I hated TPP when it was being talked about and debated. Kinda glad, actually
EDIT: a redditor with a more worthy case than my simple opinion Really. My 14 word opinion does not deserve this spot.
EDIT: Gold? Stop it, people! I'm sick of this thread. I just want to relax at home and play CrossCode.
What they really mean is, "We didn't give IT a big enough budget, so those redundant systems and upgrades that they said we needed never got implemented."
India says thanks for making sure outsourced IT will not be made competitive by China, since almost every western country uses their own VPN providers for remote workers. Please continue to do the needful.
"could be credited to the fact that people are actively looking for ways to reduce their digital footprint"
In that case we must add taxes and regulatory burdens to ensure fair competition with coal.
Do I really have to add /s ?
What they mean is that appointees appear in the big dumps of hacked accounts from the past years (MySpace, Yahoo, LinkedIn, etc.).
This title is just more exciting.
This is how propaganda is spread.
In the future, how will we deal with the fact that evidence (video, audio) can be faked with 100% accuracy?
There are already examples of this in development, I believe one is called "Face2Face" () where they can use an actor to map the facial movements of someone in a pre-recorded video.
As technology improves there's no doubt that this kind of technology will become more developed and more widely available and delve into audio mimicry and the ability to use someones likeness to recreate video footage with almost indistinguishable resemblance to an original/authentic source.
How are we going to reconcile with the fact that this could be used for terrible evil? Perhaps not today, but in 50 years when this kind of thing has been more-or-less perfected, what's to stop a political candidate from paying an audio/video engineer from creating damning video/audio evidence of their political opponent? Or if someone in an industry (sports, entertainment, etc.) wants to discredit an opponent or competitor, from creating damning evidence against them committing crimes or saying terrible things.
I mean if I produce a video of YOU saying something terrible, how do you refute that? "No, it's fake!" okay, well we know the technology to fake it exists, but then what good is ANY video/audio evidence at that point since ANYTHING could be fake?
Is this something anyone has thought about, or had any other discussions here on Reddit about? Probably just more of a /sub/showerthoughts than anything else, but it's something that interests me.
Just as technology advances to the point where video evidence looks real to a regular person, video forensics will advance to the point where it will be able to tell the difference.
Future videos will probably be required to undergo extensive forensics to make sure its not doctored. Where as in today's world, thats not always necessary.
There's also the paper trail of someone creating a fake video. It can't be done cheaply nor could it be done invisibly.
It all well and good when you're driving to 50 places around town. When you're doing point A to point B I bet the story change a lot.
I dont want to sound like a broken record but if you want to help protect Net Neutrality you should support groups like ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press who are fighting to keep Net Neutrality.
also you can set them as your charity on https://smile.amazon.com/