BiNonBi

How are you tracking them to other sites? There's not really anything that links a user account to an actual person in the data that gets federated.

That's a possibility. I would be concerned that the false positive rate is so high compared to the rate of actual CSAM that the FBI would just block anyone using this for reporting as spam.

What might be done is to track the detection rate of users. If anyone is significantly higher than the average they might be uploading CSAM. Only issue I see with this is the detector doesn't have an equal false positive rate across all content. It could be that the user just uploads pictures of their kids playing at the park a lot.

A 1% false positive rate is probably going to be to high to reliability report every positive to the FBI. The rate of actual CSAM is likely to be much lower than this. If it's 1 in 10,000 uploads, you will have 100 false positives and 1 true positive.

License changes that will charge developers based on how many installs their game has instead of how many units sold.

You are forgetting how they: █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ██████ ███████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ █████

I'm wondering how that got there. Teenager painting it on the floor and the parents failing to remove it properly? Or something older?

Surveillance, recon and range of weapons has drastically changed. Satellites have the capability to identify a surface fleet and long range weapons are now able to be fired from long distances, find and hit their targets.

I think a couple submarines can effectively negate a carrier task force by just forcing the task force to keep their distance by the threat of a missile launch coming from a patch of seemingly empty see. Any surface ship hunting them is at risk of suddenly becoming the hunted themselves by the submarine or by any land based defense system that are in range.

Do they need to be able to fight across the entire Pacific? Their most likely adversaries are right next door and their most likely ally is the dominant naval power already.

I any money spent on a large carrier would probably be better spent on other things. You can spend 10 billion on a single carrier or get a fleet of ~100 F-35s. I would guess mid-air refueling and more planes will get more sorties over likely targets in a conflict than a carrier would.

I also don't think carriers are going to be the dominant sea power force in a future peer conflict. I think the submarine will dominate the next war. The carrier will be regulated to power projection after the sea is won and made safe to operate in.

Here's the goodreads page for it. It looks like it'll either be extremely good or just fail horribly. I'm definitely going try to read it now.

From world creation to breakfast creation.

It not usually into the airspace. Just into the air defense zone which is over international waters. It's the nation-state equivalent to "I'm not touching you."

The Soviet Union/Russia have a habit of sending submarines into Swedish waters.