Those drones are still very inaccurate compared to other weapons that we use today and are basically just terror weapons. It is an automated killing machine, sure. It doesn't target anything other than a coordinate.
It's the decision by a machine to target something specific that is the moral conundrum. If you give a machine the ability to "decide" to kill one person over another, there isn't anyone to blame for the death. There is a ton of randomness introduced into neutral networks (AI) and any decisions are non-deterministic in nature. You can jam in as many guardrails as you want, but if the ultimate decision is to kill or not to kill, the guardrails do not matter. This spawns a ton of questions about giving machines the intelligence to kill. Even though there is randomness in any conflict, we can get away with calling it "collateral damage".
If a machine decides that a book looks like a gun and hoses a classroom of 5 year olds, there isn't really any accountability if the machine was approved by law. Again, there isn't anyone to blame, which is a huge part of how humanity works, unfortunately. (Side thought: This would get even more complicated if said machine was supposed to fill the role of a protector or guardian.)
Even with the most complex weapons today, they are just following specific directions to hit a coordinate at a specific time. There isn't any real thought behind it even if it is extremely accurate. Once the trigger is pulled, weapon go to destination and the trigger person is responsible.
Edit: I made a fuck ton of edits to add clarification. Sorry if you were an unfortunate recipient of a draft.
Used to watch him on the Today show on a black and white TV when I was a kid. We aren't that old, TBH.
Tilt the head in the left picture forward a bit? You could probably get alignment on the face holes, maybe?
The ears could be moved and the new holes could be purely cosmetic. That seems more in-line with the form-over-function theme we seem to have going on here.
Seriously, I do think you are correct but it also doesn't take much to throw perspective off with different cameras or lenses.
Just the other 60% or it.
Double-posting means two good weeks in a row. Sweet.
Highly likely. However, it's also just as likely that this is an inexperienced "researcher" or there is poor translation in-play.
There is a possibility that this is an attempt at (poor) social engineering and an attempt to trick an admin into performing actions to start a real compromise. (Extortion is also a common path here as well.)
I have been dealing with this kinda shit for decades now, unfortunately.
This is an interesting vulnerability notification and what is with that spoiler tag? The wording and/or bad translation negates just about any sense of urgency.
Can you clarify your wording on 'hosting a botnet'? That can be interpreted a few ways. There are a few ways a host can communicate to network of bots and I find it highly unlikely that you would see that traffic from the open Internet. Unless you were on the server yourself and you saw evidence of malicious code, it's generally difficult to determine what a host is/isn't infected with.
A public notification is likely not the best avenue for a notification. Exploring private methods to contact an admin is always a better path, even if you believe the channel is compromised.
TBH, this post is more of a red flag than anything else.
I certainly wouldn't say it was incompetent and there is a good set of data points. Given the nature of what the study is attempting to correlate, not explaining what limitations were taken into account is a a significant limitation, IMHO. It is called out that there are limitations, but that it is essentially just a short footnote. (The full paper does a better job of calling out other studies and some contradictions.)
This referenced study found the opposite and had a no (or weaker correlation) to cancer associated with SSBs: Khairan P, et al. Sugary drink consumption and the subsequent risk of gastric cancer: Khairan P, et al. Sugary drink consumption and the subsequent risk of gastric cancer: The Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study. Eur J Clin Nutr 2023;77:218-25.
Without doing a comparative analysis of the studies, which would be interesting, I have open questions about what the key differences were. My first guess (without calling either study "wrong") is that maybe risk factors were calculated differently?
On the darker side, there is motivation for keying-in on a specific correlation and that cannot be ignored either. (Past grants, groups requesting the study, etc.) The original paper also sets itself up to be a marketing call-out for artificially sweetened beverages, unfortunately. (I am not saying that is the intent, but the wording aligns exactly with what vitamin water-type company would want to see. It made for a good Lemmy post title, at a minimum.)
At the end of the day, they stated what they were looking for and presented what seems to be a clean analysis of that data. The limitations that were presented have the potential to be significant, however.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the masses." -Major General Smedley D. Butler.
So my chance of developing gastric cancer doubles to 1.8% chance over my lifetime if I drink sugar-beverages every day.. (This math wasn't sponsored by a cancer testing company.)
After you actually get the the study, there wasn't any mention of other associated lifestyle behaviors that may contribute to the risk of gastric cancers. What sticks out to me is that people drinking one or more sugar-packed beverages per day likely have additional diet or lifestyle concerns.
It's not that I think the number crunching for the study was wrong or that the sample sizes were too small, it's just that it was extremely focused on making a correlation for the sake of making a correlation.
Hindsight is 20/20 and I realize this probably wasn't the best idea to begin with....
(Scott Kirkland, if you were wondering..)
Describe the issue: Images may be assigned different IDs on page reloads resulting in duplicate cache items. (See attached image: Not sure if actually duplicate files or if cached files are soft linked to each other.)
Steps to reproduce:
The following settings have been changed from defaults:
1 (default: 0)true (default: false)true (default: false)true (default: false)New (default: Active)hide (default: blur)list (default: card)5 (default: 2)
Describe the issue: Click thumbnail for external link
Steps to reproduce:
The following settings have been changed from defaults:
1 (default: 0)true (default: false)false (default: true)true (default: false)true (default: false)New (default: Active)hide (default: blur)list (default: card)5 (default: 2)
I am sure there are a ton of factors involved. I am also sure that there is a lot of financial incentives to publish positive studies.
There is a huge caveat to posting a study to counter your stats above since you technically aren't wrong. "Typically" can mean many different things, but here, it can also fit within published data.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1125407/
Most articles I found usually point to roughly the same numbers as that study, but there is a lot of variation in how those numbers are presented. (Even that study initially presents stats in a way that is confusing: A percentage of a percentage of a percentage, over time.)
My point is that it's one of those stats that is super easy view as "really good" or simultaneously "exceptionally bad". IMHO, I still think it's crazy that we can even do transplants at all.
Edit: I believe everyone should at least get a chance to live a bit longer, but it sucks that it comes at extreme cost. The procedures are extremely expensive and a person could potentially be put on expensive anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of their life. Add in all the follow-up appointments and occasional hiccups in recovery (adding even more cost) a person is likely going to die broke and be put through even more stress that is a very real danger to health anyway.