Right before hitting begin the keyword. If you can stop before hitting yes that’s ideal, but in situations where it jumps out and you can’t react. Braking during impact is the worst thing you can do.

If you think I’m saying to line it up and accelerate for 200meters, I dont know what to say about that,

Conditions matter and your reaction should always be for the worst possible scenario (moose and snow), braking removes your ability to maneuver as well, and locking the brakes up which will almost always happen when you panic break, would be the worst scenario. If there’s snow or rain, braking again is right out.

If it jumps out and you can’t do anything but brake, you shouldn’t do that, you grip the wheel and maintain speed, and if you can punch the gas for the hood raise. But people panic and can’t think. So maintain speed, don’t panic and lock your brakes up.

Same for a moose? Speed up so you clear it before gravity caves your car roof.

You maintain speed, you can’t maneuver well if braking, and as stated your hood dips while braking too which can cause worse issues.

Braking dips the hood making it easier for the deer to go into the windshield. You should actually speed up right before hitting to make your hood go up and make it hopefully go under or better stay in the grill.

Having stuff on hand for cravings is unreasonable…? Seriously?

Than get a different brand of you want to be this bloody entitled lmfao.

They have other sizes and you can order online, or, use a bloody knife…

I mean if you’re eating it in pieces instead of the whole thing you already need to put the thing away….

Buy smaller bars then. The situation has remedies…

Knife?

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

….

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/09/google-seeks-authenticity-in-the-age-of-ai-with-new-content-labeling-system/

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….

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.

Who’s to say?

I made you bugs didn’t I?