Relevant part of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (UK)

Section 65 (regarding what “child” means in the context of indecent images)

(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—

(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or

(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

(end quote)

In other words, an image can be treated as an indecent image of a child if the “impression conveyed” is that the person is under 18, even if that person has older “physical characteristics”.

This legislation is more directed at non photographic imagery (so hentai / CGI etc) and the reference to physical characteristics is apparently a reference to a large breasts or “1000 year old vampire teeth” not being viable as an excuse that the image doesn’t give the impression of a child.

I can’t recall specifically what legislation was used regarding the age play couple I referenced. I can’t find a specific law that says it’s wrong for a photograph of an adult to appear underage. So it may just be that they were reported to police because they shared their images online without context. I don’t know if they were subsequently prosecuted.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Any sexual representation of a child is illegal in the UK whether it looks real or not. In fact I believe it doesn’t need to even be a child, it’s a illegal if a reasonable person would believe it was depicting a child. This came up when adults who were into age play got into trouble distributing their images because it looked convincingly underage.

Bound to be tested in court sooner or later. As far as I understand it one is “in possession” if they have access to a set of steps or procedures that would recover an image. So this prevents offenders from hiding behind the fact their images were compressed in a zip file or something. They don’t have a literal offending image, but they possess it in a form that they can transform.

What would need to be tested is that AI generators are coming up with novel images rather than retrieving existing ones. It seems like common sense but the law is quite pedantic. The more significant issue is that generators don’t need to be trained on csem to come up with it. So proving someone had it with the intent of producing it would always be hard. Even generators trained on illegal material I’m not sure it would be straight forward to prove that someone knew what it was capable of.

A good article that includes symbol resolution in context

https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6463

Holy crap there was someone inside that thing? How was their spine not destroyed on impact?

Heretic. True believers know it was 8 seconds ago.

Would have been nice if the question mentioned the US then…

sips tea

The cab was stationary at the time which I suppose made them think it wasn’t a bump in the road or anything. Strange for a car window to spontaneously shatter without a jolt but I guess it happens.

The Sun dredging this up after six years? Classy reporting.

Presumably to call it an “incendiary device” there’s a little more to it than a regular battery with a fault. A circuit designed to heat perhaps or some other clear trigger.

I’m not talking about inheritance though. I’m talking about when a farm takes on a family member as the new management. Because that’s literally nepotism.

(Without getting too much into semantics, isn’t headhunting a new boss at a company a type of nepotism? As in, there wasn’t a competitive process, they were hand-picked by the board / CEO. Is “nepotism” only meant specifically where someone’s incompetence is overlooked because of family relationship? If they’re actually the best person for the job is that still nepotism?)

When they bomb the hospital I’d say you have a point. But until then it seems to me to be a flex to show how completely compromised Hezbollah’s communications are. Israel are daring them to go get the gold out. (I am giving Hezbollah some credit that they can hide gold slightly better than a cursory glance round some offices by a BBC crew would reveal. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe they would actually hide gold in a hospital but YMMV…)

Obviously if they did move it they would be tracked every inch to their secondary location. It is psyops but - if we’re a little less cynical - I think it’s Israel Vs Hezbollah psyops.

That to me to make a little more sense as a primary motive. Israel wants to discredit Hezbollah leadership above all else. So what better way to do it than advertise that they’re powerless to go and retrieve part of their treasury?

Do you think family farms should not be passed to children? Or where would you draw the line?

Personally, I would have claimed Hezbollah were using it as a HQ / meeting place. Because there is no physical evidence of that, and it’s far more likely to be taken by people to be a warning of bombing. Which would have the panic effect you mention.

Claiming there’s a pile of gold there is just strange. A) it’s quite easy to show there isn’t (assuming Hezbollah haven’t just moved it already) and b) it’s not really a warning of bombing. One would expect Israel to drop special forces in and confiscate the gold, not blow it up…

The issue with pure capitalism is that it reduces people’s interactions to their economic value but some people do not have economic value, or have little economic value and no power to redress it. So capitalism can be efficient but can also be efficiently cold hearted.

Nepotism is only an issue where owners define it as an issue. Obviously the workforce at large stands to benefit from meritocracy but so do shareholders. In a free market, inadequate appointments due to nepotism should put a company at a disadvantage. But compare that with a family farm where the owners (shareholders) might prefer nepotism (appointment of a son/daughter to management) rather than opening the role to the job market. Few people object to this small scale nepotism, but should they object if shareholders of a large corporation wanted to do the same? Isn’t it their money after all? The chief issues with nepotism are when it’s done against the wishes of the owners of the company. But this is increasingly difficult with shareholder approval of board members and so on.

Obviously nepotism into monopolistic companies is a problem because of lack of competition but this only joins all the other problems already caused by monopolies.

In a healthy capitalism, competition is maintained. And if that’s done then the risks presented by nepotism are diminished because poor appointments ought to lead to poor results.

Ironically, it’s in extensive socialist state monopolies that nepotism is most dangerous primarily because of the decreased market competition.

It just seems like an odd thing to claim. If it were true it gives Hezbollah notice to move it all somewhere else (which, let’s be neutral, may have happened). If it’s a complete lie, it doesn’t justify bombing a hospital and you just end with journalists like the BBC walking around saying “no there isn’t”.

So either way it just seems like an odd announcement to make.

They haven’t destroyed the hospital though?

I’m not sure what the point of all this is? As if gold was going to be stacked in a broom cupboard or something.

If the bunker is real the entrance is going to be under a dusty mat at the back of an office under a pile of chairs. Not a door off corridor B.

If it’s made up, not sure what Israel gains from that particular lie since it’s so easy for the likes of BBC to put out a video like the above.