If I recall the precision is limited to by the wavelength of the light being used. If they are using X-Rays in the 0.01 nm to 10 nm range wouldn't that give them more precision then optical light in the 380 nm to 700 nm range?
The left don't think that trauma can be inherited. They think that wealth and social standing can. If your parents have money they can use their wealth to make it easier for you to have money
If your parents are poor (perhaps due to racism) then you will live in a poor area with worse schools, possibly contaminated with pollution, subject to higher insurance and basic costs.
This doesn't require magic ancestral memories it just requires ecomonics.
> The left don't think that trauma can be inherited.
Well, some of them do, as otherwise they would not have told me about it at length in conversation. Scientific literacy varies greatly within every political camp.
I don't know if you can speak for the entire left here, it's really not hard to find articles from the 2010s from otherwise fairly respectable progressive publications which are pretty confident. Usually when I've heard ideologically minded people talking about "transgenerational trauma" [1], it's from a lens of epigenics. I don't think anyone would reasonably doubt that wealth or poverty ripples through many generations, the idea which I hear touted pretty frequently (and is discussed in the article), is that past trauma from war, famine, racism, etc. has a biological mechanism which explains disparities we see today.
As others have pointed out, it's a super convenient conclusion for folks who seek to understand the world in such a way, but at least presently the data just isn't there.
(Not trying to pose this as a left/right thing - but rather "this is a thing" - and these aren't memories but rather the result of epigenetic changes to the expression of hormones and neurotransmitters that may be able to be passed from mother to child and exhibit differences in how one reacts to certain stimuli)
The safe-t-cam system calculates average speed between key points by recording trucks licence plates as they go past. However the system made use of the local time (rather then some sort of epoc time) in its time calculations so gave results showing trucks taking 3 hours to travel a distance that it would normally take 4 hours to go.
* People are worried about reprisals from their employer.
* Lots of people have a greater connection to the name that they have decided for themselves over one that was assigned to them at birth.
This is very common with tech people. Hence why Google+ had the nymwars when it tried to enforce a wallet name policy.
The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do. However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.
> The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do.
No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels.
> However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.
Can you give an example of someone they've sued for making false claims?
>No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels.
You're conflating two different things, perhaps intentionally.
Content ID, which is the additional system you're referring to, does not and cannot cause an account to be closed[1]. If content in your video is flagged by Content ID, all that happens is that the advertising revenue from your video is directed to the purported copyright holder, or the video is removed from YouTube. You do not receive any strikes and your channel is not limited in any way.
Copyright strikes[2] are a completely different kettle of fish, and Google is bound by the DMCA to immediately and without question remove the allegedly infringing content. In fact, they are expressly forbidden by law to perform any sort of investigation before making the content unavailable or they risk losing immunity under the safe harbour provisions.
And far from accepting DMCA claims "with no recourse" as you suggest, they openly publish a variety of training materials to teach users exactly how to file a counter-claim[3], and they routinely accept those counter-claims and restore the content.
This guy this whole thread is about is getting his channel shutdown "with no recourse." You still get copyright strikes after they restore your content.
The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID).
Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?
>The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID).
That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.
>Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?
From a parent comment at the start of this thread, which I've only now realised wasn't made by you, so please ignore the phrase "as you suggest" and focus on the substantive portions of my comment that address the inaccuracies in your claim.
> That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.
I never disputed any of that. I'm saying that the copyright strike system used by youtube on takedown requests:
* goes above and beyond what's required by the DMCA.
* is part of what was negotiated by Google and the labels (in addition to ContentID). The labels were concerned about people spamming their content and just uploading faster than they can takedown. This gives them a mechanism to shut down accounts for 'bad actors' who just keep uploading faster than the labels can issue takedowns.
* doesn't always remove strikes even when a counter-claim is filed because of above.
I never brought up ContentID, and my arguments are orthogonal to it's implementation and history.
It's not the copyright claims that they had a problem with (or else they'd go after any of the other false copyright claims), it's using their platform for extortion. The "I'm going to file false copyright claims unless you pay me" thing.
