"when someone tries to identify you using an unaltered image of you [...] they will fail."
I wonder how this holds up when someone takes a photo of that 'protected image'. I can imagine that if these miniscule pixel-scaled changes aren't visible to the naked eye, my crappy 6 megapixel camera will overlook it as well. If I then proceed to feed that image into my image recognition algorithm, is it still protected?
They go over the effects of compression - which they say only degrades the protection - but at the same time also degrades the identification accuracy of the AI model.
So if your crappy 6 megapixel camera cannot take a clear shot of the cloaked pixels - or effectively applying a blur filter - would also affect the AI detection.
More importantly, assuming they have a database of such cloaked images, what if someone just applies the same cloaking technique to the image of you? Can they still identify you?
That's making a pretty lazy assumption that even a quick read of the original article leads me to be sure it's incorrect.
There's quite a lot of comments here that stink of Dunning Kruger candidates, who read the headline and first paragraph, then just started typing their random "wisdom" assuming they're smarter and better informed that the team of PHD researchers who wrote the paper being discussed. (Am I just overly grumpy and judgemental today? Was HN always this bad?)
Will someone please tell me what the purpose is of this article being published? Is it to criticize the Chinese government for producing Fake News? Is it to blame Twitter for it's lack of activism to stand for the free folk of Hong Kong? I'm guessing there's more than one side of this story..
Media will always be used as a tool to combat other media in order to sway public opinion. Why are we not constantly talking about Tibet anymore or police brutality and #BlackLivesMatter in the US? There seems to be a different motive, and for the average reader that consumes media, it becomes increasingly harder to form a coherent self-thought opinion by themselves and reach out of this echo chamber.
It seems like every article I read about HongKong in -Europe & the US- is amped up on anti-Chinese sentiment whilst a large part of the people that demonstrate are doing so because of dissatisfaction on living conditions and purchasing power. They live in a city with wild inequality, and they could also care less about economic disruption and incurred costs by the aviation/hospitality sector. It seems to me they're just "pissed and want things to change". Fueled by the international media-attention. However blatantly simplistic that might sound.
That is an incredibly stupid accusation and you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking it. Listen to yourself - the whole fucking point is human rights to not be snatched away in the middle of the night to show trials! Purchasing power is a fucking stupid thing to accuse as their real motive as if they wanted to change that they could move onto the mainland.
The point is how China has persistently tried to delegitimize it doing things like disrupting /overseas/ protests. That isn't normal and shame on all who try to normalize it.
I'm not quite sure if I should answer to your reply, as it seems you've wrote it in quite an angry spur of the moment. Did you perhaps take the time to read my whole post? Or was the last alinea enough to make you drop your panties and throw insults and swears around?
The spokesmen of protesters are demanding the extradition law to be upheaved indefinitely and Carrie Lam to be dismissed, one of which has happened already. Four months back there was absolutely no traction for any massive protest like this, not to mention the flares of violence. Even though this law has been in the making for years and published in March of this year. Can you think of any other legitimate reason the overall population is demonstrating so fervently other than dissatisfaction about the way their current government is running their city into the ground?
You speak of moving onto the mainland as a solution to purchasing power but I don't think you have any idea what it means to uproot your existence in a city which you consider your home. Especially when you're living from paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford the housing anymore. It's not as stupid to the majority of the inhabitants working in the service sector in Hong Kong and the fact that you see this as an 'accusation' to protest instead of a right to demonstrate is quite telling.
"Even though this law has been in the making for years and published in March of this year. Can you think of any other legitimate reason the overall population is demonstrating so fervently other than dissatisfaction about the way their current government is running their city into the ground"
Because it takes time, energy and a sense of urgency to mobilize people to action even on issues they should be concerned with?
I totally agree with you. It saddens me seeing supposedly 'free speech' western media showing only one angle of the protest, not too different from the censored media in china.
Doesn't this happen with all major cities after an increase of wealth, living standard and industrialization? People sit in their living rooms with all of their (unnecesarilly) bought stuff watching Netflix instead of investing time, money and effort in neighbourhood commerce, families and local communities. We become much more individualistic when we see money can get us all our immediate needs.
I often wonder about the use of herbal medicine instead of our artificial pharmaceutical cousins to combat inflammation.
It just seems so arbitrary, counter-productive and ironic to fill your body with more toxins to counter the inflammation achieved by overconsumption of primarily 'bad food' in the first place.
We've had these blind simulations done as well, where we have the sudden realization we're subjected to our other senses - this reliance creates an extra effort to enhance these senses as we're using them more intensely then otherwise. Also the lack of information coming from sight means you'd have brainpower to allocate elsewhere.
Short-term it felt more like noticing other smaller nuances in hearing, feeling and smelling. I guess like learning to distinguish words in a new foreign language after weeks/months of being in that foreign country.
“We are working on other epithelial organs as well to find out (whether) similar competition may underlie long-term tissue maintenance as well as organ aging,” she said."
Wonder if this will be benificial to live-expectancy in the long run.
Interesting. I wonder if an architect/civil engineer could explain what the implications would be of the application of this technology in the field of construction?
Steel structures deflect a lot more than glass and buildings are built to relatively loose tolerances. E.g. skyscrapers have flexible neoprene gaskets between glass cladding panels to allow for a few mm of structural deflection due loads caused by wind, thermal, floor loadings and construction settlement. To give a rough idea, if you take a point on the top of a 250m skyscraper it could be anywhere within a ~300mm diameter circle due to these loads.
So while I'm not 100% sure, it sounds like this technique would be more useful for product design scale stuff like phones, nano machines, miniaturised optical systems.
Valiant effort, I don't understand why the community is responding so toxic. Rather than assuming that growth will lead to this social network becoming the next corrupted Facebook, why don't we focus on the unique aspects that make this open-sourced network worthwhile to begin with?
Security - Privacy - Customisability - Compatibility with status quo. We can all agree that we lost faith in the monstrosity that Facebook has become, it doesn't mean that we can't place faith in other technology to produce a different outcome.
The code being open-source accomplishes very little in this case. It's what they do with your data after they get it that matters. Data is the new oil, and if a for-profit company can get it, rest assured they will use or sell it.
I get where you're coming from but data is the new oil in conjunction with machine learning/ big data algorithms. Thats the true evil. that part at least will be transparent with the open-source model IMO
Once they have the data, they can do whatever they want with it. They can run it through closed-source ML, they can sell it to other companies. I suppose people would know if they meddled with the news feed order, but that's about it.
Thats rather cynical... Sure!! The team of privacy and security activists backed by internet hall of fame member Phil Zimmerman who created PGP and fought the US govt are all actually closeted evil capitalists just out to get everyones data..
I agree. There's always a culture of trolling the newbie. Its negative, constructive criticism is aalso a thing. and I dont get what billinon $ companies the trolls have built to assume this superior position.
I just donated to the campaign, I think they have a solid team, and their core values are spot on like u mentioned.
I wonder how this holds up when someone takes a photo of that 'protected image'. I can imagine that if these miniscule pixel-scaled changes aren't visible to the naked eye, my crappy 6 megapixel camera will overlook it as well. If I then proceed to feed that image into my image recognition algorithm, is it still protected?