I don't think these are the same. Outlawing CSAM gives law enforcement the ability to shutdown markets and prevent commercial distribution of CSAM. Sexually abusing children is heinous, but sexually abusing children for financial gain is even worse.
There's also the argument that CSAM can act as a gateway leading people from just being a pedophile in their head, to going out and doing something to some child.
Yes, this is an argument that exists. But it's not supported by evidence. It's the same as the old "video game violence should be outlawed because it might cause real violence", which is just as unsubstantiated.
I mean, if there were any truth to it, surely our nation would have seen an uptick, in the past 30–40 years, of new generations picking up guns and just mercilessly mowing down soft targets as if playing GTA.
Thankfully, that is all confined to fantasy in cyberspace!
Yeah, /your/ nation maybe. I wonder if there's any other reasons that could explain this, especially given the pretty uniform distribution of video games, and the extremely uneven distribution of violence.
Oh, and everywhere in your nation? At the same time?
school shootings happen when lonely boys with mental health issues a) have access to guns and b) feel like society failed them and they need to take revenge.
the first one is the reason why it happens it america more than any other place. other countries also have youth unemployment and social isolation but they show up as bullying in schools or votes for fascist parties instead of mass murder.
the actual problem is people feeling hopeless, like theres no way they could ever be successful in this world so they want to burn it down. thats why some of them turn violent, when you feel like nothing you can do will make life better the only thing left is making it worse for those you think are responsible, like your classmates or gay/queer people or Jews.
none of this comes down to video games, feminism, rap music, violent movies, atheism or other cultural "problems" conservatives always like to blame. its a social issue that needs social solutions.
Yes, it’s an argument but there’s zero data to support it, in fact the opposite.
If this were true then widespread availability of pornography on the internet would have resulted in a massive increase in rape of adult females. When in fact, assault numbers have been on a steady decline for decades.
Why would general pornography lead to rape? Most pornography is not rape pornography. Would people watching a bunch of rape pornography lead to more rapes? I don't know, but that seems more likely than general pornography leading to rapes.
60% of respondents who were found looking for CSAM on the dark web stated that they were fearful that consuming CSAM would lead them to do something to a child in real life: https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v1i2.29
I'm not taking a position here, but the total amount of pornography is irrelevant to the argument. If the amount of rape pornography available has increased 500x as the total amount of pornography has increased 5000x, the proportion of pornography that was rape pornography has been reduced by 90%.
> 60% of respondents who were found looking for CSAM on the dark web stated that they were fearful that consuming CSAM would lead them to do something to a child in real life
Someone looking for child pornography is somebody looking for child pornography, so their opinion about what the search might lead to seems a bit worthless. There's no reason to assume that they have any insight into what will happen next, but we know for a fact what has already happened.
That out of the way, though, and assuming that child pornography leads to child abuse, the good pro-pornography case that has been made is that when pornography is suppressed rather than regulated, the 95% of people who are exclusively interested in adult pornography will have to go through the same underground channels that child pornography flows through, thus having the perverse effect of exposing more people to child pornography (or at least obtaining access to it.) If exposure to child pornography causes child abuse, then the suppression of adult pornography would then lead to more child abuse.
Does it need to be said that by making all pornography easier to access the internet obviously makes rape pornography more prevalent and easier to access as well?
Hence your theory should be easily visible in rape statistics, yet it’s the opposite.
It would be easily visible or not visible in the rape statistics if the world had a single variable. In any case, even if the world was extremely simple, 'rape porn' could increase rapes, and we could still observe a decrease in rapes if 'general porn' decreased the odds of rape to a larger degree than rape porn increased them relative to the population that consumed each.
Yes exactly my point...so it sounds like you're admitting this "availability of porn leading to action" theory isn't a very good one? And that in fact it leads to less action given it satisfies urges at much lower cost.
There are even people involved in commercial distribution of it that claim to not even be interested in children, just in profit or even allegedly “for a sense of community” (someone actually said this after getting caught, he was in his 20s but I can’t remember his name — he might have been one of the red room guys).
On top of that, while there are different types of child abusers, the worst ones almost invariantly collect CSAM to the point of hoarding. So it really isn’t that bad of a proxy.
The root comment is implying that legalizing or decriminalizing csam would somehow help with prosecution of child abuse? I’m kind of speechless. Csam IS child abuse. The fact that there are consumers encourages producers to, well, produce!
The short version is brine is weird: it's surprisingly resistant to diffusing and tends to flow more like an immisicible fluid. So you have to put quite a lot of effort into getting it to actually disperse rather then just fall to the seafloor.
That's silly, you'd mechanically mix it with seawater rather than wait for it to diffuse. The concern would be the volume of desalinated water extracted from the local region versus the flux from ocean current. As long as that ratio is acceptable there won't be any long term problem.
Alternatively, in the absence of sensible regulations a cutthroat operator devoid of ethics constructs a plant that dumps concentrated brine in the immediate vicinity because that's the cheapest approach. Then reactionary elements raise talking points about environmental damage and pretend that it's a difficult problem to solve. Business as usual.
I wonder what the linear diffusion gradient would look like for that. Like the perforated garden hoses or whatever for soaking soil. Aquatic organisms grow so quick though very curious on the constraints for something like this.
I liked the idea of loading it up on a ship that sails out releasing as it goes out and back. Make it solar powered or even go old school with literal sails.
I thought they tend to pipe far out and discharge as far below the surface as possible, since there is a lot of surface life and it is less damaging this way.
Ships (with long submerged pipes) would be prone to weather events and generally less reliable than an installed pipe. Perforation would be prone to clogging from build up so a nonstarter I would expect. Adding flex tubing and a relocation robot would be a maintenance headache as well. Not sure there is an easy optimization.
Ships wouldn't need a long submerged pipe. It'd just need a small hole like a bilge drain or maybe a live well on a fishing boat. Just let the boat cruise around slowly draining back into the ocean.
As for surface life, I'm no oceanographer, but is that really the most vulnerable place? The surface is where fresh water rain meets the ocean, so that would dilute the salinity during storms. However, there's nothing to say that another pump couldn't be pulling from the ocean and mixing the brine into that so it's diluted before and not just pouring brine straight into the ocean
I think your sense of scale is off. 90% of sea life is on the surface. 0.029% of ocean water is replenished from rainfall annually. Desalination concentrates are absolutely toxic to life. The current daily volume of brine discharge would require more than half the tankers in the world to be filled and discharged every single day. They would of course not last long with such a routine.
Is that a total for all of the oceans? I understand that as a whole, rainfall is literally but a drop in the ocean. However, confined just to the local area where the rain is falling, the area’s salinity has to change. Just like adding the the desalinated brine is a minuscule amount compared to the whole ocean, it has large effect locally.
Regardless, it is totally possible to reintroduce the brine back to the ocean in a way to not be a shock to the local area. We have just chosen to make it harder on ourselves for some illogical reason.
In my opinion you are hand-waving away a difficult engineering problem and proposing a naive solution as if it would solve a problem that has already been partially solved, by rejecting all the work that has already been done on it. Don't dump on the surface, don't burn millions of tons of fuel a year to do it, study what has been done and improve on it instead.
I like this! Though I’m not sure the math works. That page says ideal efficiency for that system would be something like 0.75 kWh/m^3. Compared to 4000 to 5000 kWh/m^3 of diesel. Now we don’t need to be efficient since the point is to use up our “fuel” and we don’t need to cary cargo for this to make sense but with numbers like that, I don’t think our boat will be able to make enough power to move at all.
And it doesn't even need to be a rigid pipe. A flexible pipe made out of, say, waterproof fabric, could be cheaply made to extend miles while remaining open due to the pressure of the water pumped into it.
I recently learned that I have some level of face-blindness (I took the CFMT online and scored 43).
It's something I've had my whole life but only recently realized wasn't "normal". It's not like I can't recognize people at all, but rather that faces aren't very distinctive to me compared to other identifying characteristics (such as hair color/style/length, clothing, skin tone, height, voice, gait, mannerisms, etc.) It takes me a while to learn to distinguish everyone in a group of people (especially people who are similar along all of those attributes), but once I know someone well I will usually recognize them without problems.
The only real issues are when someone changes their appearance (e.g. getting glasses or shaving a beard), or when I run into someone in an unexpected context (like randomly meeting someone I know on the street). A few months ago I ran into my cousin at an event in another city, and didn't recognize her until after 20 or 30 seconds of conversation.
It's also not usually too hard to mask. I realized I have a subconscious habit of never greeting people by name because I'm always afraid of getting it wrong, and it's easy enough to bluff through "oh hi, how are you, good to see you, what have you been up to" pleasantries until I figure out who I'm talking to. The most awkward situations are when I'm unsure whether or not I know someone and have to risk either mistaking a stranger for a friend, or accidentally ignoring/reintroducing myself to an acquaintance. Also, starting a new TV show sucks.
Now that I know it's an actual condition with a name, I'm not sure yet whether it makes things better or worse if I try to explain it to people to excuse my mistakes.
If any other face blind people have useful tips or experiences, I'm all ears :)
If someone talks to you and you're not sure who they are, tell them you're faceblind and ask. It takes some getting used to, but it's worth it.
In my previous company we gave a short introduction when joining, and I included faceblindness. "If I meet you randomly on the street and don't say hello, that's not with malicious intent."
Most people are understanding, though a few are not, but really then it's their problem.
I could easily tell apart all of my friends from the neck down, do you find that? Apart from height, size, gender, there's style, hair length and tons of things that make it quite possible.
From what I've read, that's already part of their training. They are scored based on each step of their reasoning and not just their solution. I don't know if it's still the case, but for the early reasoning models, the "reasoning" output was more of a GUI feature to entertain the user than an actual explanation of the steps being followed.
