It wins in the sense that you still have access to the software and code, and you have the option to either hire someone new to maintain it or switch to something else. Closed source proprietary software only leaves you with the latter choice.
An important component of the cost to consider is how long we expect a company to support a piece of software, and how much it would cost to migrate everything when they drop support. FOSS wins in this regard, especially if you can get a support contact with the devs.
This needs to have multiple levels of “openness” to distinguish between having access to the code, the dataset, a documented training procedure, and the final weights. I wouldn’t consider it fully open unless these are all available, but I still appreciate getting something over nothing, and I think that should be encouraged.
Shit takes time bro. We’re all trying not to starve to death here.
And if they do find it, it’ll all be kept hush hush, they’ll force an update on everyone with no explanation, some people will do everything in their power to refuse because they need to keep their legacy software running, and the exploit stays alive in the wild.
If you disagree with the article, I’d like to see something a bit more substantiated than “it’s bad”.
Punitive justice may not make sense without free will, but restorative and preventative justice still does.
I’ve always just used a bigger plate/bowl to cover things. They’re much easier to clean than any plastic lid.
The article focuses on the weight/BMI of their subjects and how going too high leads to increased risk of many other health problems. Problematic snacks they list include cookies, cakes, pies, crisps, breakfast cereal.
Criticism: I have the same issue with the way this work is presented as I usually do when this topic comes up, and it’s that there’s no such thing as an inherently (un)healthy meal/snack. It’s your diet as a whole that your body responds to, and dietary needs differ from one person to the next. For example, (considering only Calories since that’s the focus of the article) if you consume too much during the day, that’s not solely the fault of the cookie. Maybe you had a “healthy” salad for lunch, but if you reduced the amount of dressing used, that cookie would fit in perfectly fine.
I don’t mean to say that you would be incapable of imagining each of the details of a piece. What I mean is that at any given moment, you’re only paying attention to a small part of the piece while your brain fills in the rest with an approximation so it appears as if you hear the whole thing at once.
I feel like this could just be a result of your brain being very good at fooling you into thinking you perceive something when you don’t. It’s kind of like how you can “see” a huge landscape in very fine details, but really the only part you actually see well is the centre of your visual field.
Interesting read, but where’s the science?
If it did, it didn’t enforce uniqueness (I know this because I’ve had multiple accounts and only one phone), so you could just as easily use a temporary phone number.
Legitimate questions, but why would it be worse for VPN companies?
The way I see it, I have no way of verifying the answers to any of these regardless of whether it’s an ISP or a VPN, but I do know that VPNs have a greater incentive to provide you with proper privacy because if they were found to fail at this, the entire business dies. ISPs run no such risk, especially since many of them are effectively monopolies.
You can make accounts with temporary emails through VPN on any website. This isn’t something unique to, or even new to Twitter.
I’d be more willing to trust a VPN company with this data than an ISP. The former’s entire business hinges on providing privacy to their customers while the latter can just sell your data to whoever they want and most people wouldn’t bat an eye.
The mess of webs they leave behind and how you constantly have to pay attention to every surface you put weight on lest you end up with a splotch of spider guts to clean up.