I am guaranteed to die at some point. Yet (at least in Germany) I can go to a private insurance company, agree to pay a few euros each month and in return they pay out 10000€ when I die to cover my funeral, no questions about cause of death asked. It's an insurance that is guaranteed to pay out, but it still insures against uncertainty because I don't know when I will die.
Flood insurance is fundamentally the same, the payouts are just not well spread, requiring a large geographically diverse insurance company.
In order for the insurance company to pay you 10,000 euros when you die, they have to collect that much from you plus their operating expenses minus the investment gains expected over your expected lifetime. This is whole life insurance, and it's usually a better idea to stick the money into index funds and avoid paying the insurance company for their operating expenses.
And we're not talking about a 10,000 euro loss here, when a home gets flooded, the loss is likely six figures or more since houses aren't cheap. Most people can't afford insurance for a likely loss of $100,000.
There are many large geographically diverse insurance companies, and there is a reason all of them stay away from flood insurance. There's no buyer for the amount of premium they would have to charge.
>have no reason to be concerned about governments ...
Many aren't, but everyone has reason to.
Governments change. Telling your government your religion in 1920s Germany was harmless, in 1940 many would have preferred if the government didn't have their religion on file.
Circumstances change to. In 1920 being a Japanese in the US wasn't special. After Perl Harbor came the internment camps.
And then there's the mundane stuff. You protest a government policy, someone in the government takes issue and tries to put some of these annoying people in jail.
Given that you don't know when you might become an enemy of the state it's always a good idea to keep the power of the state over its citizens in check.
Determining whether anybody is in the car doesn't sound trivial beyond the driver seat. The seatbelt warnings are triggered by weight, but people frequently store stuff on their seats, and occasionally that stuff has a weight plausible for a human
That would lead to far more accidents where people leave kids or animals alone in a car in direct sunlight, assuming the AC will keep them cool. But as they step away from the vehicle, the engine and AC turn off, leaving anyone in the car to die from heat stroke.
Those people don't need to take the car key with them, but with a keyless car you don't think about the key (that's the entire point of keyless cars). The key is just one of many things in your pockets.
Isn't keeping a car running with children inside incredibly dangerous? What if they release the breaks or shift to drive? I'd think taking the child with you should be safer than leaving them in a running car.
For animals that's different of course. But wouldn't an override be enough?
When I was a kid, I was at my babysitter's house waiting to be picked up by my parents. Another kid's parent showed up, parked her car, and put one of her kids in the front seat. Her other kid ran in the house, and she ran after him. The first kid let the e-brake off, and the car went rolling down the driveway and hit a tree. It didn't roll very fast, so there was no damage and nobody was hurt. But the mom was freaked out as she came back out 10 seconds later and saw the car rolling away...
This was in the late 80s. The car wasn't running. It was a mechanical e-brake. I know a lot of cars have electronic parking brakes now, but most probably still don't.
On another note, I can't think of a single car that will let you take it out of Park without a foot on the brake, or without using an override.
Sure, sending spam that I can opt out of isn't the worst thing they can do. But if you are selling security products I expect better morals than that. This is yubico squandering trust in exchange for sending a few more marketing emails.
Considering legislation: I live in Germany. Over here unsolicited marketing mail (snail mail) addressed to me is illegal. I fully support legislation that extends the same standard to email (and I'm pretty sure yubico's behaviour is illegal here). It's waisting my time and computing resources for somebody else's gain (and that on a massive scale: if you waste just one minute each from a million people, that's two full years wasted)
> I fully support legislation that extends the same standard to email
Has already happened. Sending unsolicited marketing via email is illegal in Germany. For some light reading I can recommend this lawyers blog who blogs about his lawsuits against spammers https://www.kanzlei-hoenig.de/search/Spam/
You can request that the sender produces a protocol of your opt-in. That’s usually the best route as a layperson since it demonstrates that you know your rights, carries no risk since no accusations are leveled and is a red flag for any lawyers on the other end. I have a link to a good sample text somewhere but can’t find it right now.
Technological solutions will help, but software to spot fake videos will lead to an arms race between video creation and video classification.
The more promising angle is imho the society angle. Most people view their memory as the best source of truth, when in reality it's well established in psychology that our memory is incredibly unreliable. Previously this was mostly a problem for the justice system, now we risk entire nations being gaslighted. What we should be doing is trusting our written word, not our memory. Basically writing diaries and keeping newsletter articles, and checking both from time to time to keep wrong memories from manifesting
I don't think people see enough with regards to the situations they are called to judge, so I see local politics of a small town barely scaling okay that way. People do trust their memories, but I don't think journalling is going to improve civic judgment that much.
Most of the issues discussed in the presidential elections are way beyond personal observation. Are we to throw our votes to the wind since it falls outside our experience?
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the technology to detect fake video in fact part of the process of generating it? I was under the impression that these deep fakes used an adversarial network, thus, the better the detection of fakes, the better quality of the generated fakes.
Yes, but in order to be useful for training, the fake detection algorithm has to be reasonably performant. Performance is less of an issue if you just want to test if one video is fake.
Unless of course the attacker has vastly more computational power than the person trying to detect the fake
>The press would absolutely hate that, and rightfully so.
Not only the press. Whoever is making the decision what's real is the ultimate censor and can decide which reality the voting public sees.
Of course convincing, largely circulated fakes have a similar effect. But in a largely unregulated scenario it will at least be possible to notice that conflicting versions exist
Would also need to distinguish between fake and parody too. For organizations like The Onion, will they create 'deep-fake' parody videos. Will they be allowed to?
Since they can create parody news and images, I'm inclined to believe yes.
Copying from Google Maps would violate copyright. Ideally you visit the place in question and correct them in OSM based on your observations. There are also some satellite maps that are licensed for use as OSM source (and that are often integrated in OSM editors)
In the USA, yes there is clear precedent saying that. But other places (e.g. UK) don't have this case, so it's not so clear. EU law has created [sui generis] "database right", which is is like copyright for a collection of facts.
OSM is not a place to explore the grey areas of international copyright law.
> Facts like street addresses are not copyrightable.
Google says it is[0]. It might be true because when you get street address from Google, you are also getting the mark on the map for the location. Whether it's true legally or not, it's better to stay away from their data. That is, if you use Google maps, you agree their terms and thus you are not allowed to copy the data.
And btw, I have seen (possibly deliberate) mistakes in street address markers in Bing maps (which is the recommended map[1] to follow for Open street map editors). So don't think that they won't find you if you copy their data).
Microsoft has generously provided permission and server resources for use of Bing Aerial Imagery since 2010, but that's different than their map product.
Lately there's a bunch more imagery providers that give permission for use in OSM. Mapbox, Digital Globe and ESRI all provide imagery layers with global coverage. There's also quite some government imagery available, OSM editors will show them as an option in the areas they cover, so be sure to check when editing.
Violating T&Cs is not the same as copyright infringement. What you linked to are terms for the API, the Google Maps/Google Earth Additional Terms of Service [0] would be the more relevant document. But again, violating Google's Terms is not the same as copyright infringement.
I don't know whether Bing Maps uses trap streets [1] or not.
An individual fact isn't copyrightable, a collection of facts can be. Details vary by jurisdiction, but in an international project like OSM you have to comply with the strictest jurisdiction
The address alone is a single fact, but its context on a map that allows it to be found is a collection of facts
As an OSM contributor in the UK myself and my peers only use clean-room data ( firsthand visit ) or data from public sources ( planning applications etc )
db01 is taking it into meaninglessness. Is that running PostgreSQL, Redis or MongoDB? Was Redis on db05 or cache01? That's not far from naming them server01, server02, etc.
sql01 is good if you only use sql abstraction layers, otherwise you probably even want postgres01 and mysql01. Or even postgres-olap01 and postgres-oltp01, if that's what you do.
Satellites and space stations are neither aerodynamic nor dense. If anything survives reentry, drag will slow it down until it might still damage a regular building but will do nothing to an impact resistant concrete dome designed to resist plane crashes.
A big meteor could punch through both the concrete dome and the underlying steel containment. If that happens, we will probably be glad it hit the reactor and not nearby New York City. As long the meteor doesn't replace the steel containment structure with a crater but merely damages it (after obliterating the dome), we have at worst a second Fukushima. What made Chernobyl so bad was that the cooling water caused a giant steam explosion, carrying radioactive material high into the atmosphere. That failure mode is impossible in any reactor operated today.
Flood insurance is fundamentally the same, the payouts are just not well spread, requiring a large geographically diverse insurance company.