submitted 2 months ago by [A] to c/mop
💯 1
 

all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • 64 comments in c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 124 points 2 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago (12 children)

    They probably have a machine that trawls the internet for mentions of itself, then extracts the IP of whoever posted them, builds a profile on their entire web activity, links it to all the personally identifiable information that can be found on them online, then hacks into their devices and starts recording them through their own camera, mic, wifi, etc., and possibly mails them a brand new pager with custom modifications.

    So yeah, can't really blame the OOP for censoring the acronym...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Yeah but even google lens can understand what's written, imagine if their tech couldn't lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Scanning every jpeg on the internet with OCR would require far more compute than simply doing a regex for plaintext.

    Also that white line can really fuck with most lightweight OCRs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah but we are following their theory so i guess we just ignore that for now (I know it's stupid and would take so much processing power)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    I mean maybe they do have enough compute to run OCR with character-correction on every image format file on the internet. If we're just speculating then we might as well speculate about that.

    But like, seatbelts don't prevent every death. We still wear them though, because the reduction of risk is still significant.

    The fact is, catching an acronym appearing in images requires a much larger funnel than catching it in plaintext. And catching it with a white line through it on those images requires a larger funnel than without.

    It reduces the attack surface. Maybe there's still an attack surface, but if it's much smaller then it's still worth it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    You may aswell just censor it better, as said, Google's OCR can easly detect it (i just tested lmao) it wouldn't be hard at all for them to get the OCR text and scan for acronyms if they have enough resources

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Yeah but the point is that trawling the entire internet and scanning every single image with OCR would take way more compute than just scanning particular images on demand which is what happens when you test it on google.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, but drawing a thin white line across a jpeg wouldn't stop that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I'll just copy/paste my reply to a different comment:

    Scanning every jpeg on the internet with OCR would require far more compute than simply doing a regex for plaintext.

    Also that white line can really fuck with most lightweight OCRs

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 73 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Also more ethical than most US police departments.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Really? We have to censor IDF now?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 36 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    It was already like this when I found it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Not sure why people are downvoting this explaination. OP saw a thing online they wanted to share. So they shared it as they found it. If someone is so upset that they need to downvote, go find the creator of the image, who censored it, and go downvote them instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I will downvote posts that contain the censoring ragebait wherever they're posted actually

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago

    Uncensor that shit asap

  • source
  • [–] 55 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Predators are warriors. The IDF and current Israeli administration is pretty fundamentally driven by fear.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I think you misspelled the word "hate".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    They hate what they fear. Deep down they’re all cowards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Whilst fear seems to be used to induce hate in many (just listen to the fables of "we need to protect ourselves" coming from the politicians there), I'm pretty sure others just directly hate without the need to be led there through fear.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    It's fear. I don't think they're lying about why they are doing this, as absurd as it seems. They (being the administration, just to be clear) believe that they must wipe out Islam (and I guess Christianity) to prevent being genocided themselves. It's a weird outcome of the Nazi genocide, that the attitude in Israel is basically "it wouldn't have happened if I were there", but the corollary to that is "because I'd do it to everyone else".

    That's not how we live. I can't plan to kill my neighbour because I'm reasoning that they're planning to kill me (because I'm planning to kill them, after all). That's insane.

    Btw, that's also the Nazi train of thought. That's what "the great replacement" theory is about, that Jews are planning to dilute the white race or whatever, and the only solution is genocide. It's a concocted fear.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Can't tell from the censor—does it say IDF or US police officer when dealing black children?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    IDF sees a child and shoots. The gun is not necessary

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    You'll see them respond two ways. Either they will argue a child can pull a trigger the same as an adult or that a child today is a soldier tomorrow. Ultimately they see them like any perpetrator of any genocide sees their victim, as a disease. Mental separation is really the only way people can cause harm to one another. We don't kill father's with children in war, we kill the enemy. The language around every genocide essentially revolves around the other group being a disease. They aren't men, women, and children, they are rats or cockroaches or something to that effect.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Predator would have to murder them, their mother, their relatives, and then take photos in the mother's lingerie to be the kind of asshole we've seen posted online.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Was that ever in question? Yautja care about honor.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    this belongs in Lemmy Noshitsherlockpost

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'm at a crossroads. I want to upvote for the message, but the self-censorship text scribbles can fuck right off.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Well not surprised IDF thinks children pose a threat. You have to be a special type of coward to kill children.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    But many in the IDF are the type of predators who target children.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago
    [–] 6 points 2 months ago*

    Omg this isn't a shitpost wtf

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Is this a shit post? Like it made me chuckle and it's political. Either way GJ

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    I'm not sure it's ethics so much as survival.

    Sure, the predator COULD kill the harmless child, but that wastes time that could be spent hunting actual threats.

    Lets see how predator handles the kid AFTER all threats have been eliminated.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Eh the yautja have a codex they have to adhere to and for most it is considered cannon that it's not ok to kill children or unarmed ppl https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Yautja_Honor_Code

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Wait......that's a huge flaw.

    So basically the best way to kill preditors is with wooden spears. They won't see it as being armed, but absolutely it could kill one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago

    Recycled meme.

    Also kinda dumb. There has been an effort made to make toy guns easily recognizable as toys because there's always issues when people are running around that appear to be armed.

    We know that you it's a good thing to make it easily identifiable who is armed and who is not. So why doesn't Hamas wear uniforms in combat to reduce civilian casualties? We see them wearing uniforms in their propaganda videos and when they're out intimidating the local Palestinian population to maintain power. They have uniforms, but they don't wear them in combat when it would prevent civilians from being targeted.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago

    Where the bean at?

  • source