it wasn’t intended to be a study on what’s right or wrong to have or what not, the point is simply that, going with a less likely to be brought up country say France. If for some nation were to launch an invasion on france. They wouldn’t be bothering to compare their quantity of tanks, aircraft carriers etc… are present, as that tier is in and of itself a factor.

Or to go purely into fictional, you could say talk about anime characters like

Mob from Mob Psycho, Gojo from Jujitsu Kaisen, Reinhart from re:zero, Saitama from one punch man etc… Characters that are so overwhelmingly ahead of everything else, that any other character in the battle is basically cosmetic. IE it’s not just that they are better than the D-A tier characters, It’s that they are so much better that it’s laughable to think that all the A tier characters teaming up would come close to making a fair fight for them.

The rest are just normal ranking, IE in order of their tier, In english sometimes they to give them meanings “advanced, basic, competent” but generally that’s a forced on to it. Typically it’s just an alternative to doing 1st, 2nd, 3rd category. “S” meant is to imply it’s so good it’s not the best category, it’s so far ahead that it’s not fair to compare the A tier to it. Like say when talking about military strength in the real world, having nuclear weapons is a whole separate category. IE there’s no bother to question how many tanks or bombs it would take to invade north korea, because the mere potential of them to launch a couple of nukes if threatened, is enough to prevent anyone from taking their plans past the most basic hypothetical stage.

usually special or super.

Worth pointing out, Nimrod wasn’t an insult until bugs bunny used it sarcastically at Elmer Fudd, and a generation of viewers didn’t get the reference and just assumed it as an alternative for idiot.

basically all arosol’s do that as well, same for pam and just about every other spray, and yeah it’s shady as hell, it’s much like tictac’s are technically sugar free… in spite of being 90% sugar, because their serving size is 1 piece.

They seem to fail to understand, the coersion is the only bad part. That’s like saying “things don’t change, some black people chose to work on farms, the coersion has gone but it’s still a problem”. No it’s not a problem, anyone should be allowed to choose to be a farmer.

I’ll consider giving support after there’s a wave of police getting held accountable for abuses, and headlines of the police unions demanding for flock cameras to be taken down. However I’m not holding my breath.

For now it seems like they are just supposedly adding ways to possibly catch cops who are, using the cameras for illegal stuff like spying on swimming pools, yoga classes, or stalking ex’s…

I guess I understand your overall point It’s probably valid to say that phones shouldn’t be (though I suppose not against the law due to the laws not keeping up with the evolution of celphones).

I’d say smart glasses are in their current form, currently just a shock, because it’s their primary purpose. That’s basically why google glass flopped so spectacularly and the term “glasshole” followed their release almost instantly. Celphones do absolutely have the capacity to be turned into a spy device, even by accident or outside the owners control much like smart glasses. But I suppose the transition from snap shut flip phones to smart phones was kind of the slow burn that kind of made it not heavily thought up.

I do agree with the initial key point, IE smart glasses inherently make people feel uncomfortable and it’s basically waving in their face that they could be recorded at a moments notice if they aren’t already. It’s like technically I know that anyone I talk to, could have a concealed carry permit and may have a gun hidden on their person… but I’d feel far more unsafe being around someone with an AR15 strapped on him.

I’d say they shouldn’t be, but either way, they sure as heck don’t normally have them out of their pockets pointing the camera at their patients.

The point is, say Meta, Amazon, google… etc… are known for collecting video and audio at times the owner has not intentionally triggered it to do so. Sued for what should be HIPPA violations, to my knowledge HIPPA is pretty darn strict, even if there hasn’t been an actual breach. Like say, leaving a computer open and logged in to your medical record system unguarded near your waiting room, is still a huge breach of HIPPA laws, even if no patient has ever walked up and looked at the screen.

The fact that they own the device? From the article it’s implied that the doctor wasn’t recording.

That’s the thing though, it’s multiple levels of trust required. Point is the device is connected to his phone, You don’t just have to trust the doctor not to hit the button to record (either intentionally or accidentally) but you also have to trust facebook not to have set the device to do some stealth recording outside of permission (again either intentionally or some sort of “accidental” system). Or also cyber attacks (IE doctors phone or glasses could have been infected by a virus that quietly enables the camera and sends the footage to some shady extra site). The presence of a cloud capable camera adds multiple layers of issues, beyond just the owner of the camera itself.

I get the concept you are after, but also pretty widely disagree. Early adopters are either researched people that knows what it is and really want it… or they are really rich people that drop lots of money at the drop of a hat at anything that sounds shiny. As someone who used to do IT work for medical practices, I have to say, doctors more often are the latter. I got lots of really cool stuff that I could never afford from helping doctors with their personal stuff and them going “I bought this but realize I don’t know how to use it, and it’s too much work, do you want it”.

It’s because doctors offices are generally audited by law. If someone does find a hidden camera, that doctors office rightfully will be sued and shut down.

yeah I saw that on another post… and did look it up myself, in the US they can be sold, but legally they cannot include the word cigarette anywhere in the labeling or packaging, on amazon they do indeed put it in the title of the listing, which is against the law, but not particularly well enforced, the packages themselves though you can also see clearly they don’t use the word cigarette for exactly that reason.

It’s interesting because, in the US technically they aren’t allowed to be labeled Cigarettes (in most countries they are outright illegal), Just did check amazon, and you can see the actual packaging just says “bubble gum”, or “candy”. Though I think the amazon listing using the word, may actually not be within the law.

Oh, like candy cigarettes and big league chew.

Yeah… Which was also a bad idea… of which most of the world won’t accept in the modern age.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candy_cigarette#Sales_laws

Big league chew, I guess was a bit more on the fence because it’s less obvious and it avoids any words that directly link it to chewing tobacco.

well my thought is, more the botnet side of it, IE pushing less on individual machines, but more on massive distribution. IE it not needing one computer strong enough to run it, IE expecting 90% of the machines it infects to be average consumer PCs, but making more use out of 1000 systems that can handle 1% each, rather than 1 computer that handles 100%, however yeah I do suppose also allowing it to do the bulk of the work when the computer is likely unused etc… and I don’t know much on the concept of communication etc… IE most major botnets were crushed by a command center being shut down. Imagining a different form that has, basically makes C&C’s on the fly.

The same way Windows is “fixing bugs” with AI? Large volumes of dubiously tested code is never a good idea

I think the point is the bugs are being FOUND with AI. Not fixed with AI.

It’s basically the same concept as open source in general. IE the average layman hears open source and they think “oh so every moron, malicious person etc… can add his own back doors into the code”, of course not, the official version is gated and reviewed. What’s happening is AI is basically serving as millions of idiots looking through the code for security flaws, and it’s finding them. Which then means the humans fixing it need to go into overdrive to fix them before they become zero days.

I think there are physical and economic limits. Neural networks may improve in software, but they still need more and more hardware, at some point that hardware resource curve is going to be to steep to climb at the current rate.

It’s true, but think like the crypto miner bugs. I don’t know enough on AI’s working, but is a distributed computing LLM possible, or is the need for super close super low latency between nodes eliminate the risk of a distributed computing, learn as it travels botnet powered AI worm, that continues evolving even if it’s home is shut down.

I am not sure anything about that is good.

I mean it’s good and bad, basically AI is finding a bunch of serious zero days… which is causing a lot of updates to need to be happening now, and that is kind of open source philosophy of security by obscurity isn’t the goal.