Bingo. It would also make it trivial to alter images just enough so that it wouldn't match the hash, and then they can post shit that would need to be manually flagged and removed.

I already see things like this with pirated media; pirates will include extraneous material bundled with the target media so that it's not automatically flagged and removed.

Quick counter: lower kelvin lights are terrible for color reproduction. Pure sunlight is around 5000K, and has a CRI (color rendering index) of 100. Switching to warmer (lower kelvin) lights is going to also alter your CRI, and will change the way that you perceive colors. If you need high color discrimination, that's going to be bad.

For outdoor lights, in most cases that's not a problem.

Usually. In most cases, you aren't going to notice just how much the colors have shifted, because your brain automatically adjusts. Youre perception of color is usually how colors appear relative to other things; you will see a red as red because your brain is comparing it to other objects with a known color. OTOH, if you're taking photos under poor lighting conditions, you'll see a significant shift in color. If you've ever taken film photos under fluorescent lights, you'd see that everything looked sharply green, when you don't perceive them as being green at that moment. (Digital cameras often make color adjustments, and the sensors are often not as sensitive as film can be.)

Going to an extreme, if you use a red filter on a light source, all colors are going to end up looking brown and grey; switching to red lights does the best at minimizing light pollution and loss of night vision, but at the cost of most color information. That's not bad, just a thing to consider.

First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don't. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)

Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?

Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren't causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?

Fourth: "Exploiting" is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?

Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?

...And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?

And that's ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.

Hey, I'd rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.

Well. Yes. This is true though. And that's a 'problem' with a lot of things; they can be 'true' when looked at from a certain perspective, but not necessarily useful in any meaningful way. For instance, pain is a sensation, and that sensation is not, by itself a 'bad' thing. It's just sensory information. Pain in the context of BDSM can evoke positive judgements in the person experiencing the sensation. An identical sensation experienced in the context of being physically abused by an intimate partner will likely evoke a negative judgement. Your judgement about those sensations is based on your context and past experiences.

But at the same time, looking at a larger picture here, if times are getting tougher, then rather than looking inward to the self and your own perception, it makes more sense to look outward to community, to try and change circumstances in a way that is positive for the entire greater community.

Depends on the disagreement. "I don't like shoes that have separate toes". Yeah, okay, that's your choice, I love my VFFs anyways. "I think Jews should be murdered", no, sorry, you don't get to have an opinion about the rights of other people to exist and occupy space.

First: Dispatch pays shit.

Second: the PTSD is usually a bigger problem than the depression, since you're going to hear people die as you are trying to talk to them.

Kimberly Edds, spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, told NPR the decision was made "as a result of having insufficient evidence" to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

...Which is pretty much par for the course for a lot of sexual assault cases as well. RAINN reports that, out of every 1000 sexual assaults, 310 get reported to police, 50 result in arrests, and only 28 result in convictions. So the DA dropping the case before even going to trial isn't all that surprising. It doesn't mean that he isn't guilty, just that the DA didn't think they were going to be able to prove it in court.

Huh. A MAGAt rioter that wanted to undermine due process and civil rights also wants to be a cop.

Whoda thunk?

...Why should we be concerned about Putin saving face? This is his fuck up, and he was given ample opportunities to put the brakes on before he ever invaded.

...And thus we see why line item vetoes are not a great idea. Yeah, it worked great here, but it has the potential to undercut every single bill passed by a legislature. It puts way too much power into the hands of the executive branch, because it essentially gives them the power to write laws.

Well... Yes, it probably is. Because it's political speech, and because there's not a direct link to fraud or causal harm. See US v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. When Trump says that he's a stable genius, that's protected speech even though 180 degrees opposed to the truth.

You'll notice that e.g. what Trump's attorneys said in public was very, very different from what they said to courts; it's a criminal offense to lie to courts, but it's largely legal and protected to lie to the public for political ends.