Um, yeah, if you say so.

They did back it up.

They forgot the other part: Keep the original.

Or to put it another way: Have two copies that are extremely unlikely* to be erased/rendered useless by the same event or series of events.

*if a planet-killing asteroid hits, well....

Some people can heal minor loss of enamel.

Sometimes when a "big gorilla" (Microsoft) has a bug that is breaking you, the only practical thing is to code around it.

Especially if competing software isn't experiencing the same user-visible issues that your software is.

You may be morally right but shaming the gorilla without putting on your own band-aid is going to cost you users in the short run.

Besides, Microsoft's coders have their hands full finding and fixing security bugs before AI-equipped Black Hats find and exploit them.

Ideally, pay cold hard cash to opt in.

Second choice would be to provide some real add-on value to opt in.

What's really going to happen if opt-out becomes too toxic for twitch: They will go opt-in but enshittify the product for those who don't opt-in, touting a "better" (meaning maybe as good as August 2026) experience for those who opt in.

Sort of like the "opt in" toll roads in places where the free roads went from being decent to dangerous due to "lack of funding" to pay for maintenance.

The parallels between this and letters of marque are scary.

I'm reasonably confident there were other, previous known-at-the-time deaths from trebuchets but the records of their deaths or the reasons for the deaths have been lost.

https://www.youtube.com/supported_browsers?next_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCrbp8Y_yCIs

is not what you want

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crbp8Y_yCIs

may be what you want.

You can bet that both black and white hats are poking around any popular tool that allows collaboration.

Teams, Discord, and others likely have high-impact bugs yet to be found.

If it has a high false-error rate the city may miss out on revenue and someone with a warrant may not be arrested, but any false-positive is an injustice to the person pulled over.

I'm willing to be the one-in-10,000 false-positive from a license-plate misread but not the one-in-100 (1% false positive) or 1-in-4 (25% false positive).

On the other hand I can tolerate my city missing out on ticket revenue or a missed warrant-arrest because only half of its license plates can be confirmed as "almost certainly correctly read."

If all characters had the same failure rates, that would be a plate-failure rate of about 25% per plate. Yes, I know it's not the same for each character, so the per-plate accuracy may be higher.

Until computer-only recognition is about as good as either human-only or human+computer-only recognition, you need a human in the loop.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of my proposal. The purpose of my proposal is for AI agents to tell web sites "you are gaming the system, we are going to do whatever it takes, no matter how inefficient, to make sure you don't."

A correctly written, correctly-implemented "human filter" would render this invisible to the AI.

It's principle, not principal. AIs are not my pals.

Have the chatbot remote-control a regular web browser, do human-like scrolling taking enough screen shots to capture the primary content, then run the screen through optical-character recognition using a "human filter" so it will only "see" things that a human with normal vision would see.

In practice this is much easier said than done. But if web site hosts insist on gaming the system, this is one way to counter it.