..to everyone who joined the CIA and starts wondering whether they might be the baddies. Snitch on us and you'll fall out of a window in an out of control Tesla with tons of child porn on the hard drive.

OSINT is solidly groomed, funded and even set up by the intelligence agencies, out of fear of it arising for real and being independent.

They remember Wikileaks, even if they're trying to make us forget. An "intelligence agency for the people" is their greatest fear.

It started with the blog Brown Moses. A Something Awful goon who had taken as hobby watching videos out of Syria since one of his forum buddies had decided to drop everything and become a millitant. He was pretty good, he noticed and documented a lot of things the intelligence agencies hadn't. They were scared by that, but very relieved he'd focused on that conflict. So they flattered and groomed him, and paid him, and got him to start a small media outfit (bellingcat), and got their own people into it.

When they load you into the trains, Iâ(TM)ll be taking photos to feed my Ai so folks never forget.

Until the next generation of you calls for censorship and forced speech.

Misinformation is free expression, comrade.

Nobody actually cares about the Navajo nation, you know. These organised minority groups play much the same role in US politics as Nauru does in the UN. They vote however the highest bidder asks them to vote, and the bids aren't high. It's very apparent in US presidential election years like this one: organized minority interest groups (not to be confused with the actual minorities they supposedly speak for) can be directed to have concerns where the money points.

So if the White House really had a meeting about this, it's not out of concern for Navajo beliefs. It's about "hey, are they just trying to raise their profile for the upcoming election season, or did someone we care about pay them to say this?"

Every farmer knows it is true. Behavioral scientist Gary Larson has done extensive research on this.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...

They are not selling it. It's also not a dataset of images, it's a dataset of links to images. Precisely because they wanted to limit liability in cases like this (or copyright).

Yes, the famously strong candidate Hillary Clinton.

The incumbent wasn't term limited last time around either.

Yes, rampant inflation creates jobs.

Fuck off with those data points.

I voted for no one and am glad.

Google did change its algorithm in 2016 to fight disinformation, trying to favor sites with "experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness."

And I'm sure that worked out fine and there was no blowback whatsoever.

I was about to comment that it was not Nokia, but a bunch of corporate lawyers wearing Nokia's flayed skin as a suit.

But your comment, although less in the Halloween spirit, was more informative.

There is already plenty enough competition in driving people for money that it's hanging right there on the It's-not-worth-doing-this line.

Competition drives down costs, but only asymptotically to the cost of production. Double the competition, you get maybe a few cents lower prices, if it's already close to the cost of production.

But you know what doesn't move asymptotically? Incentive to cheat. As this news story illustrates: When you live on the margin, when everyone is barely getting by, those who cheat even a little will have a tremendous advantage. It's the same reason there's so much doping in Tour de France: all the legitimate ways of getting even a tiny edge on your competition have already been exhausted. And the cost of policing, of keeping people honest, quickly eclipses the tiny savings from getting ever so slightly closer to the asymptote.

So your auction scheme would make things worse, I guarantee it. I don't know exactly what way they would find to cheat, but they'd find one. If not they wouldn't be driving for long.

If glibertarians got their way on such things, you'd certainly get cheap taxis, but the only way taxi drivers could make a living was by occasionally selling one of their passengers to the Mafia's kidney harvesting operation.

You can't define "understand" in a non-circular way. Should not a Slashdot poster understand that we, too, can be seen as executing algorithms - and that whatever hard constrains about what algorithms can and cannot do, also apply 100% to us?