You’re right, cameras can be tricked. As Descartes pointed out there’s very little we can truly be sure of, besides that we ourselves exist. And I think deepfakes are going to be a pretty challenging development in being confident about lots of things.

I could imagine something like photographers with a news agency using cameras that generate cryptographically signed photos, to ward off claims that newsworthy events are fake. It would place a higher burden on naysayers, and it would also become a story in itself if it could be shown that a signed photo had been faked. It would become a cause for further investigation, it would threaten a news agency’s reputation.

Going further I think one way we might trust people we aren’t personally standing in front of would be a cryptographic circle of trust. I “sign” that I know and trust my close circle of friends and they all do the same. When someone posts something online, I could see “oh, this person is a second degree connection, that seems fairly likely to be true” vs “this is a really crazy story if true, but I have no second or third or fourth degree connections with them, needs further investigation.”

I’m not saying any of this will happen, just it’s potentially a way to deal with uncertainty from AI content.

Well as I said, I think there’s a collection of things we already use for judging what’s true, this would just be one more tool.

A cryptographic signature (in the original sense, not just the Bitcoin sense) means that only someone who possesses a certain digital key is able to sign something. In the case of a digitally signed photo, it verifies “hey I, key holder, am signing this file”. And if the file is edited, the signed document won’t match the tampered version.

Is it possible someone could hack and steal such a key? Yes. We see this with certificates for websites, where some bad actor is able to impersonate a trusted website. (And of course when NFT holders get their apes stolen)

But if something like that happened it’s a cause for investigation, and it leaves a trail which authorities could look into. Not perfect, but right now there’s not even a starting point for “did this image come from somewhere real?”

In this case, digitally signing an image verifies that the image was generated by a specific camera (not just any camera of that brand) and that the image generated by that camera looks such and such a way. If anyone further edits the image the hash won’t match the one from the signature, so it will be apparent it was tampered with.

What it can’t do is tell you if someone pasted a printout of some false image over the lens, or in some other sophisticated way presented a doctored scene to the camera. But there’s nothing preventing us from doing that today.

The question was about deepfakes right? So this is one tool to address that, but certainly not the only one the legal system would want to use.

Leica has one camera that does this, and others are working on them. Just posted this link in another comment

I think other answers here are more essential - chain of custody, corroborating evidence, etc.

That said, Leica has released a camera that digitally signs its images, and other manufacturers are working on similar things. That will allow people to verify whether the image is original or has been edited. From what I understand Leica has some scheme where you can sign images when you update them too, so there’s a whole chain of documentation. Here’s a brief article

I’m very pleased. I have a 2023 Bolt.

For us there was no way we’d get one without a home charger. It’s great because every day you wake up and it’s like a full tank of gas.

My wife still has a gas car and we bought the electric planning that we’d still use the gas one for road trips. The Bolt in particular doesn’t have super fast charging (probably like 45 minutes to get to 80% using a fast charger) so if we didn’t have the second car that might be my one concern.

My wife wasn’t sold when we got it, but the electric was for me so we went ahead. Now she likes it. I’m banking on better EV options being available when we get our next car but I think it will be electric too.

For reciprocal holidays like Christmas, giving cash maybe gets a little too close to exposing the pointlessness. I give you cash, then you give me cash, what are we doing here? And what if I gave you less than you gave me?

A gift card does indicate I thought a little bit about what the recipient might like, even if I know it would be impractical for me to make a choice on the recipient’s behalf, or that my gift wouldn’t be sufficient to cover a typical purchase in whole. (Thinking like gaming systems, expensive handbags etc)

All that said, I generally agree, I’m not crazy about gift cards.

Nothing because I would punch the nerd bookseller and take the book rather than answer a riddle

Congrats on reaching 91!

Lol I can’t wait to hear everyone recite their respective pledges at the same time

Yes and

I wouldn’t listen to this advice, personally. Driving with an expired license is more black and white than speeding. With speeding could have been other cars around that the radar was picking up, the radar might not have been calibrated recently, the cop might decide it’s not worth showing up.

I’ve pleaded not guilty to several speeding tickets and got some dismissed and some reduced (I lived in a rural area as a college student and they made a lot of money that way)

One time my sister got a ticket and asked me the process to expect when you plead not guilty so I told her - but I didn’t know she got the ticket in a school zone. When she got there the cop got up on the stand and ran through his certification to operate the radar and when it was last inspected and they asked her how she could explain that she could possibly be not guilty and she got whatever the big fee was. (Which I assume she would have had to pay anyways but without the embarrassment)

It’s not in dispute that your license is expired, and I would think hard to dispute that you got pulled over while driving. Given those two facts I don’t see an advantage to pleading not guilty, you might just annoy the judge, which decreases likelihood of lenience.

Like others said. you’re not going to jail. You’ll be ok. You’ll get a fine and maybe points on your license.

I wouldn’t say you’re housing insecure unless that’s true.

When your id says you’re 100 and you look 21 it’s going to cause issues.

You want to get away from ever needing an ID. The wealth you gain from compounding interest should allow you to hire accounting experts who will handle your transactions and hide your wealth among shell companies. I think once or twice you could go with the “this is my child, me Jr” routine, but eventually you need to have some kind of emissary who conducts business on your behalf while you cycle through fraudulent ids and move around every 20-30 years.

I remember seeing some of this stuff when it came out and thinking “why are they doing this?” A bunch of it I never heard of, and a handful I wish had seen success (Firefox OS). Not sure how this counts as a hit piece, it didn’t seem mean spirited and definitely didn’t seem to be misrepresenting anything.

Late one evening a boy and his father were accosted by a mugger. The traumatic moment unlocked some kind of latent power within the boy. Frantically he tried to intervene, skin touched skin, and the assailant’s blood turned to wine, fatal. But not before the cretin dealt a terminal blow to the father. And that night that boy became the hero we all know, Jesus Christ.

If you run your own server (like a country would in this case) you’re the one deciding whether things are allowed to be posted. Of course that doesn’t stop other people from blocking you. But the whole idea is as a sovereign country a private corporation shouldn’t have a say over which posts are seen.

I’ve seen a few people shit talk discord without expanding, so I will: it’s a proprietary “public space” that’s not web searchable. I don’t mind something like a community/subreddit oriented around a physical place, but I try to avoid supporting spaces that are owned by private capital. Of course that’s nearly impossible, but there are degrees of enclosure.

I remember watching them and the conversation about them. But that’s different than proof and admission that sentient alien life exists. It’s one thing to suspect while also having other possible explanations (could be secret tech that we or adversary nations developed, could be sensor errors or optical illusions) and another for the president to be like “I want you to meet ambassador Xlurg”