I think we watch too much entertainment and believe too many corporate and government lies about how good text and image recognition software is. And to think that your data should be examined after being sent, which this implies, is the height of fuckwittery.
This is idiotic. Especially when there are already known problems.
Why these particular kinds of errors even? Why continue using it after problems are exposed? Why even transition to production use in the first place when it should be running only to check it against the existing system?
Yes this happens as SOP most everywhere, and software tends to follow the good-enough model (just barely, or not really, apparently counts also), but seriously in mission-critical infrastructure...
Ignorance is exactly why specific jury instructions would be helpful. In this case it is stressing the believing testimony in whole or in part bit because of the way the system is geared, and the tendency of people to accept that the prosecution is right no matter how bad they or their witnesses look, or just how little evidence they have.
So making the system remind people not only of their rights and duties but their options, should be a good thing.
Should people do better anyway? Sure, but that isn't how people are, really, and less so in some cultures, regardless as to what ideals were theoretically behind their founding.
No, Trump is a libel defamation lawsuit nut who wants to change those laws. The end result of which would be easier to win lawsuits for people who think they are somehow wronged by facts being mentioned somewhere, and the disappearing of those facts, frequently with a fair amount of collateral disappearing.
What is comical is the the repeated claims of anything certain people don't like (or understand) being "the left" and the attempt to disparage some things by doing so. (And this is actually what argumentum ad hominem is. Label person making statement as being something one can use as a disparagement and therefore whatever they said is not worth considering. Whereas calling someone an idiot while pointing out the flaws in their position is not.)
I'm pretty sure that anyone relevant who talks about "going through proper channels" does, in fact, know exactly what they are talking about. I am fairly certain also that many, if not most, of your average citizens who make that same argument know what it means also.
You mean with the guy and his supporter who have been claiming the election is rigged and hacked all along? Yeah, if he lost, i am sure things would be even more hilarious than they are now.
It doesn't matter. All digital voting should be checked against paper, period. It should have been normal part of the process for quite a few presidential cycles by now, never mind all the others. Like since the first awful e-voting machines hit the market. This isn't news, it just bears repeating after an election cycle when a few more people might actually pay attention for a few more seconds.
Huh. I don't see anything in Obama's statement particularly justifying control, not to say that he may not fall on that side.
Control is a bigger threat to democracy than fake news. But fake news, more generally bullshit in its wider context, certainly is a threat to democracy. I see nothing controversial about that. But picking on fake news specifically doesn't even rise to the sense (which is like, none) of legislating specifically against phoning/texting while driving.
The sad thing is that i found it rather believable that the initial report could be describing something entirely accurate as seen, or someone else outside abusing the system. The problem is that government agencies and general copyright trolls have set the whole thing into the Poe's Law Zone.
I suppose the upside is as law enfarcement generally initiates actual disruption, they can have disruption anywhere, abuse demonstrators, plus charge them with yet another crime.
I pretty much smell DAPL here, more so than Starbucks, but yeah. It's already like the weekend-jihadi zone Afghanistan was with Al Qaeda for random LEOs from all over, assaulting people on land they have no jurisdiction over. The perfect excuse for another ridiculous and draconian (and probably selectively enforced) law. What could be better?