Statistical photography aka computational photography aka supersampling. Statistically bin together number of smaller pixels to cut the amount of noise to create picture of a lower resolution than sensor level, but better quality.

Well even on not being rare, lynxes are stalking predators. Given what noisy clumsy travels us humans are and their keen senses, one is lucky to see a lynx. Since firstly they are always stalking or hiding just naturally and specially so hiding upon most likely spotting human way before human spots them. One could go right by one and not notice it. We aren’t on their menu given our size and not being normally encountered prey species. Also as stalkers unless it is something like a mother lynx protecting its young, it won’t make itself known. Far rather hides and let’s you pass without encounter. Since one less risk of the lynx getting injured in fight, if it can’t just hide away and go unnoticed.

Though on top of that some species of lynx are very endangered.

Seems like a huge headache with stolen/lost phones, wonder how they handle revokation…

Right maybe should have clarified that. The authentication is facilitated by the trusted middle party aka phone company.

When you log in using this service, you tell using service your phone number. Well their contacted authentication handler (usually one of the phone operators), they forward the request to your operator, who knows to forward it to the phone (as I understand as a network service SMS, like how operators settings updates also get send to the SIM and phone), this service message is handed by the phone cellular interface to the SIM. SIM applet notices “oh this is authentication request”. It displays the session ID of authentication (generated at the original authentication session and displayed there also) and then asks to enter security code to approve (or decline the request)

As such revocation is two fold. First your operator will list the certificate/key invalid. Secondly, since operator is handling the message passing anyway, they know to refuse to send the authentication requests in the first place to the compromised SIM. since as the SIM, that also defines where to send the requests. It is both the independent crypto validation, but also the cell network subscriber identity. Compromised sim stops getting any requests, since it is shutout from cellular connection. Can’t make calls, can’t send and receive texts, since the sim isn’t anymore tied to valid subscriber contact.

Plus with crypto system there is always the option of official public revocation server. Which kind of system is what the national ID smart card system uses. Anyone accepting identifying by those signatures gets told “the official key/certificate/revocation server is this one. Regularly check it for listed revocations by the root trust authority”

i don’t agree that it keeps users locked in. convenience wise it should be alot easier with e-SIM, technically you should just be able to open up an app and install a new e-SIM and voila your on a new provider.

As long as the phone maker and the phone service company play nice. The whole point of physical sims is. “you break your phone screen and phone? You can literally in the minute borrow your buddy’s phone, slap your sim in it”.

Why would it matter? For example here in Finland we have this thing called The Mobile ID. Which is commercial high security identification method, that works on the SIM. It’s user interface is the phone, but the actually crypto and logging works on the SIM. Just as with PIN number, the phone is just keypad to tell the SIM the security code to unlock it and operate. Not only does it work on SIM, due to security it is tied to the SIM. Each ID is a cryptographic key living physically in the SIM. never to leave it. public-private key exchange between the authentication server and SIM. on first boot/activation, SIM generates in-situ the private key, sends the public key to phone company, normal registrations hand shakes. Only thing anyone else has is the publickey. they private key lives it’s live in the SIM and just on getting signatory request and then correct unlock PIN signs the request and sends it back.

Which again means in the “oh my phone broke” situation means I haven’t lost my mobile ID. Just yank the SIM out of the husk of the broken flagship expensive smart phone and slap it into the cheapest 30 euro “I make calls and send text” budget phone. Still works just as well. Any phone you find (that isn’t SIM locked) will work, since as said the ID is the SIM, the phone is just keypad interface.

Also physical external sim allows physical update of the crypto processor. with eSim, if there is hardware fault or vulnerability found with the eSim, you are toast. With physical sim? So sorry customer, there has been vulnerability wound with the Sim crypto. Do you come to visit nearest operator store to get your new sim for your phone or do you want it sent by mail. Specially on say long lasting equipment… It is a very good thing there is a physically exchangeable cryptographic component. Rest of the equipment isn’t toast, just because someone cracked the SIM crypto.

I get the “but different states sales taxes thing”, for national advert. However even then, just make them present example price

Get the new Moborola Bazer, only 549 dollars*
* price example for Buffalo new York, including taxes and fees

Since if one is going with “well the final price you pay might not be what was advertised”, make it be more representative and real. Yeah the final price might be different sometimes even lower depending on your local taxes compared to the example prices calculation locations taxes.

Local advertising or on the shelf prices? There is no excuse, you are selling in that location. You know what the taxes and fees are just add them in. Any rare special discount and discrepancy cases, well the people eligible for those know to expect the difference.

CAT, Cat Anti Tank. Disables armored fighting vehicles by missiling up to the vehicle, climbing on top and driving through the hatches to scratchs the hell out of the on board crew. Dont ask how the CAT, gets through closed hatches, practical experience just shows they do.

When asked about the hatches matter, the CAT complained about:

• questioners lack of understanding importance of operational security around classified war technology.
• where is their food, they don’t disable couple enemy tanks per day for free.

Benefit of CAT over other AT weaponry is they leave the vehicle in good technical condition to be captured. Minus gory remains of the previous crew inside.

Well mostly the flaw is people assigning the test abilities it was never intended. Like testing intelligence. Turing outright as first thing in the paper presenting “imitation game” noted moving away from testing intelligence, since he didn’t know to do that. Even on the realm of “testing intelligent kind of behavior” well more like human like behavior and human being here proxy for intelligent, it was mostly an academic research idea. Not a concrete test meant to be some milestone.

If the meaning of the words ‘machine’ and ‘think’ are to be found by examining how they are commonly useit is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, ‘Can machines think?’ is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.

Turing wanted a way to step away from stuff like “thinking” and “intelligence” directly and then proposed “imitation game” mostly to the rest of the academia as way to develop computer systemics more towards “intelligent behavior”. It was mostly like “hey we need some goal to have as a goal to have something to move towards with these intelligence things. This isn’t intelligence, but it might be usefull goal or tool for development work”. Since without some goal/project/aim to have project don’t advance. So it was “how about we try to develop a thing, that can beat this imitation game. Wouldn’t that be good stepping stone. Then we can move to the actual serious stuff. Just an idea”.

However since this academic “thinking out aloud spitballing ideas” was uttered by the Alan Turing, it became the Turing Test and everyone started taking it way too seriously. Specially outside academia. Who yes did play the imitation game with their programs as it was intended as research and development tool.

exemplified by for example this little exerpt of “not trying to do anything too complete and ground breaking here”:

In any case there is no intention to investigate here the theory of the game, and it will be assumed that the best strategy is to try to provide answers that would naturally be given by a man

It is pretty literally “I had a thought”. Turin makes no claims of machine beating the game having any significance other than “machine beat this game I came up with, neat”. There is no argument of if machine beats imitation game, then X or then it means Y is reached.

Rest of the paper is actually about objections to the core idea of “it could ever be possible for machine to think” and even as such said imitation game is kinda lead in or introduction to Turing’s treatise various objections of various “it would be impossible for machine to think” arguments. Starting with theological argument of “only human soul can think. Hence no animal or machine can think.” … since it was 1950’s.

also upon being able to attack external screen one probably could attach external keyboard and mouse. use those then to operate the device. Depends on exact phone of course, but often android phones accept external keyboard and mice.

Yeah. Unless he has evidence… Yeah, don’t go around spewing that kind of stuff. How about going with “looks like middle-aged man having midlife crisis and currently in the “gym rat” phase of it”… little dig in there, but you know more realistic. Yeah he is little funny with the shirtless sports posing, so throw some shade over it. However it in no way implies cheating on his wife. Don’t know if he is, don’t know if he isn’t, but getting the middle life crisis hobby of “jiu-jitsu” doesn’t tell anything about that.

As said I think him getting in shape, sports and posing is way more about just bulk standard mid-life crisis. “Oh I’m getting little old. When did that midsection and belly got so wide. I should start a sports hobby to get in shape and avoid cardiovascular disease”. Some people get a motorbike to catch the lost youth. Others become gym rats/sports nuts to try to catch back their lost youth body.

Again which really wouldn’t be that interesting except billionaire and also him apparently getting so hooked on it, that he started competing in tournaments.

Doesn’t also remove anything from his horrible record of business ethics. He has absolutely horrible business ethics as most of these silicon valley billionaires in the advertising/social media sphere. Comes with the territory. One doesn’t start a targeted advertising social media business, if one values the ethics of peoples right to privacy.

I really don’t think they should be dictating how companies must design their products.

Like say telling to automakers they must include this design feature called seat belt and this another design feature called airbag? Also EU isn’t dictating anything about the design. They are giving regulation on minimum technical features. How to design within that minimal technical requirement is free for the maker to decide. Just as say there is minimum technical regulation about safety of electric appliances in general.

Again poor, poor companies being told by the regulation they can’t use their favourite “design feature” of "exposed uninsulated power wirings " on their products.

Regulations have existed and will exist. Companies operate at the please of society offering them a market to operate in. Offering such things as contracts needing to be honored, people not just being allowed to steal their property, enjoying the protected relative piece of national military keeping the mongol horde away and so on. In exchange the businesses shall play by the rules society sets.

This matter was decided by the duly elected representatives of the EU citizenry (directly as the European Parliament and more indirectly the national democratically elected governments in the Council. Well except maybe governments of Hungary and Poland… … …). This is the will of the European society, so this stands.

Well some might. Then you are free to vote with wallet and move to the maker who still thinks water resistance and dust is good sell factor for phones. Market working like it’s supposed and so on. Within the guiding barriers market regulations.

It would have to be personal imports. Since the regulation concerns not just the manufacturer, but Any natural or legal person that places on the market product (that phrasing appears lot on the regulation 😆). So for example importers and distributors. A retail electronics shop is responsible to make sure they don’t offer on sale any new product with no replaceable battery. Obviously to their own amount of reasonable amount of responsibility. Retailer isn’t responsible to go check the product in detail for all the nitty gritty technical compliance, but they have to do due diligence from the manufacturer or importer on “and this product you offer us does fulfil EU regulations. You do have the spare batteries in offer like regulation demands, you plan to honor the 5 year offer period of spare batteries” and so on. Can’t be knowingly importing or retail selling non compliant products.

Well some sneaky legislative aide in EU already thought about that.

Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries or LMT batteries shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.

Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components.

Well battery shapes will be custom, but the regulation does include demand to offer said batteries as spare parts.

shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.

This being EU, EU will actually even police that reasonability clause via consumer protection agencies. You might not like the still probably pretty hefty price, but outright monopoly price gouging will not be allowed. Atleast not with in EU jurisdiction. Also makers will tend to gravitate to number of pretty standard battery sizes and geometries. Simply out of economies of scale. If you have to offer the batteries available as spares. You don’t want to offer 150 different battery models on you warehousing and supply to your retail stores. You want as few as possible. Maybe say 5 different sizes or maybe couple ten different kinds on the biggest makers with the largest product range. Cheaper to buy more of similar batteries from battery supplier, than have custom module developed for each new phone model. Well unless one is apple and only has couple new models per year. They probably will have now just little bit different optimized shape battery for each models, but they also have the scale per model to make sense for that.

also:

Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components.

Meaning companies can’t use software locks to deny third party batteries. Since the language says compatible battery, not replacement battery. Which wouldn’t make sense anyway, since replacement battery would be the one the OEM offers. Ofcourse I’m sure there will be lot of hurdur by makers over “don’t use third party batteries, those aren’t as safe” and “well but that isn’t compatible”. However as one remembers during the early 2000’s and upto mid 2010’s there was a very healthy both OEM and third party replacement battery market. As with that experience, yes shoddy batteries from non-reputable people can be problem. However in this basic consumer electronic safety regulation (aka you can’t just shovel anything to the market with utterly nuts unsafe circuitry in the first place) and the market itself handles it. Again it will be found out over little time, which makers are the reputable ones with the good batteries with all the proper safeties and good production quality. Reputable big chain electronics dealers then focus on only offering the established reputable third party batteries and parts out of their own reputation (You sold me a shoddy battery. It burst and ruined my phone. I’m never buying from this phone store ever again). Plus same with the actual makers with stuff like offering extensive warranties, warranting the replacement of the device, if their battery messes it up and so on.

This is all “we have already been here” ground except instead of the T9 numpad on the phone front, there is now a whole front covering touch screen on it’s place.

Not really. Expect in that obviously many of the exact current water resistant phone design can’t be used. Since those don’t have replaceable battery. However already at this very moment there is smart phones on the market with both replaceable battery and water resistance. Like Samsung Xcover6 pro . Not that it is the only one, but example from the major brands instead of the more niche rugged phone specialist brands. In fact in my experience in the rugged phone market replaceable battery is quite common (and thus apparently desired by customers) feature. I assume on the rugged phone user segment liking the ruggedness of “I can continue the lifespan with new battery” and even “Well I’m going to middle of no where wilderness, spare battery might not be stupid idea”.

In opposite to the hurdurhurdur can’t make water and dust resistant phone with battery covers. Yes we can. We figured this out by early 2000’s. Touch screens on the other side of the phone taking place from the old numeric T9 pad doesn’t change the design fundamentals of the back of the chassis. Rigid enough cover plate with rigid enough pressure applying latching combined with rubber seal designed and molded to seal the desired areas will do the job exactly 2027 as well as those did in 2002.

As said all it takes is a redesign job with the battery swapping idea being kept in mind from start on the chassis design. Maybe it means couple mill thicker phones, since the phone isn’t a single glued together slab from front display glass to the back cover glass, so it isn’t rigid by being single monolith resign block essentially. However as far as the massively bulky thick rugged phones, all phones aren’t headed there. That is about impact resistance instead of water or dust resistance. Thick layers of metal and rubber both to withstand and to soften impact.

Well that makes the assumption of no new service rises to replace twitter, which given development and spreading of Internet is pretty bad bet.

All this leads to is momentary disruption until people settle on the new replacement, whatever that ends up being.

All this does is caused sacking of twitter employees and Musk burning a pile of money. Oh and politics wonks and journalists have to change their congregation behavior to new place.

What made Poppy MAD?

Marvin, the Guardian of towels. Clearly Marvin has read Douglas Adams.

intentionally made to a public forum could be considered private information after the fact

Well that’s the thing. The criterion is Personally identifying information. Not private information.

Remember GDPR includes right to be forgotten. Person is allowed to change their mind. At one point they might have wanted and agreed for that information being readily publicly available. Then they have right to change their mind “Nope, don’t want the information out still”.

As I said. Just because it has been publicly published, doesn’t remove the protection categorization GDPR offers.

It is just then PII you at the moment want to be publicly available. Ofcourse deleting anything completely of the net later is not possible, but the point is when informed of deletion order, that organization is not supposed to be part of the “this persons information is published, when they don’t want it” problem anymore. Company can’t control all of Internet, but they can control their own conduct and within that limit they must comply to privacy order. Even if it doesn’t perfectly swipe the information from all of internet.

It is utterly different mentality and regime from “private/secret” or “public/its gone now” system. In this other system privacy is on going process and scale. It can move two ways instead of just unidirectionally. Person has right to ask and demand for what has been public to be made more private. As they also can choose to make private more public.

EU and its citizens have right to choose what principles they base their privacy laws on and they chose this different kind of regime. Other regions and countries are free to choose otherwise in their own jurisdiction (though EU does this super claim of “EU data subject involved, we claim jurisdiction”)

It can be, depending on whether PII was involved. Just being publicly published doesn’t make it not be PII. It can be or not be. GDPR counts PII widely, since it also includes stuff that can be combined with other information to make for identifying the person.

Frankly this is one of those cases, where we need a court ruling to set precedent on what is counted in and what is counted out.