It probably means your company was successful enough that you can retire and do whatever you like for the rest of your life. Would be a good thing for me, although probably a bad thing for the company as a whole.
I'd call it a best worst thing - one of those problems where it's bad, but the only way to have the problem is to be really successful.
It's incredible to me how Microsoft was able to blow that chance with Skype. Just a while ago Skype used to be the generic trademark. "I'm skyping with my girlfriend"
I know it would matter to me. That would at least help make the case that the person being condemned is a human being, not a few pixels on a screen, nor a number in a system.
If the system can't figure out your judge is actually a puppet by the time the appeals process (which is being sought) starts or is denied then I don't think the problem is really "deepfakes".
I would say that it doesn’t make a difference. It’s more likely to sentence someone to death who is considered “them”. As evidenced by the increased likelihood that a minority will be sentenced to death in the US and how prosecutors go out of their way to get all White jurors when prosecuting minorities.
That's your example? That is infuriating. A young man killed an elderly woman and has not just his death sentence but his conviction dropped because of his race. Talk about privilege.
My heart aches for the victim and her family. That is an extraordinary and disgraceful, politically-motivated injustice.
On the one hand it shouldn't matter. The facts of the case are the facts of the case. If those facts warrant the death penalty then that should be the case regardless of the medium through which those facts are presented.
On the other hand, humans aren't rational and they might change their decision by seeing another human in person vs seeing them on a screen, even if the facts are the same.
Since it has the capability to affect the outcome, for fairness it should be the same for every case. Either do all cases over Zoom or none. Otherwise you might have some people arbitrarily assigned the death penalty when they might not have otherwise or vice versa.
The better solution would be to do away with the death penalty altogether since such a dire outcome shouldn't be implemented by an inherently flawed and fallible system.
For me, this kind of thing is still very surreal. I'm old enough that I grew up in a "not connected" world. We used pay phones and land lines. It was considered rude to do anything significant over the phone.
I'm still having trouble with people being laid off over a video call. A capital trial with the death sentence being a possibility happening on a video chat just seems like I've jumped into some dystopian sci-fi.
Dystopia isn't guaranteed; don't go gentle into that good night.
Highly recommend reading "On Tyranny", it's a great small, pertinent book for $10 at most book stores.
Edit: to be clear China's social credit system is extremely dystopian to me and is already taking shape, but I trust most/all democratic societies (including US) to fend it off.
The United States military does this dozens of times each and every week, and they don’t even bother with the trial. It’s public knowledge, but somehow still isn’t “news”.
Trend of using Zoom/variants seems to be following the progression of any similar type of conduit where unfamiliar use case eventually becomes the norm. For example, when texting/SMS took off in early 2000s, boyfriends and girlfriends started calling quits to their relationship via text, followed by husbands and wives decision to divorce. I won’t be surprised if there’s an emoji for such references nowadays ️. Oh the humans! We’ve definitely done a lot of physical evolving since inception...but bulk of our social evolution has seemed to have happened over the past 100 years.
44 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadKinda like how ESPN gets "Twitter comments", instead of calling it general internet comments
I'd call it a best worst thing - one of those problems where it's bad, but the only way to have the problem is to be really successful.
Zoom blew up as the video conferencing solution of the pandemic. And in this case they are using the product.
But ultimately it's just become the parlance for it.
So, what is a little digital sentencing.
Sentencing anyone to death (or anything really) is the maximum expression of state power on a person.
A person should have the right to face the person sentencing them, and Justice should be served by the state facing the person.
Without this face to face interaction, there is no real distinction between justice and a bureaucratic process.
I think there's a good chance that people are more willing to sentence people they haven't seen in person to death.
https://eji.org/news/supreme-court-georgia-prosecutors-illeg...
My heart aches for the victim and her family. That is an extraordinary and disgraceful, politically-motivated injustice.
On the other hand, humans aren't rational and they might change their decision by seeing another human in person vs seeing them on a screen, even if the facts are the same.
Since it has the capability to affect the outcome, for fairness it should be the same for every case. Either do all cases over Zoom or none. Otherwise you might have some people arbitrarily assigned the death penalty when they might not have otherwise or vice versa.
The better solution would be to do away with the death penalty altogether since such a dire outcome shouldn't be implemented by an inherently flawed and fallible system.
I'm still having trouble with people being laid off over a video call. A capital trial with the death sentence being a possibility happening on a video chat just seems like I've jumped into some dystopian sci-fi.
Highly recommend reading "On Tyranny", it's a great small, pertinent book for $10 at most book stores.
Edit: to be clear China's social credit system is extremely dystopian to me and is already taking shape, but I trust most/all democratic societies (including US) to fend it off.
But for some reason I also see this as different.
But you wouldn't break up a relationship over the phone, for example.
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
I suppose they use a different videoconferencing system than Zoom, however.
Is a witness possibly more willing to lie, exaggerate?
https://emojipedia.org/divorce-symbol/