of ontologically, this is a misattribution error on your part.
>If you believe that Islam is ontologically evil, you believe in ontological evil.
Islam is an ontologically evil as I stated above. I believe in ontological evil as a concept, but that does not make me ontologically evil.
Ipso facto you are misattributing this to ontologically evil as a concept. This is basic kindergarten logic and contextual understanding if it doesn't get through to you I don't know what to say.
QED.
>"Observing Islam does not make one Islamic" is not an equivalent statement
Yes it as, as the first sentence was "Islam is [an] ontologically evil [religion]."
>I agree. It was dumb
Glad you agree your flex was dumb, "ackchyually" level stupid, then you came back to triple down on it.
Maybe you're right though, no chance "The Religion of Peace" could be unpeaceful.
My disdain is for all theocratic countries. I dont particularly care for any religion that takes over a government.
And I do include the USA in that, as theocratic fundamentalist christanity. Ive done so since changing the pledge of allegience and adding "in god we trust" on the currency.
Went to the zoo with family yesterday and saw so many kids wearing Deftones shirts. I told my wife “it’s like when us kids in the 90s wore shirts from the doors or the beatles.”
From chatting with some of the researchers many years ago my understanding is that it usually wasn't accurate enough for unique identification and the gait shadow was dependent on shoe type and clothing, so a persistent gait shadow database wouldn't have been useful. But it could be correlated with ground-based surveillance for identification, for example person A and B were identified on a ground-based security camera entering a building, then gait tracking could be used to monitor where they went after they left the building even if they avoided ground-based security cameras after that point.
Need to disappear? Just go to the Gathering and find your new family. Pay for protection with Faygo.
So I will defend that line in the song. I will only accept answers from people who can explain why ferromagnetism works to me assuming I know how electromagnets create magnetic fields.
I focused on facebook’s detector (not recognizer) for reasons explained in the intro, but face rec has come a long way since then.
Juggalo makeup might block some facial recognition tech, but you also paint a huge target on yourself.
Con: It's the guantanamo bay weight reduction plan.
1. Kid Rock is the MAGA candidate. This makes sense: he was the scion the owner of many car dealerships and grew up in a house with an apple orchard and a horse stable but claims to be salt of the earth focused on kitchen table issues and also endless moneyed personal delight. Great article on the 2023 NADA convention, btw: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans...
2. Juggalos went lumpenprole left. Bad optics, problematic past statements, ultimately proudly unsophisticatedly populist
3. Eminem made "awfully hot coffee pot" and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann went apeshit for it. MSNBC lib.
The only saving grace is you can't run that against video surveillance footage.
Maybe I should start wearing a hazmat suit with an opaque faceplate whenever I leave the house.
No idea whether this is still the case as I haven't been in a Sheetz in years.
Might be time become a juggalo.
So, contextually, a constitutional amendment to force private and public use of Juggalo Makeup?
It’s extreme, but bold change requires bold steps.
> The Juggalo story, or Dark Carnival mythology, is the overarching narrative conceptualized by the hip-hop duo Insane Clown Posse (ICP)—Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope. It tells the story of a spirit world that judges the wicked, selfish, and cruel members of society, acting as a morality play meant to guide listeners toward a better life before "the end"
These are some big rocks you'll need to move, otherwise your amendment won't be worth the paper it's written on. Just saying "you can collect all the data, but don't use it for surveillance" doesn't mean much.
I have no solutions, feels like we missed the boat if there ever was an opportunity to prevent it in the first place. We live in public now.
Maybe I’m daft but what does this mean?
You had me right up until that sentence. Good one.
As long as the recordings aren't centrally stored and sold in bulk, and sold to brokers and governments, that would still be ok.
Otherwise there could not be states with two-party/all-party consent requirements for making an recording.
I think requiring all-party consent for facial recognition would not have 1st amendment issues.
Implementation details and effectiveness are, of course, very different issues.
Cameras at main stations and within trains, only store their data for 24 and gets deleted afterwards afair, as long as it's not requested by some entity that a specific recording should be retained.
Cameras are legal and too useful to ban. Facial recognition is just software.
And it's getting easier to make. There are open source solutions for facial recognition.
Yes, but that's just restating the problem.
I think bribery, blackmail, and extortion have a bit to do with it to.