No it's not. Parallel construction is when you hear Joe has coke in his car, and choose to follow Joe, pull him over when he speeds, and develop PC for a search from that. The grounds for the search of the car are independent.
Here the AI has primed them to falsely recognize the guy. There's no independence the way there is with parallel construction.
I don’t think this priming theory is workable. If some witness on the street gives the police a handful of names, and they discover she didn’t actually witness the crime, are they now prohibited from investigating those people because they’re “primed”?
Facial identification is particularly difficult to do right. If you lean on people at all they will pick the closest match rather than admit they don't know. Not from dishonesty, it's just that we're not that good at recognizing strangers.
Your example is not parallel construction either. If you hear that Joe has coke in his car you already have probable cause to search Joe's car. You don't need to wait until he speeds, since speeding wouldn't give you a reason to search his vehicle.
Parallel construction would be: you pulled Joe over for [whatever reason] and searched his car without probable cause (maybe he seemed shifty or he was being a dick) and found coke, so you subsequently went to an informant who told you that he witnessed Joe selling coke out of his car earlier on the day of the search (which would have given you probable cause to search his car if you had talked to the informant before pulling Joe over).
The basis of parallel construction is that a real investigation would have uncovered the evidence anyway. What many people don't get is that law enforcement actually has to do the legwork of a real investigation (but knowing what to look for, and where, etc.) to show that the excluded evidence should be made admissible. It's a remedy for law enforcement to cure procedural violations of due process under the Fourth Amendment.
Yes that's one of the common situations where parallel construction is required. But it still requires the police to do the parallel investigation so that they can establish that they could have come across that evidence in an admissible manner.
It's a gift to everyone if an actually open architecture is usable.
But it's especially a gift to sanctioned regimes, because they can more easily use this architecture for home grown chips that become desirable when mainstream chips are embargoed or under threat of embargo.
Yes, there's still fabrication, but China and Russia have some fabrication going, just not at the latest nodes. Starting from an open standard makes it a lot easier than if they have to clone an architecture/chip or make a whole ecosystem of architecture and software.
Also, do Chinese companies have licenses for all the ARM cores they produce? I assumed they don’t. They traditionally don’t care about IP, so it’s a wash anyaway.
Because the tooling is make or break. When LLVM, Linux, rust, debuggers, Android etc etc support it you have a real chance. Having an ISA that one company doesn’t own means you can develop chips that plug in, although all the extensions of RISC-V make that a little harder.
No the policy was extermination of the Jews. Babi Yar, the destruction of Vilna, the murder of nameless villages now lost to us all took place from the very begining.
Both the straight and twisted path interpretations acknowledge that Hitlers intention was the destruction of European Jews, and that the Nazi state carried it out with little resistance with the fact widely, unmissibly known.
I'm not an expert but my understanding is it takes multiple observations to pin down an orbit and be sure it isn't an existing object. Those observations can be very chance driven.
reply