Interested in the intersections between policy, law and technology. Programmer, lawyer, civil servant, orthodox Marxist. Blind.
Interesado en la intersección entre la política, el derecho y la tecnología. Programador, abogado, funcionario, marxista ortodoxo. Ciego.
As far as I can tell, this is incorrect. If there’s a post on instance A, a reply from instance B, and someone on instance C follows the OP on A but not the RP on B, they will only see the OP without the reply.
Source: I very often notice this because I run a single-user instance, and when I open a thread it’s incomplete, lacking posts from instances that I have not suspended.
Not that I expect a lot of consistency from imperialists, but essentially the same lines of argument can be used regarding the Russian Federation.
An advisory opinion would effectively settle Israel’s “bilateral dispute” without the state’s consent.
Ditto for .ru and .ua.
The court is not equipped to examine a “broad range of complex factual issues concerning the entire history of the parties’ dispute”.
Same thing, especially if we get back to the formation of the Soviet Union, independence referenda, and so on.
An advisory opinion would conflict with existing agreements between the parties and negotiation frameworks endorsed by the UN.
This would be Minsk I and II.
The request is not appropriate as it asks the court to “assume unlawful conduct on the part of Israel”.
Ditto.
The biggest issues for me are:
No single source of truth leads to the weird effect that if you check a post on your instance, it will have different replies from those on a different instance. Only the original instance where it got posted will have a complete reply set–and only if there are no suspensions involved. Some of this is fixable in principle, but there are technical obstacles.
Account migration is possible, but migration of posts and follows is non-trivial, Also migration between different implementations is usually not possible. Would be nice if people could keep a distinction between their instance, and their identity, so that the identity could refer to their own domain, for example.
Last, the issue with implementation compatibility. Ideally it should be possible to use the same account to access different services, and to some extent it works (mastodon can post replies to lemmy or upvote, but not downvote, for example).
Historically many if not most conflicts started with the breach of an agreement. Without getting bogged down in irrelevant detail, there are issue of self-determination of Crimea, which repeatedly in 3 referenda (2 if you wish to exclude the last one) pronounced in favour of either autonomy or being part of the CIS (effectively Russian Federation). Likewise, and setting aside the 2014 events for the moment, there also were agreements that, in principle, may have served as a valid status quo, such as Minsk II, and were not complied to by the parties.
So, sure, some form of trust-building will be necessary. But what’s the alternative? Endless war?
I’m not. Crimea is not a fourth of Ukraine’s territory (27000 km^2 out of 603000 km^2). That’s about a 1/22nd part.
No such implication is there. All I said was serious negotiations, which given the state of facts entails the prospect of territorial concessions. I don’t expect the negotiations would lead to a simple redrawing of the borders to take account of what each side materially holds at present. In fact, I don’t have much of a preconceived idea of what such negotiations would be like other than I find it extremely unlikely that Crimea will return to Ukrainian control. That’s the point of negotiation: finding out what the belligerents can live with.
How come nobody thought of this? Brilliant! I guess the war is over then?
With more sober assessments of the course of the conflict on both sides of the Atlantic, we may hope for a prompt attempt at serious negotiation and, if fate is kind, an end to the hostilities.
Just about the way of expressing it, the idea is still on.
That NATO official has apologised about the form and lack of context, then restated that territorial concessions are likely:
But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.
But Ukraine is not a member. There is no reassurance required, or given, by NATO supplying non-members. In fact one could easily make the opposite claim: NATO depleting its own ammunition stores is doing the opposite of reassuring its members, by decreasing its own margins of safety.
As far as I can tell, Stian Jenssen apologised about the way the comment had been made and interpreted, but not about the substance. Specifically:
A day later, he gave an interview to the same newspaper, VG, that had reported on his original comments. “My statement about this was part of a larger discussion about possible future scenarios in Ukraine, and I shouldn’t have said it that way. It was a mistake,” he said. But Jenssen did not walk back the idea that a land-for-Nato-membership deal could ultimately be on the table. If there were serious peace negotiations then the military situation at the time, including who controls what territory, “will necessarily have a decisive influence,” the chief of staff said.
So clearly at least some people in NATO consider that a peace deal may entail territorial concessions. Which like it or not is a realistic position to take.
At least it doesn’t sound like they will have much diplomatic cover to do it. Such an invasion would very simply be a violation of, shall we say it, the rules-based international order™.
Yep, it’s good to see that sovereignty will be respected. These international orgs like OAS and AU can go either way, it depends on a lot of factors.
Certainly this smells worse and worse. It makes no sense to claim that:
Full marks for a triply contradictory stance.
There’s a surprising amount of that, not to mention… not sure whether to go into it but…
Those collars that can control people who channel are also used in a very kinky way.
That said, there’s also a few times when there’s the same stuff on men by women, and, I think, on women by men. But since the Aiel wise ones and Aes Sedai alike are societies of women, well, there’s a lot of that going on.
Well, in a way that’s what we’re doing now, and by and large it works but obviously there’s some leakage, which is impossible to bring down to zero but which makes sense working on improving.
The other side of the coin is that the price of this moderation model is subjecting a lot more people to a lot more horrible shit, and I unfortunately don’t know any way around that.
Perhaps the manual reporting tool is enough? Then that content can be forwarded to the central ms service. I wonder if that API can report back to say whether it is positive.
The problem with a lot of this tooling is you need some sort of accreditation to use it, because it somewhat relies on security through obscurity. As far as I know you can’t just hit MS’s servers and ask “is this CSAM?” If something like that were possible it might work.
Can you elaborate on the hash problem?
Sure. When you have an image, you can do lots of things to it that change it in some way: change the compression, the format, crop it, apply a filter… This all changes the file and so it changes the hash. The perceptual hash system works on the basis of some computer vision stuff and the idea is that it will try to generate the same hash for pictures that are substantially the same. But this tech is imperfect and probably will have changes. So if there’s a change in the way the hash gets calculated, it wouldn’t be enough with keeping hashes, you’d have to keep the original file to recalculate, which is storing CSAM, which is ordinarily not allowed and for good reason.
For a hint on how bad these hashes can get, they are reversible, vulnerable to pre-image attacks, and so on.
Some of this is probably inevitable in this type of systems. You don’t want to make it easy for someone to hit the servers with a large number of hashes, and then use IPFS or BitTorrent DHT to retrieve positives (you’d be helping people getting CSAM). The problem is hard.
Personally I was thinking of generating a federated set based on user reporting. Perhaps enhanced by checking with the central service as mentioned above. This db can then be synced with trusted instances.
Something like that could work, maybe obscuring some of the hash content (random parts of it) so that it doesn’t become a way to actually find the stuff.
Whatever decisions are made have to be well thought through so as not to make the problem worse.
IMO the hardest part is the legal side, and in fact I’m not very clear how MS skirted that issue other than through US lax enforcement on corporations. In order to have a db like this one must store stuff that is, ordinarily, illegal to store. Because of the use of imperfect, so-called perceptual hashes, and in case of algorithm updates, I don’t think one can get away with simply storing the hash of the file. Some kind of computer vision/AI-ish solution might work out, but I wouldn’t want to be the person compiling that training set…
I’ve tried deep research from ChatGPT for legal issues. It’s almost right. But still requires significant human oversight. For example I asked it for a set of norms that govern an issue and some of them were out of date.