That same description applies to downloading a zipped file.

Reminds me of the time I did roughly the same thing trying to get people to move away from internet explorer.

I won’t pretend that its popularity is in any way proportional to its quality, but I enjoyed it and so did many others so she must have done something right. Calling a work that many people enjoy trash just sounds a bit elitist to me.

Feel free to call the author whatever you want though, at this point I’ve no respect left for her.

Just so I got this clear, making it illegal to tell advertisers when their ads are running next to dangerous or illegal content is a freedom of speech win?

Wouldn’t surprise me if even Unicode advices against using Roman numerals depending on meaning.

It was mostly a joke (though frankly if you try any implementation more complicated than that joke you’re going to have a bad time).

The biggest number that can be defined in fewer than twenty words.

It’s simple ⅯⅯⅩⅩⅣis a number, MMXXIV is not.

Education has really failed to impress upon people the importance of asking questions. It’s amazing how much time is wasted on making people learn answers to questions they don’t even know how to ask.

Please tell me someone thought about a switch to take them offline.

Technically he was 19. Also under Dutch law the term rape would imply the use of force, which was either not the case or not considered proven hence why the sentence ended up being lowered.

Still awful. Just trying to get the fact straight so people can judge for themselves.

The reason they have to include the type of tech in the law is because that tech made it possible for unskilled bad actors to get on it

Yeah, and that’s the part I don’t like. If you can’t define why it’s bad without taking into account the skill level of the criminal then I’m not convinced it’s bad.

As you point out defamation is already illegal and deliberately spreading false information about someone with the intent to harm their reputation is obviously wrong and way easier to define.

And is that not why you consider a painting less ‘bad’? Because it couldn’t be misconstrued as evidence? Note that the act explicitly says a digital forgery should be considered a forgery even when it’s made abundantly clear that it’s not authentic.

Fair, but then this law serves no purpose. The thing it was designed to prevent was already illegal.

The worrying aspect of these laws are always that they focus too much on the method. This law claims to be about preventing a particular new technology, but then goes on to apply to all software.

And frankly if you need a clause about how someone is making fake pornography of someone then something is off. Something shouldn’t be illegal simply because it is easy.

Deepfakes shouldn’t be any more or less illegal than photos made of a doppelgänger or an extremely photorealistic painting (and does photorealism even matter? To the victims, I mean.). A good law should explain why those actions are illegal and when and not just restrict itself to applying solely to ‘technology’ and say oh if it only restricts technology then we should be all right.

Unless you use a digital pen.

I’m not too sure being non-religious from the start would lead to better education. Seems to me that religion was quite a big driver behind early education. You’ll also have some trouble separating history religion and science at that point, people told each other stories about things that happened or how they thought things worked. Some of those stories are rather more fantastical than they needed to be, but how would you tell if there’s nothing to kickstart intellectual discourse in the first place?

And the whole religion stops crime through fear idea seems overly simplistic. It’s the same reasoning that bigger sentences would lower crime, and so far that hasn’t worked terribly well.

Possibly, but as long as they are not completely server-side (which they can’t be, they want to target people) then they are fighting on hostile ground.

Of course there are attempts to lock down PCs so that ad companies can tell it what to do (probably with some DRM argument), but we’re not there yet.

Well the upside is that they’re not actually trying to get it to stop, they’re just making an effort to please their customers.

That doesn’t sound like much of a change from the situation right now.

Americans assuming ‘America’ means ‘U.S.’

Wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what sealed the deal for him.

I mean the deadlines are closing and having to fight to even stay in the race while president of the U.S. and recovering from an illness is not something anyone looks forward to.

Frankly I hope he can catch a break for a bit, and enjoy a pension after all this is over.