It’s more like adding a leaf blower to it, but yeah it’s just a glorified convection oven.
Lots of modern ovens come with the feature, but you can’t just air fry in any old convection oven.
It’s more like adding a leaf blower to it, but yeah it’s just a glorified convection oven.
Lots of modern ovens come with the feature, but you can’t just air fry in any old convection oven.
The population of the world is constantly going up, of course the numbers will go up, it should be surprising when it starts declining.
I love how people can stay on topic during a discussion lmfao.
They also willfully broke their contract obligations, the game was only made because of the investment by Sony as well. So they took their money and gave them the middle finger and got their fan bases to bash Sony when it was their doing. But sure make fun of an account I guess?
It was also perfectly clear the first time, the CEO of Arrowhead chose to not make the information as readily available as HE should have. Sonys always had the same stance, but one CEO decided to try and stick it to them, and unfortunately, it worked, but they likely won’t get more work.
He chose to turn the requirement off to fix a glitch on their system. It was a requirement, it was listed, Arrowhead is wholefully to blame
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 you gonna address what’s identifiable about a phone… or are you just gonna ignore this and scream about the one thing we know can prove authenticity of an image? I’ve addressed the can be faked… you gonna address any of my points…?
I said I had a little knowledge, do you have a point here or you just gonna scream that exif data can be faked? I was trying to have a civil conversation about this.
If there’s an image with two different exifs data, this will flag it, problem solved, what’s your issue…? Isn’t that the point? Flag fake images…?
Meta data creates a string, if you want to claim ownership of an image and I show an image with earlier metadata, who’s is the real one? Yes it can be faked, but it can also be traced. Thats not a reason to not do something, the hell? That’s like suggesting you can’t police murders because someone can fake a murder.
What is identifiable about the type of phone you have…? Anyone that sees you in public has that information lmfao, there’s far more “fingerprintable” data in the exif than the device that anyone can visually see you have…… that’s the strangest privacy angle I’ve seen and you’re talking like it’s this big huge issue? I’ve asked you to explain and you haven’t, why is this?
And without that exif data you can’t prove any of that… you realize this… yeah…?
What is your point here? That you’re concerned that you might have someone knowing your phone? You realize you can scrub that information yourself if you’re not worried about proving authenticity…? Yeah…?
You can use metadata to prove an image is real, you can’t prove something is real without it, so it’s the only current option. It tells you a lot, you just don’t want people to know it apparently, but that doesn’t change it can be used to legitimatize an image.
What’s disgusting about knowing if an image was taken on a Sony dslr, and Android or an iPhone? And entitled…? This is so you can prove your image is real? The hell you talking about here?
To prove the legibility of the image? It’s a great data point that’s pretty anonymous, they don’t need to include the Mac, sim, serial or other information.
include some EXIF data
Thats what I said.
Date, device, edited. That can all be included, location doesn’t need to be.
I guess, but the original image would be somewhere to be scraped by google to compare and see an earlier version. Thats why you don’t just look at the single image, you scrape multiple sites looking for others as well.
Theres obviously very specific use cases that can take advantage of brand new images that are created on a computer, but theres still ways of detecting that with other methods as explained by the user I responded to.
I guess this would be a good reason to include some exif data when images are hosted on websites, one of the only ways to tell an image is true from my little understanding.
I had one that took a few minutes to preheat, and others that you just toss the stuff in.
But yeah, it’s a marginal time with that one I would just start it and than go grab what I want to cook and it’ll be ready by then usually.