And it was 30 minutes from your first reply… as well? You’ve done the same to me dude, but I haven’t insulted or attacked you, I’ve defended my points.
Also, the apps auto refresh, you can just see a notification pop up… what’s with the insults?
Ironic considering how fast you responded to me.
And I’ve only pointed out that there was more they could have done, and they claimed they would do anything.
I’m sorry that trying to have a conversation about this upsets you so, but why do people always try to derail conversations that don’t align with their (in this case) objectively wrong views? There is a hell of a lot more they could have done to protect the land, and they claimed they would, and failed on that. Why does this upset you so much?
They could rent one, or patrol it more often than they did. They made a claim, and failed to follow through on it, and this isn’t the first time.
We promised we’d use every legal tool at our disposal to protect this land from bullies like
Thats literally what they promised to do with the money they fleeced from people though….
We promised we’d use every legal tool at our disposal to protect this land from bullies like…
They did less than that actually, it’s this premise that they broke and is what I was talking about, they made a claim, they didn’t even do the bare minimum to protect it, when they said they would do anything.
Look at every single discussion that missed this detail and says they did the bare minimum, that’s NOT what they promised to do with the money. Lots of people knew this was marketing and a waste of money, and were pointing this out, they never intended to protect it, just looked everything else they took your money and laughed. And that’s all I said.
They said they would do anything possible, I’m calling out they did the bare minimum, or less when they said they would do ANYTHING. This is the extremely important detail everyone seems to be ignoring, they PROMISED to do anything possible, which they failed to do.
Just because I have a different opinion or see things in a. Different light doesn’t make me arguing in bad faith, that’s a fallacy people use to derail from their circle jerks.
Just buying land gives complete legal ownership and stewardship to the owner. They’re not obligated to shit with it, and they bought it exactly so they could do nothing with it: keep it natural and pristine.
Squatters and adverse possession says otherwise… they also didn’t just claim they would keep it natural and pristine, they claimed they would protect it.
Governments can also force you to sell your land….
You seem to weirdly be invested in Cards Against Humanity being in the wrong, with the weird takes. They did exactly what they were expected to do- keep it pristine. What gives you any impression at all there were different expectations? Just flat out wrong.
What? They said they would protect it from billionaires, they failed on that didn’t they? Just like their deep hole they couldn’t do.
Your whole comment reads like one of Musk’s alt accounts trying to rub defense lol. If you expressed any semblance of understanding why and how CAH acquired the land before you began with “this isn’t the first time they failed expectations, why didn’t they build anything?!,” maybe you’d get better replies
I do understand how they got the land, why do you claim I don’t?
They have failed before.
Where did I say they need to build something? I have gotten better replies, thank you, you’re just a piece of work apparently.
You don’t need to develop land to protect it, farmers use fences, it lets people know like hunters to not use their land. You also kinda need a presence, or even your neighbor will use your l as if they notice you’re never there….
Yes that can go on the border, and almost every farmer knows to do this to prevent people like hunters from accidentally using your land.
You can’t just buy land and expect people to not use it, that’s almost negligence for anyone who spent their money expecting CAH to do this, if anything they’ve opened themselves to be sued by the people who spent the money doing this in the first place.
That did a good job didn’t it? Plenty of ample evidence that worked eh?
Did I say they need to build anything on it? How did you get that from my comment?
Just buying land does what? Show a presence, if they mowed it how often like they claimed it wouldn’t have gotten that bad before noticing. Put an actual fence on it, what they use? Some stakes a twine? I’m having a discussion so we can figure these details out, what are you doing than insulting someone for trying to talk?
This also is t he first time they failed in their expectations, the hole they dug was a failure, they had to constantly modify their claim because they didn’t realize they rules and regulations regarding making. A safe deep excavation.
I’m trying to discuss in good faith, the fuck is this? I provided a quote to show my particular issue and described it, what part of my comment is not trying to discuss in good faith? If anything you going straight to insulting someone is the one lacking any sort of civility here.
So all I take from this is they took your money and did absolutely nothing with it to do anything to protect the land beyond marking it?
Edit
Our longstanding reputation as a company that makes outrageous promises and actually keeps them is on the line! We promised we’d use every legal tool at our disposal to protect this land from bullies like Trump and Musk (who’s spending millions to get Trump electedand also wants to build the stupid wall). If we don’t take action now, why would anyone ever trust us again?
Maybe because you didn’t do anything to actually do what you said…?
It’s funny, I would be right there with you just having some fun with my truck/car, but yeah if it was visible like this it’s a totally different issue.
I know they can already use that data to deny warranty if I’m hooning it that like that, so yeah haha
If they are using single point data I guess yeah, but they would most likely use a rolling average. Average speed over 5 seconds could account for the glitch, or only continuously updated data to avoid those rubber bands.
No, but it seems like you’re assuming they would look at this sandboxed by itself…? Of course there is more than one data point to look at, when you uploaded the image would noted, so even if you uploaded an image with older exif data, so what? The original poster would still have the original image, and the original image would have scraped and documented when it was hosted. So you host the image with fake data later, and it compares the two and sees that your fake one was posted 6 months later, it gets flagged like it should. And the original owner can claim authenticity.
Metadata provides a trail and can be used with other data points to show authenticity when a bad actor appears for your image.
You are apparently assuming to be looking at a single images exif data to determine what? Obviously they would use every image that looks similar or matches identical and use exif data to find the real one. As well as other mentioned methods.
The only vector point is newly created images that haven’t been digitally signed, anything digitally signed can be verified as new, unless you go to extreme lengths to fake and image and than somehow recapture it with a digitally signed camera without it being detected fake by other methods….
Removed by mod
Found the shit heel wanting to set the high score!
Nah, name and shame, 100% that will likely actually make a difference over traffic stops or photo radar.
….
Its literally the method that’s used…
A group of tech companies created the C2PA system beginning in 2019 in an attempt to combat misleading, realistic synthetic media online. As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent and realistic, experts have worried that it may be difficult for users to determine the authenticity of images they encounter. The C2PA standard creates a digital trail for content, backed by an online signing authority, that includes metadata information about where images originate and how they’ve been modifie
For 5 fucking years already….
Okay, what does an image metadata and advertising have to do with each other…? I’m not here for conspiracy theories, I’m here to have a discussion, which you clearly can’t do.
You claim I don’t know much… I stated as much… yet you don’t know how images are verified …? The fuck…? Go off on whatever tangent you want, but exit data is the only way to determine if a photo is legitimate… yes it can be faked… congrats for pointing that out and only that this entire time… even though I already mentioned that…
What’s your point dude? Seriously I’m blocking you if you can’t have a discussion. Proof of ownership and detecting fakes are two mutually inclusive things, they can both be used to help the others legitimacy, why are you only looking at this from one angle here? Exif is for ownership, the methods in the comment I responded to are for other things. I mentioned THIS previously as well….
Eh, if some shit heels are using a road to set high scores I atleast know there’s safer options.
So your intention wasn’t to have a conversation in your original comment?