Hardware restrictions might have contributed to that. Anyway, analogs and metaphors do not prove what they sneakily try to imply. They might help thinking about a problem, but they leave out the actual argument, and in this case, the jump is substantial.

I thought the short movie was also mediocre. It should have been much shorter.

That's the BS reply that always comes when (in particular) bitcoin is associated with crime: that it is traceable. Well, it hardly is. And for the average policeman/woman, even less so. And when the owner has taken some care, as you admit, practically impossible even for experts.

It's not BS though? That's what companies like Chainalysis professionally. This was covered in graphic detail as to how they caught a pedo ring in Andy Greenberg's book Tracers In The Dark.

Isn't it like claiming that breaking and entering is pointless, as you can always trace the perp through finger prints, unless they happen to wear gloves? Except in this case, most of the criminals operate from outside your jurisdiction as well.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but X11 runs over ssh just fine. No "graphics login" required.

> How is this the fault of AI?

I'll reply to the top of the discussion too: it's because it was purely made for this purpose. There's no use for it outside surveillance. And it's not even good enough. It's only purpose is checking boxes and transferring money. Miscarriage of justice is an unfortunate, but calculated side effect.

> cops [...] should not have access to these tools

But what else can (identification via) face recognition be (safely) used for? Absolutely nothing. It's tech that's just made for surveillance.

I don't think asteroids (like the target) have influence on others. There's so much space between them, and their mass is almost neglible.

I don't think this is useful in complex situations/expressions. Structure has to be encoded in the same place as meaning somehow. Natural language does it by using an extraordinarily large set of signifiers. That's not feasible for a formal language.

You could of course affix all lemmata with structural information, as free word order languages do, but that's introducing syntactic structure via the backdoor.

Who cares about a few Uygurs, right? Or the Chinese Seas. Or Tibet and Taiwan. You can say what you want, but China is not a silver lining.

Would you rather live next to a domestic abuser or a serial killer? That's the math a lot of countries are doing right now. It's hard for Americans to understand because they've never been invaded or even credibly threatened with invasion. (And yes, the US does plenty of domestic abuse too.)

Who cares about undocumented immigrants, or Venezuela, or Iran, or Iraq, or Afganistan, or Iraq a second time, or putting Iran into it's current situation by overthrowing a democratically elected government in the 1950s, or Hawaii, or the Virgin Islands, Indigenous people of North America etc etc.

Or Cuba…

Another brilliant humanitarian crisis caused entirely by the U.S. for no good reason at all.

I'm not arguing the USA is a good guy. Just that that doesn't make China any better.

China cannot be compared to the two warmongers, the US and Russia, in any dimension.

Tibetans, uyghurs, etc? Factories full of North Korean workers under the watchful eye of their overlords, modern slavery even of your own people.

As a Kiwi I look at the US, Russia, China, etc as the same. Even the UK (where I now live) is a scarier place than back home.

That's fair, because you're in a Western media environment, and the fact that you can see them as the same already proves my point.

How is the US better?

>What people want is stability. Not endless fucking wars.

this of course true for Tibet and Taiwan, too -- you just don't care because that's not where you live.

...and with that attitude globally, we get endless war.

The saddest part: it's for the money.