A bit IS represented by one or zero. A bit can take the state of charged or not charged. That's what a bit physically is. In low level code, those states are represented by binary numbers.
Or do you think there's a actual physical numbers 0 and 1 floating around in your RAM ?
Read that sentence again. They didn't say bits represent 0s and 1s, they said bits are represented BY 0s and 1s, which is entirely correct.
Physically speaking, in a modern silicon based PC, bits are the presence or absence of electrons in an electron well. That presence or absence is often represented by binary numbers, because it makes the math easy, though it can also be represented in other ways, such as "HI" and "LO". Or in a Boolean mathematics the bits would represent the values "True" and "False".
The statement from the article is entirely correct.
This isn't a scientific journal or news paper. It's a main stream article by the BBC, intended to be consumed, and understood, by people who have zero knowledge of how computers, bits or binary numbers work, so I really don't see the issue here.
It's not going to be become a major problem. We have radiation hardened computing hardware, and ways to deal with single event effects, we've in fact got a lot of practice doing these things, because guess what: Satellites also need working computing hardware, and they're exposed to orders of magnitude more radiation than aircraft.
Manufacturers will just have to start taking it into consideration more in the future, and ensure that the flight computers have redundant ECC memory.
To address your two points, where did people get the idea that the word porn implies artistic merit or consent?
I didn't say merit (or consent, though I assume that one's a typo), I said artistic intent. Which every creative work by definition has. And I don't consider CSAM to be a creative work. It's just abuse, created opportunisticly with no real artistic or creative consideration.
Also, there is nothing ethically wrong with porn in a vacuum, so categorising this material as a sub-category of something that isn't inherently ethically wrong in my opinion makes it a bad term. The term CSAM clearly and strictly delineates it from consensual porn.
CP can stand for a lot of things but it's common parlance now. CSAM just causes confusion.
Ah yes. The Acronym with MORE common definitions somehow causes less confusion. That makes perfect sense. Of course. That explains why so many people in this thread were confused by it. Oh no wait. They weren't.
Also really? Now you're stooping to the old "why so mad bro?". You're the one having a meltdown, I'm wasting time at work by sharing an opinion.
You're the one who got upset enough about me using a common abbreviation, that no one in the thread was remotely confused by, to kick off this entire shit. You decided you needed to pedantically comment on this. I'm simply defending myself from your pedantic grammar nazi shit.
I'm not comparing you to Ben Shapiro, I'm comparing your grammar nazi pedantism to a single specific instance of his grammar nazi pedantism.
I also gave several explicit reasons why using CP over CSAM is idiotic, not just "my friends say so"
So that's 2 for 2 for wildly and dishonestly misrepresenting my points.
But hey, if you want to be like that sure.
You're right, everyone else is wrong, you do you and keep using CP instead of CSAM, and keep getting irrationally upset and angry at people who think CSAM is a better term. Happy now ?
Big "Ben Shapiro ranting about renewable energies because of the first law of thermodynamics" energy right here.
And your point is literally the opposite. Lolita could be argued to be child porn, as it's pornographic material showing (fictional/animated) children. It is objectively NOT CSAM, because it does not contain CSA, because you can't sexually abuse a fictional animated character.
CP is also a common acronym that can mean many other things.
Porn also implies it's a work of artistic intent, which is just wrong for CSAM.
The majority of people can be wrong.
No they can't, not with regards to linguistics. Linguistics is a descriptive science, not a prescriptive one. Words and language, by definition, and convention of every serious linguist in the world, mean what the majority of people think them to mean. That's how language works.
Also, the data set wasn't hosted, created, or explicitly used by Google in any way.
It was a common data set used in various academic papers on training nudity detectors.
Did you seriously just read the headline, guess what happened, and are now arguing based on that guess that I, who actually read the article, am wrong about it's content ? Because that's sure what it feels like reading your comments......
So you didn't read my comment then did you ?
He got banned because Google's automated monitoring system, entirely correctly, detected that the content he unzipped contained CSAM. It wasn't even a manual decision to ban him.
His ban had literally nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the CSAM was part of an AI training data set.
Material can be anything. It can be images, videos theoretically even audio recordings.
Images is a relevant and sensible distinction. And judging by the downvotes you're collecting, the majority of people disagree with you.
Which of the letters in CSAM stand for images then ?
It happened once, to one aircraft, and it's solvable with a software update.
You're more likely to be struck by lightning the next time you leave your house than to run into this problem on a flight, and that was before the software update.