We should construct far more elevated walkways, at least in NY. Similar to the High line. I would be far more likely to walk everywhere if I didn't have to worry about traffic and stoplights. Not to mention, particulate and emissions exposure would drop like a rock.
It compares in excessive detail some old and frankly hard to follow tables to the present day guideline of 2,500 calories and makes NO EFFORT to validate whether or not that's realistic.
It also tries to use pictures from baseball game showing thin people in the front row as evidence of... something. This is still what you see today. Rich people are significantly thinner on average in america. And even in obese heavy areas, you don't see a lot of obese people walking around. Because... they're not walking.
Here's an article citing an american average of 3,600 calories consumed per day, up a whopping 24% since 1961.
I consume multiple times more sugar than the average person, and I'm thin as a rail with a healthy metabolism. Sugar in itself isn't likely to be bad. Sugar in addition to a deranged metabolism is probably bad. Fixing the deranged metabolism, (which is likely to be caused by various environmental factors) will probably be the best solution.
> I consume multiple times more sugar than the average person, and I'm thin as a rail with a healthy metabolism.
The average American consumes around 125g of sugar per day [1, 2]. This is about 500 kcals. Multiple times that would mean most of your daily calories are coming from sugar, unless you are very physically active.
Yesterday, I had 3 bottles of coke at 40g of sugar each, 4 cups of OJ at 25g of sugar each, and 1/3 a pound of fudge, which I think is about 50g. That's around 270g of simple sugars. If you care about carb intake, I also had 7 idlis, which is an indian rice cake, and a dosa, which is a rice crepe, which probably adds a significant amount of starch.
I probably reliably have 2x the average for simple sugars
What's your daily caloric intake, though? It's not just sugar that's negative. Traditional diets which are high in either carbohydrates or fats are broadly ok, it's the combination which is problematic, because it's all the caloric consumption of fats at 9kcal/g along with ghrelin/insulin spiking/dropping with carbohydrates (at 4kcal/g) which is an issue, because all of a sudden daily caloric intake is much higher.
The OP’s point was that sugar is a problem in itself, so I was addressing that. You’re saying it’s total caloric intake which is a different claim. I do eat a good amount of fat, from the fudge and the dosa for example. Idk what my total caloric intake is like, but it’s probably around 2k
Is it possible to make a road ready hovercraft that uses lifting gas like hydrogen? Getting tired of particulate matter from tires, brakes, road wear, etc.
The NSA is said to have 5 zettabytes at their data center in Utah[1]. It’s been rumored they could take a snapshot (I’ve heard 30 days) of the internet and process it there. Not sure if they meant the US internet or everything they consumed combined. All rumors except my one link.
False positives of the kind you're thinking of aren't possible--it's checking for hashes that match known bad images, not running machine learning/image detection to detect if the photo you just took contains bad content. The issue is that there's nothing stopping Apple/the government from marking anything it finds objectionable--like anti-government free speech--as a Bad Image, beyond CSAM.
The thing is Apple uses some custom hash thing with parameters generated by AIs. As some other article shows you can get conflicting hashes if some color patterns and shadows match. Also the threshold they mentioned is secret so it could be 1 or 2 or it could change in future.
Once the policy decision is made that it can run some kind of scanning, it opens the doors for any kind of scanning. Today it's that "neural hash", tomorrow it's going to do something even more invasive.
Really, hashes are sufficiently unique? The objections I saw for this news were along the lines that random images could be manipulated to have hashes that match the flagged cases, in a way that was undetectable by the naked eye.
Doesn't the hash change by exporting a photo as a new file type or by changing a few pixels in photoshop?
If this was the FINAL solution to catch every last child pornographer in one glorious roundup MAYBE it would be worth the massive risk of authoritarian abuse but this algorithm sounds stupidly easy to get around for the deviants while still throwing our collective privacy under the bus.
This is a PhotoDNA hash, not a file-content hash. It is a bit more powerful than a normal hash:
> In the same way that PhotoDNA can match an image that has been altered to avoid detection, PhotoDNA for Video can find child sexual exploitation content that’s been edited or spliced into a video that might otherwise appear harmless
Apple is going to scan images you download too, not just ones you take with your camera. Leaving their ecosystem is way more important than just getting a standalone camera.
Oh... you just reminded me of the upcoming VPN service that will act as a proxy of sorts for internet browsing. If they do MITM HTTPS then they will basically scan evertything about you and your internet habits.
When did it became like that? Their only saving grace was that they were okay-ish with user privacy.
'These features are coming later this year in updates to iOS 15, iPadOS 15, watchOS 8, and macOS Monterey.'
So yes.
Also by the OP:
> iMessage encrypts messages end-to-end by default; however, if you have iCloud backup turned on, your messages can be accessed by Apple (who has the keys for iCloud backups) and, by extension, law enforcement with a warrant.
So if you use iMessage and iCloud Photos then they will be scanned by Apple. Won't be surprised to see the on-device scanning feature more prevalent on M1/M1X Macs.
So if you use iMessage and iCloud Photos then they will be scanned by Apple--> it is a lie.
This is definitely not the case.
Yes, with iCloud backup turned on, messages can be accessed by Apple, that hasn't changed, has been the case for a decade. It is specifically written in the technical document that they are not scanning the iMessages photos in the cloud the same way that they would scan your iCloud photos.
Sure, then let them play their authoritarian hand in attempting to follow through on that. Maybe at some point, it gets ridiculous enough that some critical mass of people get fed up and we are able to reverse course.
Nothing to hide right? As an otaku who collect figurines I can't wait to have the police knocking at my door because of a false positive triggered by a 1/8 scale statue of Megumin casting a fireball.
Cameras in the future are not immune to what we may see on upcoming smartphones. For example, Sony revealed an image processing sensor with compute capabilities built-in. It's able to not only send photon measurements but send metadata on what's being captured in the image. https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/14/sony-shows-off-first-combi...
Remember when scanners would allow you to scan banknotes, even those with a Eurion code?
I suspect we'll be seeing more of this kind of thing in digital stand-alone cameras. GPS-enabled? You just lost the ability to photograph demonstrations. Trademarked logos i the background? Maybe the shutter won't click.
Scanners with banknotes remind me of my kid's LeapFrog book. It's basically a book and a pen which can read whatever you tap against. It has an optical sensor at the tip of the pen and the print just has a bunch of microscopic dots barely visible to the naked eye. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeapFrog_Tag
The way it works is people report CP to a third party organization that fights CP. A hash of some sort is recorded in a central repository that is used by many services including every major social media company. Those companies then use it to delete/ban/etc users who post images matching those hashes. Generally, they also work with law enforcement.
In the current iteration they are not using AI or anything to identify "bad" content. They are matching hashes for files on on your device against known bad hashes/content.
I'm not trying to convince you one way or another about it, just clarifying what is happening.
> In the current iteration they are not using AI or anything to identify "bad" content. They are matching hashes for files on on your device against known bad hashes/content.
This is misleading as these are not what most technical people would think of as a hash. These are "perceptual hashes" that can compute a distance, instead of a boolean equal/different, leaving space for false-positives instead of extremely rare hash collisions.
