Also, why in the fuck am I unable to type "provide" without adding an "r"?.

Bingo. This isn't even really about age verification.
It's about banning porn- a fight they lost long ago.

The error is always assuming good faith. They have none.

lol.

Fucking Christofascists.

Most routers have the ability to do this kind of thing.
A large part of the problem, is that the kids are often better at this kind of shit than the parents.

I work for an organization that, among other things, providers internet connectivity. We provider rented routers with service to help customers set this kind of shit up.
The requests are close to zero.

Everyone would rather legislate their morality.

That person is not you.
The video is authenticated by Amazon and Flock. Do you think you have some kind of veto or some shit?

Systems like this aren't to catch them committing a crime.
They'd just ask you for that.

This is to catch them passing your house to show that they were around a crime that took place- i.e., to help build a circumstantial case.

Bootlicker be like "4th amendment just helps criminals!"

Because handing information to police without a warrant can ruin peoples' lives.
Do you enjoy ruining peoples' lives?

Police have access to all recorded footage under the sun with a warrant. Deals like these are to provide it without warrant.
That's why you should care. And if you don't, you're either stupid, or a piece of shit.

The problem is that the alternative explanation has some very big holes in it.

For example, it's demonstrable that white people holding coke are charged less per capita than black people holding coke per capita.
That ruins your statistics. Even if what you describe as an "alternative explanation" is true, the statistics are too skewed by the bias to know, and that's the problem.

Uh... ok?

Not by the State.

Not by the State.

Not by the State.

You said:

That is flat-out bullshit.
Even the "4 years ago, we were even per-capita" is bullshit, really.
It's a comparison of privately owned CCTVs to a state system of CCTVs.
The US does not compare to video surveillance systems like China or the UK.
Granted, some municipalities are eager to join the club.

The United States has no extensive Federal Surveillance system. Not even digitally.
It's absolutely true that the sigint agencies slurp up every byte of data they can get their grubby hands on, but as someone who provides those services, and has seen every inch of fiber between me and every peer I have, there simply is not some kind of broad mass surveillance on this kind of shit.
FISA does give them broad ability to query us for information, but none of it is warrantless.
We can argue that special FISA courts are dubious, and that's fair, but they're a lot less dubious than the van that stops at the entrance of your house as 6 heavily armed Chinese soldiers break into your apartment, put a bag over your head, and disappear you into the fucking wind.

Trying to pretend like the two things are comparable on any kind of equal field is patently absurd.

Completely incorrect.

That is not how diffusion models work, at all.

This is the correct answer.

Even if training is highly equivalent to learning (ML=L), that doesn't imply- even remotely- that it's due copyright protections.
This is a social matter. Whether or not copyright law should be used to protect generative art or not.

Human art creation is entirely dependent on the training material, which is other peoples original works.

You're going to need more than 6 brain cells to detangle this conundrum, bucko.

No more than a painting is a derivative product of the company that manufacturer your paintbrush.

It's the model that created the art.
And it is creation, as much as any other creation of art is.

It's derivative of everything that went into the model, just as a human's art is derivative of everything that went into their brain.
That being said, I'm not at all against distinguishing between human creation and model-generated creation in copyright law.

No, it doesn't you misinformation-peddling twat waffle.