Rosencrantz2
1d ago
Dude wasn't standing blocking her car, he was circling it filming, likely for evidence
Either that or because ICE has been tasked with generating tonnes of footage for White House social feeds: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2025/ice-social-media-blitz
Rosencrantz2
1d ago
I think the type of efficiency we have is efficiency at maximising what can be measured. The causality between e.g. a fun sociable office and employee retention is hard to measure. It's somewhat obvious that there is such a connection, so it gets a little funding. But there's not enough numerical evidence to put it where it should probably be to actually optimise for success.
Rosencrantz2
1d ago
Did you know "gaslighting" originally meant lighting the way for others?
Rosencrantz2
1d ago
I'll concede that some of my suggestions are at a much higher pay grade than officers on the ground or within ICE. One point I disagree with in terms of reactions to this episode though is to put much of the blame on Jonathan Ross. I guess he might well be a bad guy but I think such episodes are pretty much inevitable and the result of poor leadership decisions as well as poor training.
Rosencrantz2
1d ago
There are lots of things that could have been done differently. Many are not about what Jonathan Ross did but about not allowing situations like this to happen in the first place. Things like (and some of these will be unpalatable):
-Try not to run towards people and grab at their car door handles
-Try not to walk in front of vehicles
-Don't be scary – wear uniforms and ID
-Work to build trust in the community and communicate with residents like other police forces do
-Work in collaboration with local law enforcement and if they don't want to, take steps to understand why and what can be done differently
-Don't draw your gun unless you know what you are attempting to do with it
-Take anger management and body language training so you get less riled up by protesters
-Don't do generalised sweeps where you are at large in a neighbourhood, be more targeted
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
It doesn't imply that at all does it? Unless you think someone having committed a crime means their killing cannot have been a murder?
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
Surely in saying this you're actually agreeing that Good was acting like a teasing teenager in a school hall or a sarcastic sitcom character, rather than like a domestic terrorist?
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
If Trump just wants extra military bases, he only had to ask.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
Trump himself said: “I would like to make a deal the easy way but if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way."
Then Vance told European leaders they should "take the President of the United States very seriously."
It's disingenuous to pretend it's all been kicked up by the media.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
I think it is actually very likely to happen under the guise (?) of saying the troops are there to repel China and Russia, and thus assuage Trump's stated concerns about the island being seized.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
That's true but there's equally political capital for Trump supporters to say no one should take him seriously when he says crazy things about invading allies. The fact their leaders are trying to curry favour with them is not an adequately reassuring thought to a European worried about the world order.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
It's not that reassuring though. The EU ought to put troops from multiple countries there to create some sense of jeopardy for the US that it might not be a totally bloodless operation, even if they can't realistically stay to fight.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
Isn't a lot of how ICE is being presented also hoping for a viral moment though? The administration wants ICE to create conflict in blue states, so that they have more people to villify.
Rosencrantz2
5d ago
I don't think it's reasonable, I think it's predictable.
Rosencrantz2
5d ago
It's not that surprising she would panic though, the ICE officer strides towards her car and tries repeatedly to open her car door.
Exactly -- if you don't think insiders should leak military secrets, you also shouldn't think they can make bets based on them. It's little different than making a hint about a forthcoming operation to a journalist, which would probably be considered treasonous by many.
I find myself confused about what exactly you're asking for necessary and sufficient conditions for?
I offer these general points in the hope they'll help, as I wonder if there was some misunderstanding upthread:
-
Creating and distributing lifelike fakes with intent to deceive (AI generated or not) is likely more injurious than creating and distributing sketches, actor representations etc.
-
Creating and distributing non-lifelike images (e.g. paintings, caricatures, actor representations) cannot simply trick people, but could still change how someone is viewed, perhaps forever, and therefore still be injurious. (Every time I think of British PM John Major, I see him as his grey underpanted caricature, an example where the injury to Major is easily justified to my mind by its satirical value.)
-
Creating and distributing a convincing fake with an 'AI generated' watermark is somewhere in between these two – a lifelike fake with seemingly no intent to deceive. Because extremely lifelike, this case allows room for doubt as to whether the watermark is true, plus the very existence of the image brings the possibility of deceit firmly into play (e.g. a watermark can be easily removed).
Rosencrantz2
9d ago
Anna Wintour could perhaps find a legal case (again, I haven't seen it). She's an adult. But imagine a film that character-assassinates a real, non-famous 13 year old. There's no reason anyone would make such a film, but if they did it would be outrageous bullying to the point where I'd think there should indeed be legal consequences.
Rosencrantz2
10d ago
Putting images in people's heads is one aspect of the injury done. In the case of particularly life-like sexual images, it may make people look at someone differently, even if they don't want to. Deceiving people about whether someone actually posed for the pics is another aspect. Injuries compound.
I don't see the need to have a quickly describable mental model here, as there are overlapping questions of harm, consent, reputation and victimisation at play in this story and making all the relevant distinctions would require an essay.
To your question though, I do indeed think that "putting unfavorable images in people's heads" in fiction such as in The Devil Wears Prada (I haven't seen it) may be injurious. It may also be satire, or a truthful depiction (and these categories aren't mutually exclusive).
Whether that's bad luck for the target or deserving of punishment/damages depends on a host of details.
Rosencrantz2
10d ago
Not really, as watermarks don't mean all that much, and don't prevent a realistic-seeming image of a real person from being lodged in viewers' minds.
If it was a cartoon version of a nude and therefore manifestly not real, there would be reduced controversy (though there'd still be some, especially if a large corporation assisted in helping a boy create it).
Rosencrantz2
11d ago
Just like Devil Wears Prada is a fictional work that is nevertheless unmistakably about Anna Wintour.
This seems totally different because no one could mistake it for real footage of Anna Wintour, whereas the whole reason the AI-generated image controversy is a thing now is that there is no longer any (easy) way to tell if an image is fake or not.
Rosencrantz2
23d ago
I am just saying I think people would crowd-source every way it mighty possibly be fake or not as bad as it looks, until a response emerges that works well enough for enough of his supporters.
I do acknowledge that if we take this example 'to infinity' and keep stipulating a bunch of extra facts such as:
-the girl is very obviously underage -she comes forward and testifies -other evidence comes out making it highly likely Trump is guilty -he cannot make a refutation stick
Then yeah, he would lose support, and this could snowball to the point where the original video qualifies as a 'kill shot'. I don't think he is literally bullet proof (any more than a bullet proof vest is, when tested to infinity).
Rosencrantz2
24d ago
I think Quantumfreakonomics' model of the world has been proved accurate so far. If you described the 'grab em by the pussy' video to 1,000 people before it was leaked and asked them what effect it would have on his campaign, most would have surely have guessed it would be terminal. But a whole process of justification and exculpation follows that is not that easy to imagine ahead of the event. Supposing Trump raped a 14 year old on tape, as you say, people would say it's AI ... they'd think it was out of context roleplay ... they'd say she lied about her age ... they'd think it was invasion of privacy or propaganda and refuse to watch ... they'd think Trump has let himself down again, but on a national level he's still a force for good etc. I don't think we can be confident it would bring him down at all, although it's impossible to run this experiment so I suppose we'll never know unless it happens.
Rosencrantz2
27d ago
But did the dead soldiers all screw up, or is the shitty thing about being a soldier that you are often put in situations that personal ability or initiative simply cannot get you out of?
It feels like a political attack ad made by a rival car company.
More options
Context Copy link