Doesn't pass the test for "reasonable doubt" ;)

Nice try lol, non-sexualised nudity is not illegal. UK law has a degree of common sense about it. A stick figure, even mildly sexualised, is unlikely to pass the test for indecency. Having said that, if someone drew some sort of extreme circumstance then, I don't know for sure, but I can imagine someone getting into shit about it.

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

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..