Sim People and speech

The AI takes familiar features (from celebrities) and morphs them. I can place a few of the celebrity features and the occasional historical one, they must’ve used internet photos.
Top left looks like a young Winston Churchill. I’d know that face anywhere.

It’s like that morph tool that’s everywhere but in higher resolution.

AI actors are already old hat. Look at the AI on Beowulf. That had me sitting back in my seat in shock.

The Governments already have your speech from routing your cell phone conversations through satellite feed. These must be able to produce “naturalistic speech” from the sheer volume of input. Nobody knew why they were recording but I figured it must be something like that. Idealistically, they could use it to trace a terrorist wherever they placed a call in the world because the AI would flag it up but the fact they’re trying to manufacture speech, and not just track it, is really creepy.

The first software on cameras made the actors look younger, and it dates back to lenses before that.

Youtube is also owned by Google.

Why do you think I’m not on Youtube?

Digital Communism

http://uk.pcmag.com/amazon-web-services/87703/feature/blockchain-the-invisible-technology-thats-changing-the-world
I jest but only a little.
The system could be compromised. It’s difficult, but not impossible.
It makes me laugh when they claim anything’s foolproof. I think of the propeller guy in Titanic.

nb Government and corporation are now used in the same sentence.
At least in a monarchy, you know exactly what the bastard at the top looks like.
Playing jigsaw with a different kinda bit is open to many points of failure, the omission of a single point only puts off the amateurs. Who owns the most pieces, it’s bloody Monopoly.

Ah, the ambiguity of ‘human error’.

comment

“The operative word is “may”.

Blockchain is nothing more than an accounting system that allows tracking where an entry to the blockchain, once entered, can’t be altered. However, unlike blockchains in cryptocurrencies where the blockchain entry is integral to the spending of the “coin”, blockchain applied to real items relies on the honesty of the people making the entries in the blockchain that is associated with the transfer of the item. In other words, an entry to a blockchain used for tracking a tangible asset can be falsified when created, but once an entry is created, it can’t be altered. In addition, it’s difficult to come up with a system that insures the tangible asset associated with a given blockchain is in fact the correct tangible asset.”

10/10, all the points and you win a cookie, Sir.

Techs trust People because their SQ sucks. Data is the new gospel, it seems.

Why would food need an audit? What happens if the governing body thinks you have too much?

NP? YP. Property will always exist and be consolidated. As advanced as we like to think this 21C hellscape is, it still comes down to who owns the mines, that retain the resources, to literally, physically build these systems.

http://asq.africa.ufl.edu/files/v16a6.Kabemba.HD_.pdf
Well, shit. Guess we have to pray for a Godly EMP blast with a curving radius. Better pray to your chosen solar deity.
BTW, they wanna track and record what you eat.
http://uk.pcmag.com/news/90821/how-a-global-supply-blockchain-could-stop-foodborne-outbreak
For your own good, obvi.
Cash will still totally work, until there’s sufficient political push that it doesn’t.
This is hardly the first time I’ve mentioned food security as an existential risk and they hardly do either, since there’s a serious, national problem that hi-tech pen-pushing isn’t going to fix.

It looks like it would help though and that’s all they really care about – expensive crap that looks impressive to voters. Rather than prevent fifty people get the shits for a week for being too lazy to cook [see end], maybe we could rein in the impulse to pull a Geldoff and notoriously fail to ‘feed the world’ like an errant deer and just focus on our own doorstep, our own, singular, one little country at a time?

If you can’t do that, are you really qualified to run a student council?

Digital spread-betting won’t plant more crops locally and won’t make them healthier either.

Tea is good but toast is crunchy.

If you want to know what really causes food contamination, look up the hygiene ‘standards’ for the many immigrants working food. They don’t wash, they don’t wipe, some do with their hand. Illegal ones aren’t screened for disease, legal ones rarely are either. They’re cheaper for a reason.

Slavery (wages) will continue in America until the Left decides it wants to forego cheap burritos for human rights.

There’s nothing wrong with my writing style

Please, America.

Do your research before calling others illiterate?

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/writing-style.html

And explains a meme.

Another hacker habit is a tendency to distinguish between ‘scare’ quotes and ‘speech’ quotes; that is, to use British-style single quotes for marking and reserve American-style double quotes for actual reports of speech or text included from elsewhere. Interestingly, some authorities describe this as correct general usage, but mainstream American English has gone to using double-quotes indiscriminately enough that hacker usage appears marked [and, in fact, I thought this was a personal quirk of mine until I checked with Usenet —ESR] One further permutation that is definitely not standard is a hackish tendency to do marking quotes by using apostrophes (single quotes) in pairs; that is, ’like this’. This is modelled on string and character literal syntax in some programming languages (reinforced by the fact that many character-only terminals display the apostrophe in typewriter style, as a vertical single quote).”

There seems to be a meta-rule behind these nonstandard hackerisms to the effect that precision of expression is more important than conformance to traditional rules; where the latter create ambiguity or lose information they can be discarded without a second thought. It is notable in this respect that other hackish inventions (for example, in vocabulary) also tend to carry very precise shades of meaning even when constructed to appear slangy and loose. In fact, to a hacker, the contrast between ‘loose’ form and ‘tight’ content in jargon is a substantial part of its humor!

One of these is that TEXT IN ALL CAPS IS INTERPRETED AS ‘LOUD’, and this becomes such an ingrained synesthetic reflex that a person who goes to caps-lock while in talk mode may be asked to “stop shouting, please, you’re hurting my ears!”.”

“There is a semantic difference between *emphasis like this* (which emphasizes the phrase as a whole), and *emphasis* *like* *this* (which suggests the writer speaking very slowly and distinctly, as if to a very young child or a mentally impaired person). Bracketing a word with the ‘*’ character may also indicate that the writer wishes readers to consider that an action is taking place or that a sound is being made. Examples: *bang*, *hic*, *ring*, *grin*, *kick*, *stomp*, *mumble*.”

“Hackers also mix letters and numbers more freely than in mainstream usage. In particular, it is good hackish style to write a digit sequence where you intend the reader to understand the text string that names that number in English. So, hackers prefer to write ‘1970s’ rather than ‘nineteen-seventies’ or ‘1970’s’ (the latter looks like a possessive).”

It should also be noted that hackers exhibit much less reluctance to use multiply-nested parentheses than is normal in English. Part of this is almost certainly due to influence from LISP (which uses deeply nested parentheses (like this (see?)) in its syntax a lot), but it has also been suggested that a more basic hacker trait of enjoying playing with complexity and pushing systems to their limits is in operation.”

“Perhaps in response to this, experienced netters often display a sort of conscious formal politesse in their writing that has passed out of fashion in other spoken and written media (for example, the phrase “Well said, sir!” is not uncommon).

Many introverted hackers who are next to inarticulate in person communicate with considerable fluency over the net, perhaps precisely because they can forget on an unconscious level that they are dealing with people and thus don’t feel stressed and anxious as they would face to face.”

Don’t be a Twitter bitch and correct others’ form when you don’t understand the jokes.
I’m not illiterate in my native tongue. I’m not stupid. You are.