They are good buffers. They are basically prepaid cards that can be refilled. Not sure about any assurances for fraud(probably none) but what is taken can be minimized.
It is identity theft in that they are posing as you to so they can perform fraud. It's identity as a societal thing like id with you name but their picture. Being able to do this remotely like credit charges(can be in brick n mortars though) etc just means normally they just need enough info. Once again it is mor societal concept of how we identify people we don't know.
The point is they're not stealing my identity from me, but from a third party. Why should I be on the hook for the consequences of someone else's negligence?
Really, they aren't stealing an identity at all, they are simply stealing information about you. Saying that someone stole your identity because they know non-secret information about you is about as sensible as saying that someone stole your body when they stole a picture of you. If a bank accepts someone showing a picture of you as proof that they are you, they are simply being an idiot.
The idea that there is a victim, and that's you. You had a bad thing done to you and are now the worse. In fact nothing was done to you -- some big stupid corporation gave money to a criminal is what happened. The big stupid corporation would prefer that this be seen as : you owe them the money because they thought the criminal was you.
The term suggests that you are the victim of the impersonation, when in fact the lender is the sole victim that should get hurt by that crime.
For you, the buck should stop (as is the case in much of EU) with saying "prove it was me - or you're not allowed to libel me by putting a bad mark on my credit and falsely claiming that I owe you money". At that point you're not the victim, it's not your problem, and the defrauded institution can choose to either take the losses and continue business as-is or perform their verification duty properly next time.
I kindof think that's a pointless question!? Even if that is an unjustified interpretation of the term, it still is an empirical fact that most people understand it that way and that corporations use this empirical fact in order to frame their failure as somebody else's.
If you want the public to understand that being impersonated is the fault of the person/institution being duped, it's probably not helpful to use a term that the public understands to mean that the person being impersonated is at fault, whether that interpretation is justified or not.
It's no different to intellectual property theft. It doesn't matter where it is taken from, but who the property belonged to and who was being deprived.
Maybe that was just to show the recreation. An engine is pure code and a lot of times closed source. Just creating animation and similitude in that ways does not recreate a engine but could create those aspects. Engines have many aspects of game mechanics many you do not really see directly but as a byproduct.
But the impressive sell of this technique was the AI discerned enough patterns and physics from the reference video to auto generate a game engine that replicated/simulated the original game. This alludes that it understood the player character and now can control the sprite representing the player character via unique paths through the game map.
It's waaaayy less impressive if it's just programmatically processing video frames, tracking pixels to generate coalescence, generating a library of sprites based on pixel coalescence, and then playing back the same sequence of sprites programmatically...
