Questões de Concurso
Para oficial da polícia militar
Foram encontradas 824 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
O gráfico que melhor representa a variação da posição em função do tempo do movimento descrito é:
Considerando-se 1,7 como aproximação para a √3 , é correto afirmar que a altura dos olhos do indivíduo, em metros, é
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
H(t) = 1,4 + 0,5 x sen
, com 0 ≤ t < 24, em que t 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
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
Se a diferença entre o maior e o menor desses números é igual a 10, então o maior deles é
A soma dos 7 termos de certa progressão aritmética é 77.
É correto concluir que o 4º termo dessa progressão vale
É correto concluir que s intersecta o eixo das ordenadas no ponto
Os pontos A e D pertencem à circunferência de raio 5 cm e os pontos B e C, à circunferência de raio 2 cm. O arco AD mede 240o e os prolongamentos de AB e CD contêm o ponto O.
Considerando-se π igual a 3, o comprimento do circuito completo é
A probabilidade de que se obtenha pelo menos uma bala de coco é
Sejam x1 e x2 valores reais tais que f (x1)= f (x2) = 25, com x1>x2.
O valor de x1−x2 é
Um hambúrguer clássico, um hambúrguer premium e dois sucos de laranja custam, juntos, R$ 84,00.
Com base nessas informações, é correto concluir que a diferença entre os preços de um hambúrguer premium e de um hambúrguer clássico é de
Text II
From: https://www.cartoonmovement.com/cartoon/facial-recognition-0
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
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
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
Assinale a opção em que esse vocábulo aparece.
Conheça nossos planos