It’s also incredibly ironic how they state

It’s somewhere in the middle with good usefulness and utility like any other tool as long as it’s used properly. Like any other tool.

Then complain about “dumb autocorrect”. Like any other tool, when wielded incorrectly, it’s not gonna work lol.

You can also edit the list and make it so it doesn’t do it anymore either…

Autocorrect is only as smart as the one using it.

That’s good to know, I just didn’t know the context of the 127, and it’s not the same, so that good to know.

Cheers mate.

Ah on my end, both are the same companies IP provider and they are different modem manufacturers. Both were used to log into the modem to change settings.

Does each provider have their own? Most of the ones I’ve had your local network was 192.168.0.1, but my recent one is 10.0.0.1.

It’s all just modem access I’m guessing in the end and they can choose mostly what they want?

Had a month long job, was a laborer and me. We had to buck apart an absolutely ungodly amount of oversea shipping crates for an industrial plastic printer.

Was actually kind zen to just put ear protection on and go to town on them until the gas went out.

The carbon dioxide won’t leave the hose before you suck it back in expecting oxygen.

What about situations that are different under observation than not? It doesn’t actually cover every single case. No single rule ever COULD.

deleted by creator

Hopefully the frosting is the correct way and only the person inside could be doing it.

Right before hitting begin the keyword. If you can stop before hitting yes that’s ideal, but in situations where it jumps out and you can’t react. Braking during impact is the worst thing you can do.

If you think I’m saying to line it up and accelerate for 200meters, I dont know what to say about that,

Conditions matter and your reaction should always be for the worst possible scenario (moose and snow), braking removes your ability to maneuver as well, and locking the brakes up which will almost always happen when you panic break, would be the worst scenario. If there’s snow or rain, braking again is right out.

If it jumps out and you can’t do anything but brake, you shouldn’t do that, you grip the wheel and maintain speed, and if you can punch the gas for the hood raise. But people panic and can’t think. So maintain speed, don’t panic and lock your brakes up.

Same for a moose? Speed up so you clear it before gravity caves your car roof.

You maintain speed, you can’t maneuver well if braking, and as stated your hood dips while braking too which can cause worse issues.

Braking dips the hood making it easier for the deer to go into the windshield. You should actually speed up right before hitting to make your hood go up and make it hopefully go under or better stay in the grill.

No, but it seems like you’re assuming they would look at this sandboxed by itself…? Of course there is more than one data point to look at, when you uploaded the image would noted, so even if you uploaded an image with older exif data, so what? The original poster would still have the original image, and the original image would have scraped and documented when it was hosted. So you host the image with fake data later, and it compares the two and sees that your fake one was posted 6 months later, it gets flagged like it should. And the original owner can claim authenticity.

Metadata provides a trail and can be used with other data points to show authenticity when a bad actor appears for your image.

You are apparently assuming to be looking at a single images exif data to determine what? Obviously they would use every image that looks similar or matches identical and use exif data to find the real one. As well as other mentioned methods.

The only vector point is newly created images that haven’t been digitally signed, anything digitally signed can be verified as new, unless you go to extreme lengths to fake and image and than somehow recapture it with a digitally signed camera without it being detected fake by other methods….

Removed by mod

….

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/09/google-seeks-authenticity-in-the-age-of-ai-with-new-content-labeling-system/

Its literally the method that’s used…

A group of tech companies created the C2PA system beginning in 2019 in an attempt to combat misleading, realistic synthetic media online. As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent and realistic, experts have worried that it may be difficult for users to determine the authenticity of images they encounter. The C2PA standard creates a digital trail for content, backed by an online signing authority, that includes metadata information about where images originate and how they’ve been modifie

For 5 fucking years already….

Okay, what does an image metadata and advertising have to do with each other…? I’m not here for conspiracy theories, I’m here to have a discussion, which you clearly can’t do.

You claim I don’t know much… I stated as much… yet you don’t know how images are verified …? The fuck…? Go off on whatever tangent you want, but exit data is the only way to determine if a photo is legitimate… yes it can be faked… congrats for pointing that out and only that this entire time… even though I already mentioned that…

What’s your point dude? Seriously I’m blocking you if you can’t have a discussion. Proof of ownership and detecting fakes are two mutually inclusive things, they can both be used to help the others legitimacy, why are you only looking at this from one angle here? Exif is for ownership, the methods in the comment I responded to are for other things. I mentioned THIS previously as well….

So you gonna address what’s identifiable about a phone… or are you just gonna ignore this and scream about the one thing we know can prove authenticity of an image? I’ve addressed the can be faked… you gonna address any of my points…?

I said I had a little knowledge, do you have a point here or you just gonna scream that exif data can be faked? I was trying to have a civil conversation about this.

If there’s an image with two different exifs data, this will flag it, problem solved, what’s your issue…? Isn’t that the point? Flag fake images…?

Meta data creates a string, if you want to claim ownership of an image and I show an image with earlier metadata, who’s is the real one? Yes it can be faked, but it can also be traced. Thats not a reason to not do something, the hell? That’s like suggesting you can’t police murders because someone can fake a murder.

What is identifiable about the type of phone you have…? Anyone that sees you in public has that information lmfao, there’s far more “fingerprintable” data in the exif than the device that anyone can visually see you have…… that’s the strangest privacy angle I’ve seen and you’re talking like it’s this big huge issue? I’ve asked you to explain and you haven’t, why is this?

And without that exif data you can’t prove any of that… you realize this… yeah…?

What is your point here? That you’re concerned that you might have someone knowing your phone? You realize you can scrub that information yourself if you’re not worried about proving authenticity…? Yeah…?

You can use metadata to prove an image is real, you can’t prove something is real without it, so it’s the only current option. It tells you a lot, you just don’t want people to know it apparently, but that doesn’t change it can be used to legitimatize an image.

What’s disgusting about knowing if an image was taken on a Sony dslr, and Android or an iPhone? And entitled…? This is so you can prove your image is real? The hell you talking about here?