🐱 Interesting clickbait, op-eds, fluff pieces and other smaller stories
- Thread starter CatParty
- Start date
CatParty
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
Lets hope the dog hasn't developed a taste for human penises now, especially if it gets re-homed with an unsuspecting family. There's potential for a horror film here.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
This Deepfake of Mark Zuckerberg Tests Facebook’s Fake Video Policies
A fake video of Mark Zuckerberg giving a sinister speech about the power of Facebook has been posted to Instagram. The company previously said it would not remove this type of video.
A fake video of Mark Zuckerberg giving a sinister speech about the power of Facebook has been posted to Instagram. The company previously said it would not remove this type of video.
By Samantha Cole Jun 11 2019, 8:25pm
Two artists and an advertising company created a deepfake of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg saying things he never said, and uploaded it to Instagram.
The video, created by artists Bill Posters and Daniel Howe in partnership with advertising company Canny, shows Mark Zuckerberg sitting at a desk, seemingly giving a sinister speech about Facebook's power. The video is framed with broadcast chyrons that say "We're increasing transparency on ads," to make it look like it's part of a news segment.
(On Tuesday evening, CBS requested that Facebook take down the video, as it displays "an unauthorized use of the CBSN trademark,” a spokesperson said.)
"Imagine this for a second: One man, with total control of billions of people's stolen data, all their secrets, their lives, their futures," Zuckerberg's likeness says, in the video. "I owe it all to Spectre. Spectre showed me that whoever controls the data, controls the future."
The original, real video is from a September 2017 address Zuckerberg gave about Russian election interference on Facebook. The caption of the Instagram post says it's created using CannyAI's video dialogue replacement (VDR) technology.
This deepfake of Zuckerberg is one of several made by Canny in collaboration with Posters, including ones of Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump, as part of Spectre, an exhibition that took place as part of the Sheffield Doc Fest in the UK.
“We will treat this content the same way we treat all misinformation on Instagram," a spokesperson for Instagram told Motherboard. "If third-party fact-checkers mark it as false, we will filter it from Instagram’s recommendation surfaces like Explore and hashtag pages.”
Following the viral spread of a manipulated Facebook video of House speaker Nancy Pelosi, Facebook has been forced to take a stance on whether fake or altered images are allowed to stay up on the site. Instead of deleting the video, the company chose to de-prioritize it, so that it appeared less frequently in users' feeds, and placed the video alongside third party fact-checker information.
At the time, Neil Potts, Facebook’s director of public policy, said that if someone posted a manipulated video of Zuckerberg like the one of Pelosi, it would stay up. Now that there's a deepfake of Zuckerberg implying he's in total control of billions of people's stolen data and ready to control the future, on Facebook-owned Instagram, that stance will be put to the test.
Canny's founders, Omer Ben-Ami and Jonathan Heimann, told special effects blog FXGuide that their work comes after algorithms developed by University of Washington researchers, which turned audio clips of people speaking into realistic videos of people made to look like they're speaking those words. The UW researchers demonstrated this, at the time, using Barack Obama's face. They said they're also inspired by Stanford's Face2Face program, which enabled real-time facial reenactment.
Ben-Ami told Motherboard that to create the fake videos, Canny used a proprietary AI algorithm, trained on 20 to 45 second scenes of the target face for between 12-24 hours. That doesn't seem like much, but we've already seen deepfakes made from as little as one image of a face.
For the Zuckerberg deepfake, Canny engineers arbitrarily clipped a 21-second segment out of the original seven minute video, trained the algorithm on this clip as well as videos of the voice actor speaking, and then reconstructed the frames in Zuckerberg's video to match the facial movements of the voice actor.
The result is fairly realistic—if you leave the video muted. The voice superimposed on the video is clearly not Zuckerberg, but someone attempting an impression. But this deepfake blinks, moves seamlessly, and gestures like Zuckerberg would.
Ben-Ami said that Canny saw this as both an opportunity to educate the public on the uses of AI today, but also to imagine what's next. "The true potential we see for this tech lies in the ability of creating a photo realistic model of a human being," he said. "For us it is the next step in our digital evolution where eventually each one of us could have a digital copy, a Universal Everlasting human. This will change the way we share and tell stories, remember our loved ones and create content."
Two artists and an advertising company created a deepfake of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg saying things he never said, and uploaded it to Instagram.
The video, created by artists Bill Posters and Daniel Howe in partnership with advertising company Canny, shows Mark Zuckerberg sitting at a desk, seemingly giving a sinister speech about Facebook's power. The video is framed with broadcast chyrons that say "We're increasing transparency on ads," to make it look like it's part of a news segment.
(On Tuesday evening, CBS requested that Facebook take down the video, as it displays "an unauthorized use of the CBSN trademark,” a spokesperson said.)
"Imagine this for a second: One man, with total control of billions of people's stolen data, all their secrets, their lives, their futures," Zuckerberg's likeness says, in the video. "I owe it all to Spectre. Spectre showed me that whoever controls the data, controls the future."
The original, real video is from a September 2017 address Zuckerberg gave about Russian election interference on Facebook. The caption of the Instagram post says it's created using CannyAI's video dialogue replacement (VDR) technology.
This deepfake of Zuckerberg is one of several made by Canny in collaboration with Posters, including ones of Kim Kardashian and Donald Trump, as part of Spectre, an exhibition that took place as part of the Sheffield Doc Fest in the UK.
“We will treat this content the same way we treat all misinformation on Instagram," a spokesperson for Instagram told Motherboard. "If third-party fact-checkers mark it as false, we will filter it from Instagram’s recommendation surfaces like Explore and hashtag pages.”
Following the viral spread of a manipulated Facebook video of House speaker Nancy Pelosi, Facebook has been forced to take a stance on whether fake or altered images are allowed to stay up on the site. Instead of deleting the video, the company chose to de-prioritize it, so that it appeared less frequently in users' feeds, and placed the video alongside third party fact-checker information.
At the time, Neil Potts, Facebook’s director of public policy, said that if someone posted a manipulated video of Zuckerberg like the one of Pelosi, it would stay up. Now that there's a deepfake of Zuckerberg implying he's in total control of billions of people's stolen data and ready to control the future, on Facebook-owned Instagram, that stance will be put to the test.
Canny's founders, Omer Ben-Ami and Jonathan Heimann, told special effects blog FXGuide that their work comes after algorithms developed by University of Washington researchers, which turned audio clips of people speaking into realistic videos of people made to look like they're speaking those words. The UW researchers demonstrated this, at the time, using Barack Obama's face. They said they're also inspired by Stanford's Face2Face program, which enabled real-time facial reenactment.
Ben-Ami told Motherboard that to create the fake videos, Canny used a proprietary AI algorithm, trained on 20 to 45 second scenes of the target face for between 12-24 hours. That doesn't seem like much, but we've already seen deepfakes made from as little as one image of a face.
For the Zuckerberg deepfake, Canny engineers arbitrarily clipped a 21-second segment out of the original seven minute video, trained the algorithm on this clip as well as videos of the voice actor speaking, and then reconstructed the frames in Zuckerberg's video to match the facial movements of the voice actor.
The result is fairly realistic—if you leave the video muted. The voice superimposed on the video is clearly not Zuckerberg, but someone attempting an impression. But this deepfake blinks, moves seamlessly, and gestures like Zuckerberg would.
Ben-Ami said that Canny saw this as both an opportunity to educate the public on the uses of AI today, but also to imagine what's next. "The true potential we see for this tech lies in the ability of creating a photo realistic model of a human being," he said. "For us it is the next step in our digital evolution where eventually each one of us could have a digital copy, a Universal Everlasting human. This will change the way we share and tell stories, remember our loved ones and create content."
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
What a horrible abuse of technology to use it to create fake Mark Zuckerberg videos. Who could have known there would be such horrors when a man with a dream created it for the pure and innocent purpose of making porn of Emma Watson?
Michaelsoft
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
Owning a dog means playing God. It's a role no human wants to play: Neil Macdonald
Social Sharing
I know we anthropomorphize our pets. But anyone who speaks dog will understand
Neil Macdonald · for CBC News Opinion · Posted: Sep 08, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: September 8
Lola has severe dysplasia, it turns out; congenitally deformed hip sockets. At nine months of age, she already has osteoarthritis. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
After Jack the Beagle died around this time last year, lacerating our hearts with his damned stoicism, struggling to stand up and show affection even as whatever was wrong with him starved his brain of oxygen (we never found out, having drawn the line at caging him for days in an animal hospital and transfusing his blood so that a camera in a capsule could be sent through his digestive tract), my wife and I eventually looked at one another and asked the question: another dog, or no more dogs?
What a devil of a question that question is.
No dog means no disgusting surprises on carpets – thank goodness for those irrigating vacuums they sell at Canadian Tire – no hefty vet bills, no destruction of everything from eyeglasses to baseboards to legs of furniture, and no responsibility.
People who don't own dogs can stay out as late as they please, or drive off on a whim for the weekend, and go on holiday as long as they like, whenever they like, without arranging a kennel, then feeling guilty about arranging a kennel, and then spending even more money to have someone stay in the house and dogsit. There is freedom in having no dog.
Assuming the role of God
Oh, one other thing people who don't own dogs don't have to do: assume the role of God. Sooner or later, like Jack the Beagle did, the dog will grow quiet, and start spending hours far back in a closet.
So you take the little fellow to the vet, hoping maybe it was something he'd eaten, or slurped up in a mud puddle, but really you know what's probably happening. And the vet will poke a bit, and look at his gums, and say well, he's getting older, maybe after a few tests we'll know better.
So you do the tests, but they aren't conclusive, and the little fellow just gets feebler. Then you have to decide whether to do more tests, because modern veterinary science has an inexhaustible pantry of tests, and you can see the little fellow shrink in fear at the vet's door.
You know all he wants to do is be quiet and around his humans as his life ends, but for heaven's sake, he's family, and if you can have just another year or so with him, well, what are a few more tests, right? And sometimes you can get a few more years, but often you can't, and the moment arrives when you have to be God.
And by now all the other customers out in the waiting room know what's going on, and are trying to look away. And you notice the sign that says something like "When this candle is on, a beloved family member is crossing the rainbow bridge, and we would ask for a respectful quiet," or some similar bit of mush.
Anyway, it's awful. Sad, and awful. And it's something you think about when you ask one another that devil of a question a few weeks later, after you've noticed how still and quiet the house has become.
Anyway, my wife settled the discussion with a simple observation. We are dog people. Dogs bring joy to our home.
Lola, left, is a border collie, finer boned and cooler and more aloof than Charley, right. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
So, last fall, spurning freedom, we brought home Charley, a small Australian Shepherd.
Aussies are quick, good-looking, emotional creatures that actually seem able to grin and talk, and bond fanatically with you.
Then my son suggested that really, Charley needed a pal, and the idea took hold, and friends with two dogs said it really wasn't much more work than having one. So we looked, and considered, and last spring, we brought home Lola.
Lola is a border collie, finer boned and cooler and more aloof than Charley. Like Charley, she came from a breeder, with health records proving her forebears free of congenital defects like hip dysplasia. She even came with a health guarantee.
Lola and Charley have been wrestling and nipping and nuzzling from the day she arrived. Now they even seem to walk in sync. My daughter says if they were celebrities, Charley would be Jimmy Fallon and Lola would be Tilda Swinton. They're lovely.
But the God thing is back, and so quickly.
Congenital dysplasia
Lola has severe dysplasia, it turns out; congenitally deformed hip sockets. She limps a bit, although the vet says, dreadfully, that she's probably so used to the pain she regards it as normal. At nine months of age, she already has osteoarthritis. It's getting worse, and something has to be done.
A total hip replacement, we are told, or a "head and neck femoral excision," meaning a surgeon cuts her open and lops off the top of her femurs; she would not walk or run normally again, but at least the arthritis would be gone.
Or, per the health guarantee, she can be sent back to the breeder, who lives on a farm and is a vet-in-training. The breeder is somewhat vague about what would become of Lola if she returned.
There are no good options, to use that hackneyed phrase. The question is, what's the right thing to do?
A good friend, a border collie fanatic, says the only thing to do is put Lola down. Do not send her to the breeder, he says, you are what she knows and trusts. Have the vet come to the house and hold her in your arms while she dies. She will never be happy if she can't run and jump and work. Her life will be misery.
Lola, right, takes long swims in the warm September river water and glories in fighting Charley, left, for sticks. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
A hip replacement involves implanting hardware; that comes with a risk of complications, and if it fails, Lola will be have to be put down anyway, having gone through what amounts to two bouts of torture on a surgeon's table.
The femoral excisions have a better chance of success. Barring complications, she will live to walk and even run again, after a fashion. But is it right to put a dog through such pain at all? Leave an athletic, driven animal partially crippled, because I can afford it and want her to stick around? I know the pain of hip operations, but vets assure me dogs experience pain and recovery differently. I don't know about that.
I know, First World problems. And I know we anthropomorphize our pets. But anyone who speaks dog will understand.
I swear Lola gazes at us with utter trust. She has no idea what's coming. For now, I take her to the beach every day, and she takes long swims in the warm September river water and glories in fighting Charley for sticks, but she yips in pain sometimes.
I saw a bumper sticker once that stayed with me: "God help me become the person my dog thinks I am."
I don't have the heart for this. Meaning, of course, that I'm the failure.
Social Sharing
I know we anthropomorphize our pets. But anyone who speaks dog will understand
Neil Macdonald · for CBC News Opinion · Posted: Sep 08, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: September 8
Lola has severe dysplasia, it turns out; congenitally deformed hip sockets. At nine months of age, she already has osteoarthritis. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
After Jack the Beagle died around this time last year, lacerating our hearts with his damned stoicism, struggling to stand up and show affection even as whatever was wrong with him starved his brain of oxygen (we never found out, having drawn the line at caging him for days in an animal hospital and transfusing his blood so that a camera in a capsule could be sent through his digestive tract), my wife and I eventually looked at one another and asked the question: another dog, or no more dogs?
What a devil of a question that question is.
No dog means no disgusting surprises on carpets – thank goodness for those irrigating vacuums they sell at Canadian Tire – no hefty vet bills, no destruction of everything from eyeglasses to baseboards to legs of furniture, and no responsibility.
People who don't own dogs can stay out as late as they please, or drive off on a whim for the weekend, and go on holiday as long as they like, whenever they like, without arranging a kennel, then feeling guilty about arranging a kennel, and then spending even more money to have someone stay in the house and dogsit. There is freedom in having no dog.
Assuming the role of God
Oh, one other thing people who don't own dogs don't have to do: assume the role of God. Sooner or later, like Jack the Beagle did, the dog will grow quiet, and start spending hours far back in a closet.
So you take the little fellow to the vet, hoping maybe it was something he'd eaten, or slurped up in a mud puddle, but really you know what's probably happening. And the vet will poke a bit, and look at his gums, and say well, he's getting older, maybe after a few tests we'll know better.
So you do the tests, but they aren't conclusive, and the little fellow just gets feebler. Then you have to decide whether to do more tests, because modern veterinary science has an inexhaustible pantry of tests, and you can see the little fellow shrink in fear at the vet's door.
You know all he wants to do is be quiet and around his humans as his life ends, but for heaven's sake, he's family, and if you can have just another year or so with him, well, what are a few more tests, right? And sometimes you can get a few more years, but often you can't, and the moment arrives when you have to be God.
- Human-dog bond dates back to ancient times, research shows
- Puppy dog eyes are no accident, research study shows
And by now all the other customers out in the waiting room know what's going on, and are trying to look away. And you notice the sign that says something like "When this candle is on, a beloved family member is crossing the rainbow bridge, and we would ask for a respectful quiet," or some similar bit of mush.
Anyway, it's awful. Sad, and awful. And it's something you think about when you ask one another that devil of a question a few weeks later, after you've noticed how still and quiet the house has become.
Anyway, my wife settled the discussion with a simple observation. We are dog people. Dogs bring joy to our home.
Lola, left, is a border collie, finer boned and cooler and more aloof than Charley, right. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
So, last fall, spurning freedom, we brought home Charley, a small Australian Shepherd.
Aussies are quick, good-looking, emotional creatures that actually seem able to grin and talk, and bond fanatically with you.
Then my son suggested that really, Charley needed a pal, and the idea took hold, and friends with two dogs said it really wasn't much more work than having one. So we looked, and considered, and last spring, we brought home Lola.
Lola is a border collie, finer boned and cooler and more aloof than Charley. Like Charley, she came from a breeder, with health records proving her forebears free of congenital defects like hip dysplasia. She even came with a health guarantee.
Lola and Charley have been wrestling and nipping and nuzzling from the day she arrived. Now they even seem to walk in sync. My daughter says if they were celebrities, Charley would be Jimmy Fallon and Lola would be Tilda Swinton. They're lovely.
But the God thing is back, and so quickly.
Congenital dysplasia
Lola has severe dysplasia, it turns out; congenitally deformed hip sockets. She limps a bit, although the vet says, dreadfully, that she's probably so used to the pain she regards it as normal. At nine months of age, she already has osteoarthritis. It's getting worse, and something has to be done.
A total hip replacement, we are told, or a "head and neck femoral excision," meaning a surgeon cuts her open and lops off the top of her femurs; she would not walk or run normally again, but at least the arthritis would be gone.
Or, per the health guarantee, she can be sent back to the breeder, who lives on a farm and is a vet-in-training. The breeder is somewhat vague about what would become of Lola if she returned.
There are no good options, to use that hackneyed phrase. The question is, what's the right thing to do?
A good friend, a border collie fanatic, says the only thing to do is put Lola down. Do not send her to the breeder, he says, you are what she knows and trusts. Have the vet come to the house and hold her in your arms while she dies. She will never be happy if she can't run and jump and work. Her life will be misery.
Lola, right, takes long swims in the warm September river water and glories in fighting Charley, left, for sticks. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
A hip replacement involves implanting hardware; that comes with a risk of complications, and if it fails, Lola will be have to be put down anyway, having gone through what amounts to two bouts of torture on a surgeon's table.
The femoral excisions have a better chance of success. Barring complications, she will live to walk and even run again, after a fashion. But is it right to put a dog through such pain at all? Leave an athletic, driven animal partially crippled, because I can afford it and want her to stick around? I know the pain of hip operations, but vets assure me dogs experience pain and recovery differently. I don't know about that.
I know, First World problems. And I know we anthropomorphize our pets. But anyone who speaks dog will understand.
I swear Lola gazes at us with utter trust. She has no idea what's coming. For now, I take her to the beach every day, and she takes long swims in the warm September river water and glories in fighting Charley for sticks, but she yips in pain sometimes.
I saw a bumper sticker once that stayed with me: "God help me become the person my dog thinks I am."
I don't have the heart for this. Meaning, of course, that I'm the failure.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
A cafe named pussy had their ads featuring salty brown faggots rejected by Google.
reclaimthenet.org
archive.fo
Google bans family cafe for "offensive content” for posting photo of British dish, faggots and peas
“I don't really associate the word 'faggots' with anything offensive, and yet someone has made a decision that's affecting my livelihood."
reclaimthenet.org
Google bans family cafe for "offensive content” for posting photo of …
archived 9 Sep 2019 12:46:19 UTC
archive.fo
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
I used to love Mr Brains faggots when I was a kid and the adverts where hilarious.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
StemExpress swears, in court, that they bought "still beating hearts" and "organs that occasionally had fetal heads attached" from Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and shipped them via FedEx to medical researchers.
www.theepochtimes.com
archive.fo
... Alex Jones keeps turning out to be 100% correct.
That's not exactly how conspiracy theories usually go.
StemExpress CEO Admits to Selling Beating Hearts, Intact Heads of Aborted Babies
StemExpress CEO admitted to the court in San Francisco on Sep. 5 that her company brokered beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to researchers.
StemExpress CEO Admits to Selling Beating Hearts, Intact Heads of Abo…
archived 9 Sep 2019 05:11:30 UTC
... Alex Jones keeps turning out to be 100% correct.
That's not exactly how conspiracy theories usually go.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
StemExpress swears, in court, that they bought "still beating hearts" and "organs that occasionally had fetal heads attached" from Planned Parenthood abortion clinics and shipped them via FedEx to medical researchers.
StemExpress CEO Admits to Selling Beating Hearts, Intact Heads of Aborted Babies
StemExpress CEO admitted to the court in San Francisco on Sep. 5 that her company brokered beating fetal hearts and intact fetal heads to researchers.StemExpress CEO Admits to Selling Beating Hearts, Intact Heads of Abo…
archived 9 Sep 2019 05:11:30 UTC
... Alex Jones keeps turning out to be 100% correct.
That's not exactly how conspiracy theories usually go.
I'm not 100% sure but I think Alex Jones could well be controlled opposition &/or a CIA asset, possibly part of Operation Mockingbird. He might be more of a disinfo agent than a conspiracy theorist.
SmallTalk201
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2019
Florida Man Breaks Into Home To Cook Breakfast, Tells Resident To ‘Go Back To Sleep’: Police
Authorities say a burglar broke into a Florida home, cooked himself an early morning meal and told the startled resident living there to "go back to
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
Pets are definitely a first world luxury, but the unclaimed dog is going to die either way, whether in the ownership of a pet owner or in the animal shelter, so it's probably subjectively and objectively a better experience for the dog to be able to have the benefit of the companionship and care under the pet owner.View attachment 929526
As the CBC is publicly funded, Canadian taxpayer money went towards this being written. Fun fact: the guy who wrote this is Norm Macdonald's older brother.Owning a dog means playing God. It's a role no human wants to play: Neil Macdonald
Social Sharing
I know we anthropomorphize our pets. But anyone who speaks dog will understand
Neil Macdonald · for CBC News Opinion · Posted: Sep 08, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: September 8
Lola has severe dysplasia, it turns out; congenitally deformed hip sockets. At nine months of age, she already has osteoarthritis. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
After Jack the Beagle died around this time last year, lacerating our hearts with his damned stoicism, struggling to stand up and show affection even as whatever was wrong with him starved his brain of oxygen (we never found out, having drawn the line at caging him for days in an animal hospital and transfusing his blood so that a camera in a capsule could be sent through his digestive tract), my wife and I eventually looked at one another and asked the question: another dog, or no more dogs?
What a devil of a question that question is.
No dog means no disgusting surprises on carpets – thank goodness for those irrigating vacuums they sell at Canadian Tire – no hefty vet bills, no destruction of everything from eyeglasses to baseboards to legs of furniture, and no responsibility.
People who don't own dogs can stay out as late as they please, or drive off on a whim for the weekend, and go on holiday as long as they like, whenever they like, without arranging a kennel, then feeling guilty about arranging a kennel, and then spending even more money to have someone stay in the house and dogsit. There is freedom in having no dog.
Assuming the role of God
Oh, one other thing people who don't own dogs don't have to do: assume the role of God. Sooner or later, like Jack the Beagle did, the dog will grow quiet, and start spending hours far back in a closet.
So you take the little fellow to the vet, hoping maybe it was something he'd eaten, or slurped up in a mud puddle, but really you know what's probably happening. And the vet will poke a bit, and look at his gums, and say well, he's getting older, maybe after a few tests we'll know better.
So you do the tests, but they aren't conclusive, and the little fellow just gets feebler. Then you have to decide whether to do more tests, because modern veterinary science has an inexhaustible pantry of tests, and you can see the little fellow shrink in fear at the vet's door.
You know all he wants to do is be quiet and around his humans as his life ends, but for heaven's sake, he's family, and if you can have just another year or so with him, well, what are a few more tests, right? And sometimes you can get a few more years, but often you can't, and the moment arrives when you have to be God.
So you ask the vet, what should I do? And the vet, who has to deal with this all the time, which is one reason for the high suicide rate in that profession, will say it's your decision, that the little fellow can be kept comfortable, and that there are specialists with cameras in capsules who can try one or two more things.
- Human-dog bond dates back to ancient times, research shows
- Puppy dog eyes are no accident, research study shows
And by now all the other customers out in the waiting room know what's going on, and are trying to look away. And you notice the sign that says something like "When this candle is on, a beloved family member is crossing the rainbow bridge, and we would ask for a respectful quiet," or some similar bit of mush.
Anyway, it's awful. Sad, and awful. And it's something you think about when you ask one another that devil of a question a few weeks later, after you've noticed how still and quiet the house has become.
Anyway, my wife settled the discussion with a simple observation. We are dog people. Dogs bring joy to our home.
Lola, left, is a border collie, finer boned and cooler and more aloof than Charley, right. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
So, last fall, spurning freedom, we brought home Charley, a small Australian Shepherd.
Aussies are quick, good-looking, emotional creatures that actually seem able to grin and talk, and bond fanatically with you.
Then my son suggested that really, Charley needed a pal, and the idea took hold, and friends with two dogs said it really wasn't much more work than having one. So we looked, and considered, and last spring, we brought home Lola.
Lola is a border collie, finer boned and cooler and more aloof than Charley. Like Charley, she came from a breeder, with health records proving her forebears free of congenital defects like hip dysplasia. She even came with a health guarantee.
Lola and Charley have been wrestling and nipping and nuzzling from the day she arrived. Now they even seem to walk in sync. My daughter says if they were celebrities, Charley would be Jimmy Fallon and Lola would be Tilda Swinton. They're lovely.
But the God thing is back, and so quickly.
Congenital dysplasia
Lola has severe dysplasia, it turns out; congenitally deformed hip sockets. She limps a bit, although the vet says, dreadfully, that she's probably so used to the pain she regards it as normal. At nine months of age, she already has osteoarthritis. It's getting worse, and something has to be done.
A total hip replacement, we are told, or a "head and neck femoral excision," meaning a surgeon cuts her open and lops off the top of her femurs; she would not walk or run normally again, but at least the arthritis would be gone.
Or, per the health guarantee, she can be sent back to the breeder, who lives on a farm and is a vet-in-training. The breeder is somewhat vague about what would become of Lola if she returned.
There are no good options, to use that hackneyed phrase. The question is, what's the right thing to do?
A good friend, a border collie fanatic, says the only thing to do is put Lola down. Do not send her to the breeder, he says, you are what she knows and trusts. Have the vet come to the house and hold her in your arms while she dies. She will never be happy if she can't run and jump and work. Her life will be misery.
Lola, right, takes long swims in the warm September river water and glories in fighting Charley, left, for sticks. (Neil Macdonald/CBC)
A hip replacement involves implanting hardware; that comes with a risk of complications, and if it fails, Lola will be have to be put down anyway, having gone through what amounts to two bouts of torture on a surgeon's table.
The femoral excisions have a better chance of success. Barring complications, she will live to walk and even run again, after a fashion. But is it right to put a dog through such pain at all? Leave an athletic, driven animal partially crippled, because I can afford it and want her to stick around? I know the pain of hip operations, but vets assure me dogs experience pain and recovery differently. I don't know about that.
I know, First World problems. And I know we anthropomorphize our pets. But anyone who speaks dog will understand.
I swear Lola gazes at us with utter trust. She has no idea what's coming. For now, I take her to the beach every day, and she takes long swims in the warm September river water and glories in fighting Charley for sticks, but she yips in pain sometimes.
I saw a bumper sticker once that stayed with me: "God help me become the person my dog thinks I am."
I don't have the heart for this. Meaning, of course, that I'm the failure.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
While it's never fun to put down an old or sick dog there comes a time where it is starting to become cruel and selfish to keep it alive, it's a time to pick a day and date. Maybe ending it at that point isn't so bad from the dogs perspective, many of them have had a good and fulfilling life free of worries and that's certainly more than most of us can say.
And I know for sure that if I get alzheimers I hope there is someone kind enough to shoot me in the head or pump me full of smack, I don't want to live like that.
And I know for sure that if I get alzheimers I hope there is someone kind enough to shoot me in the head or pump me full of smack, I don't want to live like that.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
Japan under pressure to join campaign against killer robots
Activists against the development of robots that would select and attack targets without any human input accuse the US and Russia of frustrating international efforts aimed at outlawing the development of these weapons.
The leader of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of non-governmental organizations, has called on Japan to demonstrate "bold leadership" and join the growing number of states and international organizations that are calling for a ban on the development of weapons systems that would be able to select and attack targets independent of any human intervention.
Mary Wareham, arms advocacy director for Human Rights Watch and the global coordinator for the killer robots campaign, was in Tokyo on Saturday to attend a symposium on the issue at the University of Tokyo. She also met with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono and Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya to present her case.
Read more: Artificial intelligence: Are machines taking over?
Wareham described efforts by a number of nations to develop and deploy artificial intelligence-guided weapons systems as "a fundamental threat to humanity." She said creating robots that are capable of attacking without any human control is "outsourcing killing."
"International law was written for humans, not machines, and it urgently needs to be strengthened to tackle the serious threats posed by killer robots," she said during a press conference in Tokyo.
"Japan should turn its statements on the need to retain meaningful human control over the use of force into action by cooperating with like-minded nations to open negotiations on a new treaty to ban killer robots," she added.
Wareham described efforts to deploy artificial intelligence-guided weapons systems as 'a fundamental threat to humanity'
'Japan should be proactive'
"Instead of a back-seat role in the international talks on killer robots, Japan should take the lead and actively help negotiate a treaty," Wareham noted.
The Japanese government has issued no statement on the issue since her meeting with the ministers.
The campaign to counter unrestricted robots on the battlefield began in 2013 and today has the support of 57 nations and 113 non-governmental organizations. The first country to support the campaign was Pakistan; the position of the government there was in part a result of the frequent use of US drones against insurgents in the border region with Afghanistan.
But the international community has yet to reach a consensus on a binding agreement to ban killer robots, which Wareham says would be comparable to the 1999 pact that outlawed landmines and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which went into effect in August 2010.
92 nations attended the eighth Convention on Chemical Weapons meeting on lethal autonomous weapons systems, held in Geneva in August, but there was no deal on signing a formal agreement.
Wareham blamed Russia and the US for the lack of agreement. She said the two countries repeatedly refused to accept any reference in the meeting's final report to the need for "human control" over the use of force.
The Russian representative also claimed it's "premature" to discuss the potential dangers of autonomous weapons systems "until they are produced," she said.
A number of other countries, including Israel, South Korea and the United Kingdom, have similarly refused to sign up to a binding agreement.
Wareham argues that if the international community delays legislation until the weapons have already been developed, then it will be much more difficult to prevent the systems from being used.
'No plans to acquire'
And while Japan has participated in talks on killer robots and repeatedly stated that it has "no plans" to acquire or deploy the technology, it has not supported the calls for a new treaty.
Jeff Kingston, director of Asian Studies at the Tokyo campus of Temple University, pointed out that Japan "is in a fairly dangerous neighborhood and won't want to rule out any options that might enhance its battlefield options."
While Tokyo may have expressed support for a ban on the development of autonomous battlefield robots, there are many reasons why they could make up an important part of Japan's defenses, the expert said.
"If you can replace soldiers with robots then you bring down casualty numbers and limit public fallout," he said. "Robots would also offset Japan's demographic time-bomb and any impact on its security capacity."
With a falling population and a growing number of elderly people, Japan's Self-Defense Forces are finding it increasingly difficult to fill positions across its land, sea and air forces, so it would make sense for Japan "to use technology to offset its demographic decline," Kingston told DW.
Read more: 'Hi, A.I.': Exploring our relationship with robots
Robot exports
Another factor for Japan would be the export potential of robot technology, an area in which Japan is a recognized world-leader. The sector could also become a significant source of income, Kingston said.
But Wareham insists that the "many fundamental moral, ethical, legal, operational, technical, proliferation, international stability and other concerns raised by killer robots are multiplying, rather than diminishing."
Among the supporters of a ban are United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Nobel Peace Prize laureates and, increasingly, artificial intelligence and robotics experts who understand the full implications of their work.
"The campaign is gathering momentum and we still see an international treaty as inevitable," she said. "It's just a case of who is going to negotiate it, where it will be inaugurated and how strong it will be.
Activists against the development of robots that would select and attack targets without any human input accuse the US and Russia of frustrating international efforts aimed at outlawing the development of these weapons.
The leader of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, a coalition of non-governmental organizations, has called on Japan to demonstrate "bold leadership" and join the growing number of states and international organizations that are calling for a ban on the development of weapons systems that would be able to select and attack targets independent of any human intervention.
Mary Wareham, arms advocacy director for Human Rights Watch and the global coordinator for the killer robots campaign, was in Tokyo on Saturday to attend a symposium on the issue at the University of Tokyo. She also met with Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono and Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya to present her case.
Read more: Artificial intelligence: Are machines taking over?
Wareham described efforts by a number of nations to develop and deploy artificial intelligence-guided weapons systems as "a fundamental threat to humanity." She said creating robots that are capable of attacking without any human control is "outsourcing killing."
"International law was written for humans, not machines, and it urgently needs to be strengthened to tackle the serious threats posed by killer robots," she said during a press conference in Tokyo.
"Japan should turn its statements on the need to retain meaningful human control over the use of force into action by cooperating with like-minded nations to open negotiations on a new treaty to ban killer robots," she added.
Wareham described efforts to deploy artificial intelligence-guided weapons systems as 'a fundamental threat to humanity'
'Japan should be proactive'
"Instead of a back-seat role in the international talks on killer robots, Japan should take the lead and actively help negotiate a treaty," Wareham noted.
The Japanese government has issued no statement on the issue since her meeting with the ministers.
The campaign to counter unrestricted robots on the battlefield began in 2013 and today has the support of 57 nations and 113 non-governmental organizations. The first country to support the campaign was Pakistan; the position of the government there was in part a result of the frequent use of US drones against insurgents in the border region with Afghanistan.
But the international community has yet to reach a consensus on a binding agreement to ban killer robots, which Wareham says would be comparable to the 1999 pact that outlawed landmines and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which went into effect in August 2010.
92 nations attended the eighth Convention on Chemical Weapons meeting on lethal autonomous weapons systems, held in Geneva in August, but there was no deal on signing a formal agreement.
Wareham blamed Russia and the US for the lack of agreement. She said the two countries repeatedly refused to accept any reference in the meeting's final report to the need for "human control" over the use of force.
The Russian representative also claimed it's "premature" to discuss the potential dangers of autonomous weapons systems "until they are produced," she said.
A number of other countries, including Israel, South Korea and the United Kingdom, have similarly refused to sign up to a binding agreement.
Wareham argues that if the international community delays legislation until the weapons have already been developed, then it will be much more difficult to prevent the systems from being used.
'No plans to acquire'
And while Japan has participated in talks on killer robots and repeatedly stated that it has "no plans" to acquire or deploy the technology, it has not supported the calls for a new treaty.
Jeff Kingston, director of Asian Studies at the Tokyo campus of Temple University, pointed out that Japan "is in a fairly dangerous neighborhood and won't want to rule out any options that might enhance its battlefield options."
While Tokyo may have expressed support for a ban on the development of autonomous battlefield robots, there are many reasons why they could make up an important part of Japan's defenses, the expert said.
"If you can replace soldiers with robots then you bring down casualty numbers and limit public fallout," he said. "Robots would also offset Japan's demographic time-bomb and any impact on its security capacity."
With a falling population and a growing number of elderly people, Japan's Self-Defense Forces are finding it increasingly difficult to fill positions across its land, sea and air forces, so it would make sense for Japan "to use technology to offset its demographic decline," Kingston told DW.
Read more: 'Hi, A.I.': Exploring our relationship with robots
Robot exports
Another factor for Japan would be the export potential of robot technology, an area in which Japan is a recognized world-leader. The sector could also become a significant source of income, Kingston said.
But Wareham insists that the "many fundamental moral, ethical, legal, operational, technical, proliferation, international stability and other concerns raised by killer robots are multiplying, rather than diminishing."
Among the supporters of a ban are United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Nobel Peace Prize laureates and, increasingly, artificial intelligence and robotics experts who understand the full implications of their work.
"The campaign is gathering momentum and we still see an international treaty as inevitable," she said. "It's just a case of who is going to negotiate it, where it will be inaugurated and how strong it will be.
Japan under pressure to join campaign against killer robots | DW | 10.09.2019
Activists against the development of robots that would select and attack targets without any human input accuse the US and Russia of frustrating international efforts aimed at outlawing the development of these weapons.www.dw.com
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Shouldn't Japan be at the forefront of the exciting field of developing awesome killer robots?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
Well yes, you'd think so wouldn't you ? Maybe they're all too busy watching tentacle porn & groping schoolgirls on trains to concentrate on building killer robots ?
I just hope that when they get their act together on this, that they produce killer robots in Samurai armour. They'd be super cool & super scary.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
They should design killer tentacle rapebots.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
As long as my catgirl android maids are 3 laws compliant frankly they can do whatever the fuck they want.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
Killer robots are cool and all, but Japan should focus on building giant ones, piloted by people.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
I'm not sure if this is appropriate for this thread, but here goes.
Based AP reporting on Trump's "48-kilometer-tall" wall.
Based AP reporting on Trump's "48-kilometer-tall" wall.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2018
Israeli PM wrongly refers to Boris Johnson as Boris Yeltsin
www.theguardian.com
Israeli PM wrongly refers to Boris Johnson as Boris Yeltsin
Benjamin Netanyahu’s office clumsily tries to edit out mix-up over former Russian leader’s name
www.theguardian.com
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2019
Top-tier black college athletes should take their talents to historically black institutions. That's the argument that Jemele Hill is making in a new piece for the Atlantic. She says that doing so could benefit both the colleges and the communities around them.
The piece, It's Time for Black Athletes to Leave White Colleges, argues that when highly-ranked black athletes even look at HBCUs, it "threatens to crack the foundation on which the moneymaking edifice of college sports rests" — that foundation being black athletes drawing acclaim, attention, and money to primarily white institutions.
It's an argument that has drawn some criticism — Hill says she's been called a "segregationist" for even suggesting the idea. To that, she says, "those people don't know very much about HBCUs." (Of course, Hill is no stranger to that kind of critique. She famously drew the ire of President Trump and his supporters after referring to him as a white supremacist on Twitter.)
Hill spoke to All Things Considered about the piece.
Interview Highlights
On the history of student athletes at HBCUs
That was exclusively where [black students] could go, and as a result you had a lot of the top talent. At that point in time you had a college like Grambling State University, which was basically considered to be what would be today's version of the University of Alabama, because they were that talented, putting so many players in the NFL over the course of their history. But obviously once there was desegregation, a lot of these black athletes began to go all over. HBCUs in the major revenue sports — talking about basketball and football — began to lose, or not have as much of a foothold.
If you look at the college landscape now, everybody pretty much knows [it] has become a billion dollar industry, given the television contracts, the money, the interest, the marketing, shoe deals, all of that. But black athletes in general are being exploited, because they're not being paid, and they're clearly the backbone of a lot of these universities, of which their labor has helped them become these huge powerhouses. You're looking at schools like Texas and Alabama who have a 200 million dollar athletic budget — not a school budget, just the athletic budget. All that is built on the backs of black athletes.
HBCUs generally speaking do not have large endowments, nothing that could equal any of some of the universities like Harvard. Why not take your talent to these HBCUs that once were the only place that you could go, and help to reimagine those universities from a financial standpoint the communities around them and to some degree kind of rebuild these historic institutions.
On what it would take for this to work
You would need a group, frankly, a whole exodus of athletes who would think really really really big picture in order for this to happen.
It can't be one or two, because one or two is not enough. There have been individual cases of a top-tier black talent going to these schools. But they need a wave of a conscientious effort on behalf of these athletes to do that, to help to rebuild these schools, the communities around them. And I think it will be a trickle down effect into strengthening essentially a huge base in the black community, which has always been kind of the black middle class. When you look at the number of lawyers, doctors, professionals that have come from HBCUs, I mean Kamala Harris is running for president. She went to Howard University. So when you look at the level of output that most black colleges have in general, to strengthen that even more with a very solvent, steady, stable financial base I think is just a huge benefit all around.
On the precedent for this kind of movement in athletics
We see this happen a lot in college football and college basketball, where you have athletes who have been playing together in high school, maybe on the same team. Because a lot of these guys play on the same AAU teams, two or three of them will go to one university, because they all want to play together.
One of the more famous examples is [University of Michigan's] Fab Five: Jalen Rose and Chris Webber both are from Detroit, both had a relationship, and they got to know the other members — Juwan Howard, Ray Jackson and Jimmy King. And five freshmen went to the University of Michigan and changed college basketball.
I don't see why that couldn't happen for an HBCU. I mean look, we've seen a lot of these athletes. They have chosen to go to smaller schools or be walk ons sometimes at some of these bigger schools. My thing is like, why be a walk somewhere? Go to an HBCU.
I know I was speaking from a standpoint of utter utopia. It's a little bit more more challenging than that. But I do think it's possible. I think some of it has to be a concerted push, and some of this has to come from their own homes.
When I was making my college decision, no one talked to me about going to an HBCU. I'm from Detroit, and that's a black city, right? I knew other people who had gone, but nobody said, "Hey, did you ever think about going here now?" Two HBCUs wound up being on my final list of colleges, and I owe that to the Cosby Show and A Different World.
On the exposure athletes get at larger schools
As we've seen always has been the case in sports, and really virtually anything entertainment based, is exposure goes where the talent is. So the exposure would be, to me, the least of the issues, because again, there are players in the NFL and NBA who went to black colleges and they were found. And I think that's part of what I got at in this piece is the mentality that some of these young athletes have. They think the schools make them.
Now I'm not going to pretend that if you go to a black college there are things you have to prove that say, somebody who goes to Oregon or Florida State doesn't have to prove. That being said, teams want to get better, and they want to go where the talent is, and it's the same with television networks. They follow where the audience goes and where the talent is.
The piece, It's Time for Black Athletes to Leave White Colleges, argues that when highly-ranked black athletes even look at HBCUs, it "threatens to crack the foundation on which the moneymaking edifice of college sports rests" — that foundation being black athletes drawing acclaim, attention, and money to primarily white institutions.
It's an argument that has drawn some criticism — Hill says she's been called a "segregationist" for even suggesting the idea. To that, she says, "those people don't know very much about HBCUs." (Of course, Hill is no stranger to that kind of critique. She famously drew the ire of President Trump and his supporters after referring to him as a white supremacist on Twitter.)
Hill spoke to All Things Considered about the piece.
Interview Highlights
On the history of student athletes at HBCUs
That was exclusively where [black students] could go, and as a result you had a lot of the top talent. At that point in time you had a college like Grambling State University, which was basically considered to be what would be today's version of the University of Alabama, because they were that talented, putting so many players in the NFL over the course of their history. But obviously once there was desegregation, a lot of these black athletes began to go all over. HBCUs in the major revenue sports — talking about basketball and football — began to lose, or not have as much of a foothold.
If you look at the college landscape now, everybody pretty much knows [it] has become a billion dollar industry, given the television contracts, the money, the interest, the marketing, shoe deals, all of that. But black athletes in general are being exploited, because they're not being paid, and they're clearly the backbone of a lot of these universities, of which their labor has helped them become these huge powerhouses. You're looking at schools like Texas and Alabama who have a 200 million dollar athletic budget — not a school budget, just the athletic budget. All that is built on the backs of black athletes.
HBCUs generally speaking do not have large endowments, nothing that could equal any of some of the universities like Harvard. Why not take your talent to these HBCUs that once were the only place that you could go, and help to reimagine those universities from a financial standpoint the communities around them and to some degree kind of rebuild these historic institutions.
On what it would take for this to work
You would need a group, frankly, a whole exodus of athletes who would think really really really big picture in order for this to happen.
It can't be one or two, because one or two is not enough. There have been individual cases of a top-tier black talent going to these schools. But they need a wave of a conscientious effort on behalf of these athletes to do that, to help to rebuild these schools, the communities around them. And I think it will be a trickle down effect into strengthening essentially a huge base in the black community, which has always been kind of the black middle class. When you look at the number of lawyers, doctors, professionals that have come from HBCUs, I mean Kamala Harris is running for president. She went to Howard University. So when you look at the level of output that most black colleges have in general, to strengthen that even more with a very solvent, steady, stable financial base I think is just a huge benefit all around.
On the precedent for this kind of movement in athletics
We see this happen a lot in college football and college basketball, where you have athletes who have been playing together in high school, maybe on the same team. Because a lot of these guys play on the same AAU teams, two or three of them will go to one university, because they all want to play together.
One of the more famous examples is [University of Michigan's] Fab Five: Jalen Rose and Chris Webber both are from Detroit, both had a relationship, and they got to know the other members — Juwan Howard, Ray Jackson and Jimmy King. And five freshmen went to the University of Michigan and changed college basketball.
I don't see why that couldn't happen for an HBCU. I mean look, we've seen a lot of these athletes. They have chosen to go to smaller schools or be walk ons sometimes at some of these bigger schools. My thing is like, why be a walk somewhere? Go to an HBCU.
I know I was speaking from a standpoint of utter utopia. It's a little bit more more challenging than that. But I do think it's possible. I think some of it has to be a concerted push, and some of this has to come from their own homes.
When I was making my college decision, no one talked to me about going to an HBCU. I'm from Detroit, and that's a black city, right? I knew other people who had gone, but nobody said, "Hey, did you ever think about going here now?" Two HBCUs wound up being on my final list of colleges, and I owe that to the Cosby Show and A Different World.
On the exposure athletes get at larger schools
As we've seen always has been the case in sports, and really virtually anything entertainment based, is exposure goes where the talent is. So the exposure would be, to me, the least of the issues, because again, there are players in the NFL and NBA who went to black colleges and they were found. And I think that's part of what I got at in this piece is the mentality that some of these young athletes have. They think the schools make them.
Now I'm not going to pretend that if you go to a black college there are things you have to prove that say, somebody who goes to Oregon or Florida State doesn't have to prove. That being said, teams want to get better, and they want to go where the talent is, and it's the same with television networks. They follow where the audience goes and where the talent is.
So now we're nearly at "integration was a mistake?" NPR has gone downhill fast over the last year or two. Granted, this is from the "Code Switch" section (aka "The Root Lite") but there's been a huge uptick of this kind of 'tism on NPR lately. Now they've hit the horseshoe.