• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle


  • Forget about the AI. There is so much wrong with this.

    1. If it gets it wrong, either false positive or false negative, then there are serious consequences. This means there is no way it can “play it safe” with an answer.
    2. I don’t trust that it’s not capturing and storing data. The risk of a “highly personal” data being leaked is completely unwarranted.
    3. It works from a photo, therefore it’s unlikely to pick up much more than you can see by eye. You’d be better off just learning what to look for.
    4. It won’t detect STIs with no visual symptoms, so provides an entirely false sense of confidence, potentially increasing the risks of those STIs to the general population.
    5. Let’s say it works perfectly, and the AI algorithm runs completely locally with no data being transferred to the cloud or being captured/stored. Do you want to have someone you don’t trust about being honest about STIs taking a photo of your genitals?

    That’s what I can come up with in 10 seconds. Feel free to add to the list, I’m sure it’s not complete…







  • I imagine this is how Apple would justify it - if there are internal screws or shields missing then it’s a sign that it has been repaired previously by a 3rd party. It might work fine, but it’s not to the original Apple specification.

    The Apple store don’t want to take responsibility for those repairs so refuse to do further work in case it leaves them with liability.


  • This is a massive waste and is effectively a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry. There are already existing laws for battery and electronics manufacturers to be responsible for their waste. Why isn’t the fossil fuel industry responsible for paying to clean up its waste (CO2)?

    The technology sucks too (no pun intended), even carbon capture at source isn’t that efficient when the concentrations are high. Trying to capture CO2 from air where is around 400 parts per million (0.04%) is a complete waste of time and money.

    For those interested, these guys have done the math. Using Exxon’s target for future cost of this technology ($100/tonne which is already 1/10th of todays costs, $1000/tonne), it will cost $3.6 trillion a year to absorb how much CO2 we produce. More if we want CO2 levels to come down.

    The only effective way to combat CO2 is to stop digging up fossil fuels.