> The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in a California federal court, said Sun remains “an ardent supporter of President Trump and the Trump family,” but that World Liberty’s managers “see the project as a golden opportunity to leverage the Trump brand to profit through fraud.”
A pattern echoed throughout history: "If only [The Tsar / The Fuhrer / Dear Leader] knew, then he wouldn't be letting this happen to us."
I haven't had luck finding the source complaint, but according to NYT [0] it was filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, so someone with PACER access might be able to get it.
These guys know that you can't accuse trump. He'll consider it disloyal and ignore you at best. By praising Trump he's hoping that Trump will step in and "fix" it, which will likely involve Sun getting a cut somehow.
Imagine A system where there's a vending machine outside City Hall, you spend $X on a charity for choice, and you get a one-time, anonymous token. You can "spend" it with a forum to indicate "this is probably a person or close enough to it."
Misuse of the system could be curbed by making it so that the status of a token cannot be tested non-destructively.
I like the idea, but I'm not sure it solves the problem enough. I'm not convinced that there is an $X where the service is not too cost prohibitive for humans and at the same time cost prohibitive enough to discourage bots.
In the specific case of Tinder you might as well just make Tinder paid and skip all of this.
There's a rather rich spectrum of solutions, and too-often often the debate becomes a binary of comprehensively-identified versus uncontrolled-anonymity". By clarifying our requirements, we can get better mixes of cheapness and privacy.
For the average web-forum, you don't really need to know that an account is a human, let alone a unique human. It's enough to know that whatever is on the other end (A) likely cares about what happens to the account if it doesn't follow rules and (B) probably isn't running a hundred sockpuppets, or is at least taking a risk doing so.
I think a key part of the idea is that it's a vending machine you'd have to physically interact with and not an online service. That would filter out bots pretty effectively.
> the distance between nanopillars matters far more than their height, with tightly packed pillars about 60 nanometres apart working best
I'd be concerned about ruling-out asbestos-like risks.
If the pillar diameters are similar the spacing (as implied by the picture) then ~60nm is in the ballpark of ~250nm asbestos fibers, which appear to be carcinogenic. [0]
When it comes to billboards, I want to give a little shout-out to the Washington State, which I think has a rather clever and effective rule: Advertisements along the highway have to be for things people can actually get on the property hosting the sign. [0]
This prevents pathological billboards in a rather organic way: Real businesses don't have enough financial incentive to blot out the sky above, or create a chain of self-competing active sites, and anyone who does erect a forest of billboards will have a hard time inventing a profitable business underneath to buy the space. [1]
[1] I anticipate this will need adjustment as someone tries to argue a tiny touchpad kiosk at the base of the billboard tower counts when remotely ordering a product for future delivery elsewhere.
Depends on how they're using it. To find an unknown person and prove they were at a scene - yeah you'll have the 100 person's worth of DNA to sort through and then match against a (presently) incomplete DNA database. But if you already have a suspect and need to place them at the scene, if their DNA is one of the 100 then they have shown that.
That's something that would have to be addressed at the trial by the defense attorney raising challenges.
If the DNA is present, it's present - barring any procedural mistakes by the forensics technicians (mislabeled sample, dirty lab equipment, didn't follow manufacturers instructions, etc). Or deceit by one or more members of the forensics team to implicate the suspect.
>That's something that would have to be addressed at the trial by the defense attorney raising challenges.
This is the wrong point at which to correct the problem. When prosecutors are allowed to introduce "science" as their evidence, jurors give this way too much deference. It's the prosecutor basically saying "you're too stupid to understand it, so indulge my appeal to authority" and jurors tend to happily acquiesce. This is why judges are supposed to gatekeep expert testimony and not just let any quack step in and make outrageous claims... and despite their attempts, quacks have repeatedly done just that these past few decades.
If is true that the presence of DNA means essentially nothing, then it shouldn't be permitted to be introduced at trial. Protection from wrongful conviction shouldn't rest on someone having an attorney expensive enough to be able to unsway too-easily-swayed jurors with counter-specious arguments.
It sounds like you didn't actually stop treating it like a person. Pareidolia is a helluva instinct.
reply