Well I don’t really expect someone in prison to win, but I don’t believe there’s any law about the location where the president gets sworn in. If a majority of voters chose that person, they could get sworn in in jail, immediately pardon themselves and off they go.

Eugene Debs, the must successful American socialist candidate for president, was at one point running for office while in prison. Of course he lost so I can’t imagine it helped

I hear you that it’s tiring and intimidating dealing with fascists. That said I don’t think it’s factual to say they only need to win once, and believing so creates a strategic disadvantage.

Factually, world war 2 is the classic example of fascists needing to win continually and being unable to do it. The Nazis had a good showing in an election, Hitler was made chancellor and then they used that foot in the door to take over the government and seize many countries. But they lost in the end, and that was a result of resistance, not just militarily but the sum of every individual act of opposition.

There’s a concept of anticipatory obedience. Corporations and local governments sometimes fell over themselves to do what they thought the fascist government would ask before the actual ask. Even if Trump seized power, that wouldn’t be the end. They need us to cooperate. And by resisting in a concrete way (not just #resist posting of course) we will stop fascism.

It’s never over. Fascism is destined to lose. It’s a question of how much suffering and injustice can we avoid by defeating it sooner.

And believing like they want us to believe, that it’s all over, is a strategic disadvantage. If we believe we’re beaten or that victory is impossible we’ll act that way. Believe that we can win, and spread that belief, and we’ll act that way.

She said to vote straight Dem ticket while at a really meant to bring out support for Harris. This article is intended to sow division instead of report in an accurate context.

I think it would have helped for the person who posted that to include context, but I would guess they were linking because it also talks about how Kagi isn’t privacy focused.

The linked post goes into detail about why the author views Kagi as not privacy oriented, and that in the author’s opinion Kagi is overly focused on AI. (And was originally started as an AI company)

I’m not familiar with all his policies, but he’s been good on gerrymandering which is my pet issue, and which I think is key to making progress on pretty much every other issue.

I didn’t come up with the advice, just relating what I’ve read a few times. So maybe that’s not representative of the current advice.

That said, moving downhill isn’t really random. Gravity is a universal rule, and water moves downhill. Humans for our entire existence have needed water for survival, and eventually for agriculture. So we tend to gather around it.

I’ve also read if you’re lost advice to stay where you are, but that’s in a scenario where you expect people to know where you are and to come looking for you. Probably a tough call to make in this case, plus the guy had his dog with him.

Specifics of this situation aside, I don’t think 20 miles is that hard of a push. I’d expect to be able to do that in a day or two.

This thread on mastodon is a nice summary of the case and its benefits

My man Krasner!

I’m just a hiking enthusiast, no expert, but I’ve read that if you’re lost in a remote area with no chance of rescue that you should move downhill. Eventually you’ll find a stream or creek. If you continue downhill following it eventually you’ll reach a human settlement. Better to focus on finding people in the first couple days than securing food/water.

You’re right, cameras can be tricked. As Descartes pointed out there’s very little we can truly be sure of, besides that we ourselves exist. And I think deepfakes are going to be a pretty challenging development in being confident about lots of things.

I could imagine something like photographers with a news agency using cameras that generate cryptographically signed photos, to ward off claims that newsworthy events are fake. It would place a higher burden on naysayers, and it would also become a story in itself if it could be shown that a signed photo had been faked. It would become a cause for further investigation, it would threaten a news agency’s reputation.

Going further I think one way we might trust people we aren’t personally standing in front of would be a cryptographic circle of trust. I “sign” that I know and trust my close circle of friends and they all do the same. When someone posts something online, I could see “oh, this person is a second degree connection, that seems fairly likely to be true” vs “this is a really crazy story if true, but I have no second or third or fourth degree connections with them, needs further investigation.”

I’m not saying any of this will happen, just it’s potentially a way to deal with uncertainty from AI content.

Well as I said, I think there’s a collection of things we already use for judging what’s true, this would just be one more tool.

A cryptographic signature (in the original sense, not just the Bitcoin sense) means that only someone who possesses a certain digital key is able to sign something. In the case of a digitally signed photo, it verifies “hey I, key holder, am signing this file”. And if the file is edited, the signed document won’t match the tampered version.

Is it possible someone could hack and steal such a key? Yes. We see this with certificates for websites, where some bad actor is able to impersonate a trusted website. (And of course when NFT holders get their apes stolen)

But if something like that happened it’s a cause for investigation, and it leaves a trail which authorities could look into. Not perfect, but right now there’s not even a starting point for “did this image come from somewhere real?”

In this case, digitally signing an image verifies that the image was generated by a specific camera (not just any camera of that brand) and that the image generated by that camera looks such and such a way. If anyone further edits the image the hash won’t match the one from the signature, so it will be apparent it was tampered with.

What it can’t do is tell you if someone pasted a printout of some false image over the lens, or in some other sophisticated way presented a doctored scene to the camera. But there’s nothing preventing us from doing that today.

The question was about deepfakes right? So this is one tool to address that, but certainly not the only one the legal system would want to use.

My thought was that the video loading probably isn’t going to be nearly as fast as TikTok because of the money behind their servers and optimization.

Leica has one camera that does this, and others are working on them. Just posted this link in another comment

I think other answers here are more essential - chain of custody, corroborating evidence, etc.

That said, Leica has released a camera that digitally signs its images, and other manufacturers are working on similar things. That will allow people to verify whether the image is original or has been edited. From what I understand Leica has some scheme where you can sign images when you update them too, so there’s a whole chain of documentation. Here’s a brief article

You’re being rude for no reason

I think it’s a strange position to take that giving birth is like handling radioactive material.

What do you think about “altruistic surrogacy”, mentioned in the article? Presumably if someone is volunteering that avoids the exploitation angle?

Approaching from another angle, do you think sex work should be legal? It’s another area where exploitation and abuse are a concern. But if we expect someone can earn money using their body in one area (sex work, or even just physical labor) then why should it be illegal to earn money by carrying a baby to term? Exploitation should be made illegal, not the act itself.

Lastly, my understanding is that surrogacy is more often used when a woman is unable to carry the baby, than when a man is unable to impregnate.

I hear you that rich people are selfish and causing any number of problems. That said, I think your approach misses the suffering of many normal people who want to raise a child and would be unable to otherwise.

Even if this was an activity that someone thinks should be restricted, should it be punishable with jail time? I don’t think so. The law in Italy seems clearly designed to target LGBT people.