That makes it sound like you pay half of capital gains in taxes, but I think what you mean is that 50% of capital gains is taxable, and that this portion is taxed at the same rate as other personal income. Personally I think 100% of capital gains should be taxable at the marginal income tax rate.
> You can however "pause" the mining forever while keeping everything installed which is what support will suggest if you ask.
Just to clarify because this sentence sounds a bit misleading -- according to https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... the cryptocurrency miner is off by default, so if you haven't turned it on, then there's no need to pause it if you don't want it running.
How about letting the user know how they can fucking uninstall the cryptocurrency miner that was uploaded and installed to the user's system without the user's consent?
> I wouldn't trust a support page's definition of "opt-in"
The support page doesn't have any definition of "opt-in". It simply says that users need to click under "Turn your PC's idle time to cash" and then accept a "License and Services Agreement" before they can access the "Norton Crypto dashboard" and enable "mining during idle time". I would consider that opt-in given that the user has to perform multiple steps before they can even enable the miner, and given that there isn't any suggestion to enable this by default during the installation process. If you don't consider that "opt-in", then please explain.
There seems to be a mob here that has been misled to think that the cryptocurrency miner is enabled by default and runs on every Norton user's computer in the background, whereas in reality it IS installed by default (as in the binary takes up storage space on the user's hard drive), but can only be enabled with multiple steps including agreeing to a separate services agreement that is dedicated to the Norton Crypto product.
(I still think it's dumb to bundle a crypto miner with an anti-virus product. But all this talk about it running without the user's consent is nonsense.)
It is installed but not activated without warning AFAIK. According to https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... the user must first agree to a Norton Crypto License and Services Agreement and then explicitly activate the miner before anything will happen.
Users must explicitly agree to a Norton Crypto License and Services Agreement and activate mining before the software starts mining Ethereum. It is unlikely there would be any oblivious customers.
Bundling software like this is a malware move. I don't care if they give you the option to not install it, it's no better than the installers that add malware toolbars to your browser if you don't catch the 8th level of dropdowns you need to navigate to not install it.
When I install a pdf reader, I expect a pdf reader and nothing else. When I install anti virus software, that's the only thing I want.
This is key. I'm going to install Norton 360 on my other PC tonight and see what the process is. My concern is that they're counting on all of the senior citizens (I'm assuming that's their near exclusive user base at this point) who have been using Norton for years will accidentally install this thinking they're simply updating the program. The installation process will be very telling.
> (2) seemingly does not offer an option to disable it
Where do you see this? As far as I can tell, it is off by default, and the user must explicitly enable it (consent) to use the miner.
See e.g. https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/v... which mentions a License and Services Agreement that must be accepted before the miner can be used at all, and clearly says the mining status can be toggled between Active and Paused.
> then the question is whether you actively participated in
There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].
It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.
I very much believe that intent matters, and should matter, but the problem with intent in a legal setting is that often it is incredibly difficult to prove intent, and the defendant just has to say "I never intended it to mean that; I was thinking $INNOCENT_THING when I said it" to inject some doubt into the proceedings, often enough doubt to avoid a guilty verdict.
I agree that there needs to be a balance. I'd argue that US defamation law is close to the "right" balance, by making a stronger case needed to prosecute defamation against public figures (like public officials or celebrities), and by focusing not exactly on intention but on whether the defendant within reason could have believed the statement was true.
Singapore is a different culture, and they see public figures differently.
Being disrespectful to your boss, and those higher up the authority chain, is a strong cultural taboo. Authority is respected. It's complicated for us Westerners to understand, and totally goes against how we view the world and our place in it. But that's the culture, and changing it because it doesn't agree with ours would be wrong.
So yes, the US defamation law is right for the US. It's probably not right for Singapore. I'm not sure Singapore's actual law is "right" - this article and the popular support for the defendant in this case shows it may not be. But that doesn't mean they would be better off with the US version.
I agree that they might be missing the point, but I also feel that adding a one or two extra CSS lines is really needed to turn something that is very unpleasant to read (the biggest problem being the unlimited width) into something that is really basically perfect. Like, this one is actually pretty much perfect, while the original makes me want to manually add a max-width from the inspector.
Unless you're using unsupervised learning or can find a good dataset, most of the cost will be in labeling the data. I'm not too familiar with background removal, there may be some self-supervised/contrastive learning approaches, but generally they don't work as well as supervised learning. Even for a week of training, the compute cost is only $200.
Does it make sense to add random backgrounds to already transparent pngs and then use it to train the models?
P.S. Really useful link btw. Thank you.
P.P.S. One more question if you don't mind. After I've trained the model what kind of hardware does it require to use that model to convert a png image to transparent? I'm guessing that requirements are different when you already have a trained model?
Sorry for all the n00b questions. I'm not trying to create a background removal site btw, just trying to grasp what kind of costs it takes to create and run something like it.
That makes it sound like you pay half of capital gains in taxes, but I think what you mean is that 50% of capital gains is taxable, and that this portion is taxed at the same rate as other personal income. Personally I think 100% of capital gains should be taxable at the marginal income tax rate.