Foram encontradas 86 questões.
Text II
From: https://www.cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/facial-recognition-0
The cartoon criticizes the fact that face recognition can be
Provas
Text I
Understanding bias in facial recognition technologies
Over the past couple of years, the growing debate around automated facial recognition has reached a boiling point. As developers have continued to swiftly expand the scope of these kinds of technologies into an almost unbounded range of applications, an increasingly strident chorus of critical voices has sounded concerns about the injurious effects of the proliferation of such systems on impacted individuals and communities. Critics argue that the irresponsible design and use of facial detection and recognition technologies (FDRTs) threaten to violate civil liberties, infringe on basic human rights and further entrench structural racism and systemic marginalisation. In addition, they argue that the gradual creep of face surveillance infrastructures into every domain of lived experience may eventually eradicate the modern democratic forms of life that have long provided cherished means to individual flourishing, social solidarity and human self-creation.
Defenders, by contrast, emphasise the gains in public safety, security and efficiency that digitally streamlined capacities for facial identification, identity verification and trait characterisation may bring. These proponents point to potential real-world benefits like the added security of facial recognition enhanced border control, the increased efficacy of missing children or criminal suspect searches that are driven by the application of brute force facial analysis to largescale databases and the many added conveniences of facial verification in the business of everyday life.
Whatever side of the debate on which one lands, it would appear that FDRTs are here to stay.
Adapted from: understanding_bias_in_facial_recognition_technology.pdf
The word “like” in “like the added security of facial recognition” (2nd paragraph, in green) introduces a(n)
Provas
Text I
Understanding bias in facial recognition technologies
Over the past couple of years, the growing debate around automated facial recognition has reached a boiling point. As developers have continued to swiftly expand the scope of these kinds of technologies into an almost unbounded range of applications, an increasingly strident chorus of critical voices has sounded concerns about the injurious effects of the proliferation of such systems on impacted individuals and communities. Critics argue that the irresponsible design and use of facial detection and recognition technologies (FDRTs) threaten to violate civil liberties, infringe on basic human rights and further entrench structural racism and systemic marginalisation. In addition, they argue that the gradual creep of face surveillance infrastructures into every domain of lived experience may eventually eradicate the modern democratic forms of life that have long provided cherished means to individual flourishing, social solidarity and human self-creation.
Defenders, by contrast, emphasise the gains in public safety, security and efficiency that digitally streamlined capacities for facial identification, identity verification and trait characterisation may bring. These proponents point to potential real-world benefits like the added security of facial recognition enhanced border control, the increased efficacy of missing children or criminal suspect searches that are driven by the application of brute force facial analysis to largescale databases and the many added conveniences of facial verification in the business of everyday life.
Whatever side of the debate on which one lands, it would appear that FDRTs are here to stay.
Adapted from: understanding_bias_in_facial_recognition_technology.pdf
In the first sentence, when the author says that the debate “has reached a boiling point”, he means that the debate is
Provas
Text I
Understanding bias in facial recognition technologies
Over the past couple of years, the growing debate around automated facial recognition has reached a boiling point. As developers have continued to swiftly expand the scope of these kinds of technologies into an almost unbounded range of applications, an increasingly strident chorus of critical voices has sounded concerns about the injurious effects of the proliferation of such systems on impacted individuals and communities. Critics argue that the irresponsible design and use of facial detection and recognition technologies (FDRTs) threaten to violate civil liberties, infringe on basic human rights and further entrench structural racism and systemic marginalisation. In addition, they argue that the gradual creep of face surveillance infrastructures into every domain of lived experience may eventually eradicate the modern democratic forms of life that have long provided cherished means to individual flourishing, social solidarity and human self-creation.
Defenders, by contrast, emphasise the gains in public safety, security and efficiency that digitally streamlined capacities for facial identification, identity verification and trait characterisation may bring. These proponents point to potential real-world benefits like the added security of facial recognition enhanced border control, the increased efficacy of missing children or criminal suspect searches that are driven by the application of brute force facial analysis to largescale databases and the many added conveniences of facial verification in the business of everyday life.
Whatever side of the debate on which one lands, it would appear that FDRTs are here to stay.
Adapted from: understanding_bias_in_facial_recognition_technology.pdf
In the last sentence, the author states that facial detection and recognition technologies
Provas
Text I
Understanding bias in facial recognition technologies
Over the past couple of years, the growing debate around automated facial recognition has reached a boiling point. As developers have continued to swiftly expand the scope of these kinds of technologies into an almost unbounded range of applications, an increasingly strident chorus of critical voices has sounded concerns about the injurious effects of the proliferation of such systems on impacted individuals and communities. Critics argue that the irresponsible design and use of facial detection and recognition technologies (FDRTs) threaten to violate civil liberties, infringe on basic human rights and further entrench structural racism and systemic marginalisation. In addition, they argue that the gradual creep of face surveillance infrastructures into every domain of lived experience may eventually eradicate the modern democratic forms of life that have long provided cherished means to individual flourishing, social solidarity and human self-creation.
Defenders, by contrast, emphasise the gains in public safety, security and efficiency that digitally streamlined capacities for facial identification, identity verification and trait characterisation may bring. These proponents point to potential real-world benefits like the added security of facial recognition enhanced border control, the increased efficacy of missing children or criminal suspect searches that are driven by the application of brute force facial analysis to largescale databases and the many added conveniences of facial verification in the business of everyday life.
Whatever side of the debate on which one lands, it would appear that FDRTs are here to stay.
Adapted from: understanding_bias_in_facial_recognition_technology.pdf
Based on Text I, analyze the assertions below:
I. Critics are concerned about the pervasiveness of facial recognition technology.
II. Facial recognition systems may reduce the efficiency and security of border control.
III. Some argue that the new technology could undermine the stability of modern democracy.
Choose the correct answer:
Provas
Um indivíduo está de pé sobre uma rua horizontal olhando fixamente para o topo de um poste vertical de 6 metros de altura. Quando o indivíduo estava em uma posição em que o ângulo de elevação do seu olhar era 30°, ele caminhou 5 metros na direção do poste, se aproximando deste, até parar no ponto em que o ângulo de elevação do olhar passou a ser de 60°.
Considerando-se 1,7 como aproximação para a \( \sqrt {3} \), é correto afirmar que a altura dos olhos do indivíduo, em metros, é
Provas
Uma cafeteria gourmet recebeu, de seus fornecedores, 8 tipos diferentes de cafés especiais numerados de 1 a 8.
Para um evento exclusivo, o gerente deseja escolher 3 desses tipos de café para uma degustação. No entanto, ele sabe que os cafés nº 2 e nº 7 têm sabores muito parecidos. Por isso, ele decide que, se um desses for escolhido, o outro não poderá ser.
Nessas condições, o número de opções distintas de que o gerente dispõe para oferecer nessa degustação é
Provas
Diariamente, a altura H (em metros) da maré em certo cais pode ser modelada por
\( H(t) = 1{,}4 + 0{,}5 × sen\left( \dfrac{\pi}{6}t + \dfrac{\pi}{10} \right),\ \text {com}\ 0 \leq t < 24, \)
em que é o tempo decorrido, em horas, desde a meia-noite. Nesse local, a altura máxima atingida pela maré, em metros, ao longo de um dia é
Provas
Para definir uma senha de 5 dígitos para o seu cofre, Aluísio escolheu, inicialmente, os dois dígitos do dia e os dois dígitos do mês de seu aniversário. De posse desses 4 dígitos, ele os distribuiu nas quatro posições de uma matriz 2 x 2 de modo que o determinante dessa matriz fosse o maior possível.
A senha foi então formada pela ordenação decrescente desses 5 dígitos: os 4 da data e o determinante máximo.
Sabendo-se que Aluísio nasceu no penúltimo dia do ano, é correto afirmar que a senha do seu cofre é
Provas
A soma dos 7 termos de certa progressão aritmética é 77.
É correto concluir que o 4º termo dessa progressão vale
Provas
Caderno Container