Readit NewsThings like "panics on certain content" like [1] or [2] are "security bugs" now. By that standard anything that fixes a potential panic is a "security bug". I've probably fixed hundreds if not thousands of "security bugs" in my career by that standard.
Barely qualifies as a "security bug" yet it's rated as "6.2 Moderate" and "7.5 HIGH". To say nothing of gazillion "high severity" "regular expression DoS" nonsense and whatnot.
And the worst part is all of this makes it so much harder to find actual high-severity issues. It's not harmless spam.
[1]: https://github.com/gomarkdown/markdown/security/advisories/G...
Ackshually...
Security is typically(*) classified as CIA: Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability. Denial of Service is an attack against Availability... so yeah, that kind of is inherently a security bug.
That law has been replaced and you now get copyright automatically.
Sounds like you could accidentally make someone else's art public domain by forgetting to include them on the copyright page...
edit well, perhaps that's part of the reason the copyright laws were updated.
Matchmaking is designed so that you win roughly 50% of the time (except for the very top), no matter how well you play. If you focus on playing better it's going to be a treadmill by design. OTOH some people accept that you're going to lose 50% of matches anyway, chill and keep to lower ELO.
My point is that even if we're willing to trade accuracy for "fairness", it's not possible for any classifier to satisfy both those definitions of fairness. By returning to human judgment they've obfuscated that problem but not solved it.
That illustrates that the given definition cannot hold universally, irrespective of what classifier you dream up. Unless your classifier is not independent from the base rate - that is, a classifier that gets more lenient if there's more fraud in the group. That seems undesirable when considering fairness as a goal.
A lot of people are trying to make a living painting landscapes with the same painting for dummies style that Ross used (not invented). It seems counterproductive to give money to speculators for an unremarkable painting of a dead man when you can spend a fraction of that to buy a similar decorative painting and contribute to the income of someone who actually worked and spent time on it.
Related: if you feel this style of painting is so unremarkable, why are you advocating for others to support knock-offs? To use an analogy: I have zero interest in buying a Louis Vuitton handbag - but my interest in buying one of the far cheaper knockoffs you can get at touristy places from shady peddlers is a lot lower than that.
I paint myself occasionally some similarly uninspired stuff, and bar 2 painting I hung in the living room and corridor, I throw them away (or rather reuse the canvas) because I don't even consider them art but rather artisanal decorative items.
2 thousand can get you much more interesting paintings. There are many talented but barely known artists anywhere in the world waiting for you. You just have to visit galleries whenever you are visiting a town.
I mean, you're basically arguing about taste... Bob Ross was a lot more famous than most other artists, not in the least because many people liked what he produced.
The website sends the verification function to the user device. The user device then returns a proof that it knows an input that the verification function accepts.
The verification function should include a digital signature check.
This is generally possible already with SSI based credentials, including standards created by W3C.
Eg. Yivy: https://docs.yivi.app/technical-overview/