Is your argument that because you don’t think US companies are good at PII, we need to force those companies to share their PII with 70 other countries on request?
> Maybe there is some more complexity to this argument, that I'm missing.
I think you’re missing the entire argument. Why would it be a good thing for a country to volunteer its’ companies PII through a treaty with foreign governments like Russia, North Korea, and China?
US-based companies probably have the most sophisticated PII & data privacy compliance schemes globally. Sure, that's mostly due to obligations imposed on them by jurisdictions outside of the US, but it is still true.
I had the exact same thoughts.
But, also, why is it a good thing that risk is passed down to the users of the currency?
In the regular system risk is passed upward to regular bank you deal with, then upward to the government bank. The frustrating part here is that the regular bank makes all, or very nearly all, the profit, yet passes on the risk. This gives them enormous amounts of power, through wealth, which is far from ideal.
But, much, much worse is the concept of removing the regular bank, and government bank, replacing them with a random person online. And passing the risk downward to the users of the currency.
You don't replace the bank with a random person, but with a smart contract trusted by the community. The whole point is to eliminate trust in the middleman completely from many transactions, and prevent a growing class of conflicts from even starting. That is why you don't need to post surety bonds, for instance!
There's two images where the face is transferred to the final image. The references images with blurred faces are all being used for a different reference; the pose, or "necklace", etc.
The faces are blurred in every image unless they explicitly want the face transferred to the final image, at least that's how it seems.
Both of these show a man's face in a source image being used in a newly generated image. I agree that it isn't complicated, but you seem to be drawing different conclusions to everyone else here.
If your point is that it can't perform face transfer, you seem to be wrong - that's what's happening here. If your point is that the blurred photos used for other parts of the input mean that this suggests the model may get confused by other faces, then that's a fair point, but it seems clear they have demonstrated face transfer, and requiring blurring irrelevant faces seems a minor point compared to transferring the face that's intended. I'm not sure how that would really impact use-cases.
Well. If they had working face / human character transfer, listen, my dude, every single image would show a face transfer. It's one of the biggest challenges.
I remember going on a walk in London with my dad when I was little and we ended up in Hyde Park (this is late 1970s). There was a sign that said 'no dumping" which he chuckled at and explained to me the slang term 'dump', as in 'to defecate'.
Dump and tip have different connotations. The tip is where one deposits refuse/rubbish. Whilst a dump and is a pile/collection of unwanted things, not necessarily rubbish.
It’s a small but often important distinction.
As a less confrontational reply: from my point of view “unwanted fly tipping” is talking about rubbish. The concept of depositing unwanted, yet usable, not rubbish, things somewhere is not something that would happen (outside of the rather recent disposable culture context).
As to your sentence (which is perfectly fine), the use of words avoids possibly confusing repetition. Atypical use would be preferred to “no fly tipping, take it to the tip”.
