Skip to content

Google kills the fact-checking snippet

Technology
13 9 73
  • 17 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    S
    And then suddenly ceased to exist.
  • 14 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    109 Aufrufe
    M
    That was 20 years ago.
  • Bluesky is rolling out age verification in the UK

    Technology technology
    40
    1
    165 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    297 Aufrufe
    3dcadmin@lemmy.relayeasy.com3
    you know that the new online safety act mandates age verification for pretty much anything don't you?
  • 28 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • How can websites verify unique (IRL) identities?

    Technology technology
    6
    8 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    H
    Safe, yeah. Private, no. If you want to verify whether a user is a real person, you need very personally identifiable information. That’s not ever going to be private. The best you could do, in theory, is have a government service that takes that PII and gives the user a signed cryptographic certificate they can use to verify their identity. Most people would either lose their private key or have it stolen, so even that system would have problems. The closest to reality you could do right now is use Apple’s FaceID, and that’s anything but private. Pretty safe though. It’s super illegal and quite hard to steal someone’s face.
  • 834 Stimmen
    83 Beiträge
    223 Aufrufe
    sommerset@thelemmy.clubS
    Which big companies lose money? Frontier or other companies? People switch where? To frontier or away from frontier? Who has faster internet? Frontier or frontier competitors? What does it matter that there are leftists and centrists in the state? How does this have anything to do with the comment u writing about?
  • I Counted All of the Yurts in Mongolia Using Machine Learning

    Technology technology
    9
    17 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    54 Aufrufe
    G
    I'd say, when there's a policy and its goals aren't reached, that's a policy failure. If people don't like the policy, that's an issue but it's a separate issue. It doesn't seem likely that people prefer living in tents, though. But to be fair, the government may be doing the best it can. It's ranked "Flawed Democracy" by The Economist Democracy Index. That's really good, I'd say, considering the circumstances. They are placed slightly ahead of Argentina and Hungary. OP has this to say: Due to the large number of people moving to urban locations, it has been difficult for the government to build the infrastructure needed for them. The informal settlements that grew from this difficulty are now known as ger districts. There have been many efforts to formalize and develop these areas. The Law on Allocation of Land to Mongolian Citizens for Ownership, passed in 2002, allowed for existing ger district residents to formalize the land they settled, and allowed for others to receive land from the government into the future. Along with the privatization of land, the Mongolian government has been pushing for the development of ger districts into areas with housing blocks connected to utilities. The plan for this was published in 2014 as Ulaanbaatar 2020 Master Plan and Development Approaches for 2030. Although progress has been slow (Choi and Enkhbat 7), they have been making progress in building housing blocks in ger distrcts. Residents of ger districts sell or exchange their plots to developers who then build housing blocks on them. Often this is in exchange for an apartment in the building, and often the value of the apartment is less than the land they originally had (Choi and Enkhbat 15). Based on what I’ve read about the ger districts, they have been around since at least the 1970s, and progress on developing them has been slow. When ineffective policy results in a large chunk of the populace generationally living in yurts on the outskirts of urban areas, it’s clear that there is failure. Choi, Mack Joong, and Urandulguun Enkhbat. “Distributional Effects of Ger Area Redevelopment in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.” International Journal of Urban Sciences, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 50–68. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1571433.
  • 105 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet