The amusing failure of KGB news continues apace... the financial failure is driving a very cynical attempt to break so many broadcast rules that they are taken off air. They can then return online at lower cost as Trumpian style "martyrs" and raise money from deluded free speech purists. Their politically and morally bankrupt ideology would remain unchanged of course, just on a cheaper financial footing. Problem is it has become a bit a clown car brand, so only useful idiots won't see this ruse for what it is... step forward David Davis...
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
That was of their few interesting policies which might actually have moved the dial. Shame.
Indteresting. Another element to add to the Rutherglen by-election as it opens up still more difference between Labour and the SNP (though the matter is confused by the Slab candidate adopting SNP rather than Labour policies, as previously discussed here).
I'm still backing the LDs in Mid Beds, based on their famous by-election machine.
I've greened up but have got my big play on Labour.
The LDs aren't magicians and aren't doing anything special other parties can't do or don't know.
Their main advantage is just that they can be all things to all men.
It’s more than that. To win any seat for a third party, who at best would naturally come second in most places, requires a campaigning edge - they can’t get (many) people elected just by wearing the right rosette in the right part of the country. So there’s a sort of natural selection process in play where those people who get elected as LibDem councillors or LibDem MPs know how to fight elections, and normally have some sort of talent for running campaigns (or occasionally just have a very good agent who does). LibDems have to campaign to survive in a way that isnt true for the larger parties with their shedloads of safe seats, and I have met many Tory and Labour councillors over the years who wouldn’t get anywhere in the LibDems. One other consequence is that there’s a huge culture of travelling long distances to help in by-election campaigns and hence for a single contest the party can pull in huge numbers of people from a very wide area.
So, basically, you're very dedicated and put the hard nine yards in?
I get it, but that can be outgunned when the two parties decide to play and put their (greater) resources in; they also don't have to work quite as hard as they have a clear national message to leverage.
I don't think you get why LDs have are better at by-election and why other parties can't compete. You are right in principle anybody can do it, but parties rely on their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses and a by election happens to coincide with the positives for the LDs and there is nothing that can be done about that. So to explain:
Tories have more money, more members and target far more seat at all levels of elections. They have a more organised, but less flexible delivery network, they correctly are well organised at getting out the vote. They don't waste time minimising costs and have to focus on most wards so don't move many activists. They have deliverers who will regularly (but not constantly )deliver small delivery walks.
LDs target much fewer wards so move around more and with fewer members do bigger deliveries and far more flexibly. They focus on gaining votes rather than holding votes so delivery rather than gotv is relevant. They then rely on having active grass root councillors to hold seats. Because they have less funds they have learnt to do stuff cheaper and are more agile which means they can produce more within the election limit.
For example I have run a local by election campaign where we won a ward without single member or deliverer at the start of the campaign. I have produced leaflets with only hours of notice and got delivered that day.
Both parties are exploiting their strengths and mitigating their weaknesses correctly, but when you have a parliamentary by election all of a sudden the LDs have all their restrictions removed (plenty of money, high expenses limit an more activists than the competition) which gives them a huge advantage.
Mr. xP, not a Braverman fan, but if she is sacked that may prove somewhat Pyrrhic for her opponents. I wouldn't be surprised (although I would be dismayed) if she's a 'serious' [ahem] contender for the leadership after Sunak goes.
And that's Sunak's problem.
How do you punish someone who sees the obvious punishment as a step on their career plan?
Don't just sack her, withdraw the whip, and say those comments have no place in the party?
Lead or be trapped by the nutters around him who he can't control and will drag him down very quickly.
A phone call where you can see the other person talking? Amazing.
This is like a basic IQ test for PB. Come on. You can do it. Think about the video. The way Lex Friedman explains what he is experiencing
The ones who think it's a lot of shite pass the test?
I’m close to giving up
I’ll give you one more chance. As Lex Friedman says, using this tech means you REALLY TRULY feel like you are in the same room as the person you are talking to. They are there, in 3D, with you - and you are with them - and they look completely normal. Like themselves
Even though the two are actually hundreds of miles apart. For a start this will replace all normal calls, video calls, Zooms, all that - it’s in a different league
But imagine what else it can do. Sexually, emotionally, everything. You could talk to the dead and they will be there in front of you - alive - with an AI simulating their persona and using their voice (this tech already exists). Is this the end of grief?
You just need a brain and the ability to extrapolate
Lex Friedman is an extremely smart guy not given to hyperbole. He says in that video “this is the most incredible thing I’ve ever seen”. He is clearly shocked and moved
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
I'm still backing the LDs in Mid Beds, based on their famous by-election machine.
I've greened up but have got my big play on Labour.
The LDs aren't magicians and aren't doing anything special other parties can't do or don't know.
Their main advantage is just that they can be all things to all men.
It’s more than that. To win any seat for a third party, who at best would naturally come second in most places, requires a campaigning edge - they can’t get (many) people elected just by wearing the right rosette in the right part of the country. So there’s a sort of natural selection process in play where those people who get elected as LibDem councillors or LibDem MPs know how to fight elections, and normally have some sort of talent for running campaigns (or occasionally just have a very good agent who does). LibDems have to campaign to survive in a way that isnt true for the larger parties with their shedloads of safe seats, and I have met many Tory and Labour councillors over the years who wouldn’t get anywhere in the LibDems. One other consequence is that there’s a huge culture of travelling long distances to help in by-election campaigns and hence for a single contest the party can pull in huge numbers of people from a very wide area.
I think that's usually true. But in this particular by-election the Labour effort has apparently been unlike any that I've seen, with four canvass sessions and multiple leaflet rounds every day. Peter Kyle seems to be organising it very tightly - the postal vote weekend operation in particular.
The LibDem by-election machine depends heavily on being very visibly the only alternative to the Tories that is really trying hard, so they get lots of Labour voters saying OK, I suppose I'd better go for you. In the absence of that, from a starting point of 12.6%, I don't honestly think they have a path to winning. I think Labour are correctly favourites, but I wouldn't rule out a Tory win.
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
Doesn’t especially look like it. Knitting a 3D image from multiple cameras has been a thing for a long time. The question is how cheap the tech has got.
Morris Dancer is correct that VR != Metaverse. As usual, with Farcebook, it’s an attempt to monetise everything you do/are.
A phone call where you can see the other person talking? Amazing.
This is like a basic IQ test for PB. Come on. You can do it. Think about the video. The way Lex Friedman explains what he is experiencing
The ones who think it's a lot of shite pass the test?
I’m close to giving up
I’ll give you one more chance. As Lex Friedman says, using this tech means you REALLY TRULY feel like you are in the same room as the person you are talking to. They are there, in 3D, with you - and you are with them - and they look completely normal. Like themselves
Even though the two are actually hundreds of miles apart. For a start this will replace all normal calls, video calls, Zooms, all that - it’s in a different league
But imagine what else it can do. Sexually, emotionally, everything. You could talk to the dead and they will be there in front of you - alive - with an AI simulating their persona and using their voice (this tech already exists). Is this the end of grief?
You just need a brain and the ability to extrapolate
Lex Friedman is an extremely smart guy not given to hyperbole. He says in that video “this is the most incredible thing I’ve ever seen”. He is clearly shocked and moved
So, apparently yes, in answer to my question. Interesting.
Harper tries to divert BBC radio 4 interviewer away from Hs2 and on to his parking app.
Fails.
It was a dreadful interview; he just came across as shifty and evasive, and didn't do the government any favours at all.
Same on BBC Breakfast. I commented earlier. It was a car cash on a whole range of transport stuff. Not his fault but he is the minister. He has been dropped in it. If I were him I would resign
Lex Friedman is a youngish silicon valley chap, I see, of a similar background to Serge Brin.
I was imagining someone a little older, more like Lex Luthor, pink weathered skin, red braces and a sinister laugh , building uber-robots in a leather-appointed penthouse somewhere .
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
Very realistic avatars with full range of expressions. Discussion of having your avatar run by an AI representation of you so you can have personal one-to-one interactions with millions of people at the same time.
The sort of futuristic discussion that could have been had 30 years ago about the use of smartphones to have video conversations across the globe and how that would change things. This is sort of similar but the next step.
Harper tries to divert BBC radio 4 interviewer away from Hs2 and on to his parking app.
Fails.
It was a dreadful interview; he just came across as shifty and evasive, and didn't do the government any favours at all.
Same on BBC Breakfast. I commented earlier. It was a car cash on a whole range of transport stuff. Not his fault but he is the minister. He has been dropped in it. If I were him I would resign
Hmmm, if you were him, wouldnt you also be you? And would you be in his role or even the party?
I'm still backing the LDs in Mid Beds, based on their famous by-election machine.
I've greened up but have got my big play on Labour.
The LDs aren't magicians and aren't doing anything special other parties can't do or don't know.
Their main advantage is just that they can be all things to all men.
It’s more than that. To win any seat for a third party, who at best would naturally come second in most places, requires a campaigning edge - they can’t get (many) people elected just by wearing the right rosette in the right part of the country. So there’s a sort of natural selection process in play where those people who get elected as LibDem councillors or LibDem MPs know how to fight elections, and normally have some sort of talent for running campaigns (or occasionally just have a very good agent who does). LibDems have to campaign to survive in a way that isnt true for the larger parties with their shedloads of safe seats, and I have met many Tory and Labour councillors over the years who wouldn’t get anywhere in the LibDems. One other consequence is that there’s a huge culture of travelling long distances to help in by-election campaigns and hence for a single contest the party can pull in huge numbers of people from a very wide area.
I think that's usually true. But in this particular by-election the Labour effort has apparently been unlike any that I've seen, with four canvass sessions and multiple leaflet rounds every day. Peter Kyle seems to be organising it very tightly - the postal vote weekend operation in particular.
The LibDem by-election machine depends heavily on being very visibly the only alternative to the Tories that is really trying hard, so they get lots of Labour voters saying OK, I suppose I'd better go for you. In the absence of that, from a starting point of 12.6%, I don't honestly think they have a path to winning. I think Labour are correctly favourites, but I wouldn't rule out a Tory win.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
Harper tries to divert BBC radio 4 interviewer away from Hs2 and on to his parking app.
Fails.
It was a dreadful interview; he just came across as shifty and evasive, and didn't do the government any favours at all.
Same on BBC Breakfast. I commented earlier. It was a car cash on a whole range of transport stuff. Not his fault but he is the minister. He has been dropped in it. If I were him I would resign
Aside from anything else, refusing to comment on speculation that the future of HS2 north of Birmingham is in doubt, purely because it's speculation, is as good as confirming that it's at least under review, and will fuel rather than kill the media story.
For a start this will replace all normal calls, video calls, Zooms, all that - it’s in a different league
Except it won't.
I spend most of my day on Teams calls, and the purpose of those calls is to share information, usually by sharing the screens we are looking at. The person talking is the least important element of the call
Instead of a Teams call you can have a really, really creepy Teams call.
Is it going to be bigger than 3D television?
"Jeremy Darroch, Sky's Chief Executive, said: "3D is without doubt one of the most talked-about developments in television for many years. "Sky has always innovated to bring customers the best possible viewing experience, so we fully intend to take the lead in bringing the spectacle of 3D to the UK and Ireland." Gerry O'Sullivan, Sky's Director of Strategic Product Development, said: "2010 is the year for 3D TV. "People have already embraced 3D cinema and because Sky's 3D service uses the same kind of technology, we're confident there will be demand for sport, movies, concerts and drama in 3D."
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
Very realistic avatars with full range of expressions. Discussion of having your avatar run by an AI representation of you so you can have personal one-to-one interactions with millions of people at the same time.
The sort of futuristic discussion that could have been had 30 years ago about the use of smartphones to have video conversations across the globe and how that would change things. This is sort of similar but the next step.
The avatars are still in the uncanny valley. Despite saying in the video the eyes are realistic, it still feels off. It needs to be a lot better than this for it to be not creepy. It looks like it has high novelty value, hence why Leon is shedding his load, but it's not ready for longevity, not yet.
Except that Friedman explicitly says “this has finally crossed uncanny valley - it seems real”
Judging by his emotional reaction and the 2D version we see (the 3D will obviously be miles better) this is the case
But imagine what else it can do. Sexually, emotionally, everything. You could talk to the dead and they will be there in front of you - alive - with an AI simulating their persona and using their voice (this tech already exists). Is this the end of grief?
Can anyone really be so shallow as to think an AI simulation of the dead means "the end of grief"?
For a start this will replace all normal calls, video calls, Zooms, all that - it’s in a different league
Except it won't.
I spend most of my day on Teams calls, and the purpose of those calls is to share information, usually by sharing the screens we are looking at. The person talking is the least important element of the call
There's a big swing away from Teams meetings in both my work and teaching. You just don't get that much interaction once more than a half dozen participants, far better face to face.
Actual reality beats virtual reality nearly every time, which is why Leon is drinking cocktails on a beach rather than wearing a VR headset in Primrose Hill.
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
No I have watched the video and you didn't get it. Note the following excerpt and the CAPITALISED BITS IN BOLD
Scanning 3D objects and manipulating the resultant mesh to produce the illusion of a real object is an outdated technology. It's been replaced by a different technology: an AI processing multiple images to produce a deepfake. It's considerably quicker, producing subtler results, blackboxes the model and doesn't require a scan. We already have cases where AIs can produce deepfakes of real people in real time with generated voices that sound like the real person and matches the lip movements.
Your reaction is like preferring a cathode-ray-tube television to flat-panel TVs.
For a start this will replace all normal calls, video calls, Zooms, all that - it’s in a different league
Except it won't.
I spend most of my day on Teams calls, and the purpose of those calls is to share information, usually by sharing the screens we are looking at. The person talking is the least important element of the call
Teams and Zoom are shit. Glitchy and draggy. So many non verbal social cues are missed. Jokes fall flat. Everyone hates them
We are living in a time - a moment, even - of unprecedented technological advances. The world is transforming, sometimes on a daily basis
Exhilarating but scary
It's truly the changing of an era; we just can't see it yet
Tomorrow's world in all its edginess is already with us. I can check bin collection dates online, and follow my bus and train cancellations in real time. Try rural cool if you want to be ahead.
A phone call where you can see the other person talking? Amazing.
This is like a basic IQ test for PB. Come on. You can do it. Think about the video. The way Lex Friedman explains what he is experiencing
Great for porn, especially the illegal type, but Meta will soon block that. Handy for training in some instances, a bit like the earlier link to using ChatGPT to speak Russian, but who will pay? Game and film creators already have 3-d modelling so that's out.
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
No I have watched the video and you didn't get it. Note the following excerpt and the CAPITALISED BITS IN BOLD
Scanning 3D objects and manipulating the resultant mesh to produce the illusion of a real object is an outdated technology. It's been replaced by a different technology: an AI processing multiple images to produce a deepfake. It's considerably quicker, producing subtler results, blackboxes the model and doesn't require a scan. We already have cases where AIs can produce deepfakes of real people in real time with generated voices that sound like the real person and matches the lip movements.
Your reaction is like preferring a cathode-ray-tube television to flat-panel TVs.
Give us an example of an AI human deepfake in 3D convincing someone they are actually in the presence, physically, of that faked human
Re the Sycamore tree. Has anyone identified a criminal offence which may have been committed yet? Did it have a TPO?
I'm not querying the awfulness of the destruction. Just wondering what someone could be charged with?
Also I hope the wood from the felled tree is used to create something beautiful - perhaps a carving in miniature of the tree itself, made out of its own wood.
(Edited: I see @JosiasJessop has asked the same question. That'll teach me to comment before reading the thread.)
But imagine what else it can do. Sexually, emotionally, everything. You could talk to the dead and they will be there in front of you - alive - with an AI simulating their persona and using their voice (this tech already exists). Is this the end of grief?
Can anyone really be so shallow as to think an AI simulation of the dead means "the end of grief"?
It could possibly make it worse, or at least prolong it, since grief is essentially the process of coming to terms with loss, not of clinging onto it, even though during the process clinging on is what you want to do.
It looks like the branding for the Tory conference is based around the five pledges:
It makes it seem all the more certain that Sunak's dogshit lurch wasn't planned.
How embarrassing for the party to be caught on the hop like that. I hope they've at least managed to print out some posters about the new priorities around bus lanes and bollards.
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for town councillorship.
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
No I have watched the video and you didn't get it. Note the following excerpt and the CAPITALISED BITS IN BOLD
Scanning 3D objects and manipulating the resultant mesh to produce the illusion of a real object is an outdated technology. It's been replaced by a different technology: an AI processing multiple images to produce a deepfake. It's considerably quicker, producing subtler results, blackboxes the model and doesn't require a scan. We already have cases where AIs can produce deepfakes of real people in real time with generated voices that sound like the real person and matches the lip movements.
Your reaction is like preferring a cathode-ray-tube television to flat-panel TVs.
I only got rid of my CRT last year, and there are still things I preferred about it (and not only that it was too heavy for anyone to steal).
For a start this will replace all normal calls, video calls, Zooms, all that - it’s in a different league
Except it won't.
I spend most of my day on Teams calls, and the purpose of those calls is to share information, usually by sharing the screens we are looking at. The person talking is the least important element of the call
Teams and Zoom are shit. Glitchy and draggy. So many non verbal social cues are missed. Jokes fall flat. Everyone hates them
This solves all that
By having a rather creepy fake image of the individual rather than the real one, or more importantly what's on their screen which is 95% of such calls?
Sure it does. It solves it in the same way as mass producing tents solves the housing crisis.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Harper tries to divert BBC radio 4 interviewer away from Hs2 and on to his parking app.
Fails.
It was a dreadful interview; he just came across as shifty and evasive, and didn't do the government any favours at all.
Same on BBC Breakfast. I commented earlier. It was a car cash on a whole range of transport stuff. Not his fault but he is the minister. He has been dropped in it. If I were him I would resign
Hmmm, if you were him, wouldnt you also be you? And would you be in his role or even the party?
No and no obviously, but you know what I mean. He was thrown under the bus (pun unintended) on 20 mph limits in Wales (caught out lying), 20 mph limits in England (promising to reverse a non existent policy, which even if it were would have been from his Govt) and refusing to speculate on HS2, being in a Govt who started the speculation. And that was for starters. He is transport minister. These are transport issues. None of this stuff came from him in the first place, yet he had to go on and defend it.
A phone call where you can see the other person talking? Amazing.
This is like a basic IQ test for PB. Come on. You can do it. Think about the video. The way Lex Friedman explains what he is experiencing
The ones who think it's a lot of shite pass the test?
I’m close to giving up
I’ll give you one more chance. As Lex Friedman says, using this tech means you REALLY TRULY feel like you are in the same room as the person you are talking to. They are there, in 3D, with you - and you are with them - and they look completely normal. Like themselves
Even though the two are actually hundreds of miles apart. For a start this will replace all normal calls, video calls, Zooms, all that - it’s in a different league
But imagine what else it can do. Sexually, emotionally, everything. You could talk to the dead and they will be there in front of you - alive - with an AI simulating their persona and using their voice (this tech already exists). Is this the end of grief?
You just need a brain and the ability to extrapolate
Lex Friedman is an extremely smart guy not given to hyperbole. He says in that video “this is the most incredible thing I’ve ever seen”. He is clearly shocked and moved
Some things are jolly clever and do unbelievable things but that doesn't mean people want it in the long run.
The creepiest (R4 series recently) is the stuff being done on abolishing ageing and death.
The next creepiest is avatars or long dead people in your bed when you are trying to read Anthony Trollope. All the bad things about long term marriage and none of the good.
The third creepiest is living a life through screens all the time and having to talk to and listen to groups of dull people failing to make a point.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Harper tries to divert BBC radio 4 interviewer away from Hs2 and on to his parking app.
Fails.
It was a dreadful interview; he just came across as shifty and evasive, and didn't do the government any favours at all.
Same on BBC Breakfast. I commented earlier. It was a car cash on a whole range of transport stuff. Not his fault but he is the minister. He has been dropped in it. If I were him I would resign
Hmmm, if you were him, wouldnt you also be you? And would you be in his role or even the party?
No and no obviously, but you know what I mean. He was thrown under the bus (pun unintended) on 20 mph limits in Wales (caught out lying), 20 mph limits in England (promising to reverse a non existent policy, which even if it were would have been from his Govt) and refusing to speculate on HS2, being in a Govt who started the speculation. And that was for starters. He is transport minister. These are transport issues. None of this stuff came from him in the first place, yet he had to go on and defend it.
They should have just moved the conference to Birmingham and then they could have said yes we are cancelling the Manchester leg, and will keep cancelling more northern stuff if they keep voting for the King of the North and his lefty cronies.
As an aside, I think AI in video games is going to make a far bigger difference for far more people than Meta's joyous plan to try and become indispensable (and charge a slice for that by making every action/interaction go through their metaverse filter).
Mr/Ms. Algakirk, historical figures will (even by the most objective people trying to be as neutral as possible) be contaminated with bias. If activists are handling any of this (very likely, at least now and then) they'll be doing their best to make Caesar speak with their words.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Sunak isn't losing his majority in Mid Beds, but a 3 way contest fought to win by all 3 parties is a useful test on what the floor and ceiling of each party is in what was always thought of as a rock solid true blue seat.
Re the Sycamore tree. Has anyone identified a criminal offence which may have been committed yet? Did it have a TPO?
I'm not querying the awfulness of the destruction. Just wondering what someone could be charged with?
Also I hope the wood from the felled tree is used to create something beautiful - perhaps a carving in miniature of the tree itself, made out of its own wood.
(Edited: I see @JosiasJessop has asked the same question. That'll teach me to comment before reading the thread.)
Maybe if the tree falling damaged a bit of Hadrian’s Wall, even minor damage, the culprit could be done for damaging a listed monument if they can’t get them for cutting the tree down itself.
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
No I have watched the video and you didn't get it. Note the following excerpt and the CAPITALISED BITS IN BOLD
Scanning 3D objects and manipulating the resultant mesh to produce the illusion of a real object is an outdated technology. It's been replaced by a different technology: an AI processing multiple images to produce a deepfake. It's considerably quicker, producing subtler results, blackboxes the model and doesn't require a scan. We already have cases where AIs can produce deepfakes of real people in real time with generated voices that sound like the real person and matches the lip movements.
Your reaction is like preferring a cathode-ray-tube television to flat-panel TVs.
Give us an example of an AI human deepfake in 3D convincing someone they are actually in the presence, physically, of that faked human
You are reparameterising the problem to include "3D" and "physically". Discarding the two and this is an example of an AI human deepfake in 2D that convinces a real person
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Ultimately it doesn't matter. Sunak isn't losing his majority in Mid Beds, but a 3 way contest fought to win by all 3 parties is a useful test on what the floor and ceiling of each party is in what was always thought of as a rock solid true blue seat.
With a useful side effect that if the Tories manage to squeak home it’ll encourage complacency.
Mr. Farooq, don't worry. You'll soon be able to make an AI Morris Dancer that says the exact same things but replies to people using the quote function.
[To be honest, I mostly forget the function exists. But the disgruntled condemnation of others isn't exactly an encouragement to try and remember.]
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
No I have watched the video and you didn't get it. Note the following excerpt and the CAPITALISED BITS IN BOLD
Scanning 3D objects and manipulating the resultant mesh to produce the illusion of a real object is an outdated technology. It's been replaced by a different technology: an AI processing multiple images to produce a deepfake. It's considerably quicker, producing subtler results, blackboxes the model and doesn't require a scan. We already have cases where AIs can produce deepfakes of real people in real time with generated voices that sound like the real person and matches the lip movements.
Your reaction is like preferring a cathode-ray-tube television to flat-panel TVs.
I only got rid of my CRT last year, and there are still things I preferred about it (and not only that it was too heavy for anyone to steal).
I still have one. With a built-in video player so I can play my videos. It doesn't work and I only have two videos left. And I can't find one of them.
If Labour are sending all their activists to Mid-Bedfordshire rather than Tamworth does that mean they think Tamworth is in the bag? Or are they just disorganised?
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
No I have watched the video and you didn't get it. Note the following excerpt and the CAPITALISED BITS IN BOLD
Scanning 3D objects and manipulating the resultant mesh to produce the illusion of a real object is an outdated technology. It's been replaced by a different technology: an AI processing multiple images to produce a deepfake. It's considerably quicker, producing subtler results, blackboxes the model and doesn't require a scan. We already have cases where AIs can produce deepfakes of real people in real time with generated voices that sound like the real person and matches the lip movements.
Your reaction is like preferring a cathode-ray-tube television to flat-panel TVs.
Give us an example of an AI human deepfake in 3D convincing someone they are actually in the presence, physically, of that faked human
You are reparameterising the problem to include "3D" and "physically". Discarding the two and this is an example of an AI human deepfake in 2D that convinces a real person
Wrapping the photographic texture onto the jerky avatar tips it way over into the uncanny valley. It's why cartoon-style skins are so much more effective.
There's a big swing away from Teams meetings in both my work and teaching. You just don't get that much interaction once more than a half dozen participants, far better face to face.
Great, except the the people I work with every day are in 5 different timezones
As an aside, I think AI in video games is going to make a far bigger difference for far more people than Meta's joyous plan to try and become indispensable (and charge a slice for that by making every action/interaction go through their metaverse filter).
Meta and companies like it seek to exploit and control every aspect of people's lives to enrich on an unimaginable scale a very few people while refusing to contribute taxes to the societies in which they operate.
Naive and simplistic as this may sound to the breathlessly excited on here, they need taking down several pegs not enabling and praising.
I spend around half my working time on Teams calls. The most interesting part is when a cat walks across someone's desk when they are WFH. Sometimes there is just a cat's tail appearing in the edge of the frame.
I also like it when I am in the same Team's call as the person at the next desk. Surprises the other attendees when we appear in each other's screens.
Teams means that dozens of unnecessary journeys do not happen. Also, it is easier to get someone in for 10 minutes of a meeting where their expertise is required. Much more time efficient than constantly travelling to meetings.
However, hybrid meetings are usually a pile of shite. Can't hear half the folk in the room, and don't get to share their buffet.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Quite. The thing us that the leadership of both Labour and the Lib Dems have decided to duke it out in Mid Beds a) because actually they don't have much to lose, but also b) especially on the Labour side, if the Tories came through the middle it would demonstrate to the membership that some kind of understanding will need to happen. I think Davey and Starmer both understand this very well.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
It's because they view Putin's Russia as their blueprint for government. In the same way that Western Communists looked up to the Soviet Union.
As an aside, I think AI in video games is going to make a far bigger difference for far more people than Meta's joyous plan to try and become indispensable (and charge a slice for that by making every action/interaction go through their metaverse filter).
Meta and companies like it seek to exploit and control every aspect of people's lives to enrich on an unimaginable scale a very few people while refusing to contribute taxes to the societies in which they operate.
Naive and simplistic as this may sound to the breathlessly excited on here, they need taking down several pegs not enabling and praising.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
On topic. We have family who live in Mid-Beds. I was asked who to vote for from an ABC (Anyone but Conservative) perspective. I replied that I didn't know and also people who should know (PB), didn't have a clue either.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
The notion that Labour should give an easy ride to the Lib Dems in a seat that they are capable of winning is a strange one (and vice versa, of course).
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Nick is quite right here and it does labour no good if the Lib Dems are always going to be seen as challengers in by-elections in seats where labour were a comfortable second. Labour want to govern on their own. Not hamstrung by the yellow NIMBY machine. They are right to go for it.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
On this website we get really good debates and not echo chambers, which is part of what makes this site so good and much better to discuss politics on than the likes of Twitter.
There's this thing called Microsoft Teams. It became popular during Covid, displacing Skype. Millions of people use it every day to have conversations with their colleagues in real time with entirely realistic moving images of the person. Many people change the background to cover up their messy bedroom or wherever they are.
FFS watch the video. None of you has grasped what is happening in it, and why it is revolutionary. It is not another version of “Teams” or a “video call”
Give us a quick TLDW. Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
Very realistic avatars with full range of expressions. Discussion of having your avatar run by an AI representation of you so you can have personal one-to-one interactions with millions of people at the same time.
The sort of futuristic discussion that could have been had 30 years ago about the use of smartphones to have video conversations across the globe and how that would change things. This is sort of similar but the next step.
The avatars are still in the uncanny valley. Despite saying in the video the eyes are realistic, it still feels off. It needs to be a lot better than this for it to be not creepy. It looks like it has high novelty value, hence why Leon is shedding his load, but it's not ready for longevity, not yet.
Not yet just means soon. Imagine 100m MAGATs having their own personal Donald to talk to.
Certainly, anywhere within easy reach of London, Labour is able to mobilise a lot of resources. And there's truth that the LibDems find it difficult to campaign against both of the main parties at the same time, preferring to establish a two-party contest and then squeeze the support of the other main party, which I suspect is going to be difficult in mid Beds.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
My perception, which I've been trying to avoid posting as it's so obviously partisan, is that the LibDems are the spoilers here, by making a major effort in a seat where they started clearly third. I really think that the LibDem habit of fighting every by-election on the basis of "only we can beat the Tories" is unpleasant and ultimately self-defeating (because it undermines their making the same claim in seats where they really ARE the only serious challenger). Describing Labour fighting hard where they're a clear second and the betting favourites as an "intervention" is just, well, partisan.
Not sure of your logic here Nick.
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
Labour got nearly twice as many votes as the LDs in the 2019 GE (14,028/8,171). And in 2017 GE nearly five times as many votes (17,593/3,798). It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
Hi @Northern_Al. Agree with the numbers and if Labour want to they should, just as the LDs should if they want to. What's good for the goose as they say.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
So the US is hours away from another shutdown led in part by a group of Republicans insisting amongst other things no more funding for Ukraine.
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Paul Rand and Musky baby also support defunding Ukraine.
Truly the idiocracy.
I do think democracy is quite fragile in the US, because there is such a long record of people resorting to violence and foul play to drive their enemies from power (eg the Redeemers in the South, or a lot of machine poliicians in big cities teeming up with organised crime).
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
Instead of a Teams call you can have a really, really creepy Teams call.
Is it going to be bigger than 3D television?
Yes. This is scratch-and-sniff television. You can lean forward with your tongue out and taste Mark Zuckerberg's chin. Feel his warm breath on your forehead. This is how it's going to be with working from home. Every Teams call will be a writhing festival of body heat and the touch of cotton on cotton.
I know some fairly nerdy sex workers who are experimenting with such things. Or had been until Unity knifed small developers.
But again, anything approaching photorealism is a drawback right now given the uncanny valley problem. It works much better for eg. furry or waifu.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
What an idiotic thing to say
“Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!”
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
That's exactly what it does.
In the old days, angry green pen letters would have been largely edited or filtered out of newspapers, and the editors allowed a spectrum of views in the letters page that represented readers.
That requires objectivity and integrity but I think most would be fair. The point is that good discussion in public - except in small groups in the pub where people largely self-moderate - requires a level of active moderation for the debate to be of a quality that facilitates breadth of expression and unlocks freer thought.
I remember the halcyon days of internet optimism of the late '90s.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
To a considerable extent, I think that social media fuels hate. Rather than broadening peoples' minds, by exposing them to alternative viewpoints, it tends to create echo chambers, where people can agree with each other about the evil of their opponents.
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
And in the media in general ,"narrowcasting" has replaced broadcasting. People can now choose to only hear and see things they want to hear or see.
Comments
VR and AR do not require a metaverse.
and raise money from deluded free speech purists. Their politically and morally bankrupt ideology would remain unchanged of course, just on a cheaper financial footing.
Problem is it has become a bit a clown car brand, so only useful idiots won't see this ruse for what it is... step forward David Davis...
— she’s said she has no desire to be PM again BUT three people close to her say she could consider running for leader of the opposition
— she’s determined to influence party politics
— will address pro-growth rally on Monday"
Ahahahaha.
Presumably, Serbia has observed how well Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine has gone and fancies having a go in Kosovo.
Then, compare them with the current lot.
Shame.
I have better things to do.
I note analysis of where they went wrong or discussion of ideas is entirely absent in that.
Got stuff to do shortly.
Have they made some sort of breakthrough in virtual representation ?
Tories have more money, more members and target far more seat at all levels of elections. They have a more organised, but less flexible delivery network, they correctly are well organised at getting out the vote. They don't waste time minimising costs and have to focus on most wards so don't move many activists. They have deliverers who will regularly (but not constantly )deliver small delivery walks.
LDs target much fewer wards so move around more and with fewer members do bigger deliveries and far more flexibly. They focus on gaining votes rather than holding votes so delivery rather than gotv is relevant. They then rely on having active grass root councillors to hold seats. Because they have less funds they have learnt to do stuff cheaper and are more agile which means they can produce more within the election limit.
For example I have run a local by election campaign where we won a ward without single member or deliverer at the start of the campaign. I have produced leaflets with only hours of notice and got delivered that day.
Both parties are exploiting their strengths and mitigating their weaknesses correctly, but when you have a parliamentary by election all of a sudden the LDs have all their restrictions removed (plenty of money, high expenses limit an more activists than the competition) which gives them a huge advantage.
Of that list I think only Mordaunt, Badenoch or Cleverley have any serious chance of being in the running.
Lead or be trapped by the nutters around him who he can't control and will drag him down very quickly.
Depends how stupid/high on their own supply Serbia’s leadership is.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.64.0_4.pdf
Trump "demands special treatment, asserting that becausd he is a political candidate, he should have free rein to publicly intimidate witnesses & malign the Court, citizens of this District, and prosecutors. But in this case, Donald J. Trump is a criminal defendant like any other."
I’ll give you one more chance. As Lex Friedman says, using this tech means you REALLY TRULY feel like you are in the same room as the person you are talking to. They are there, in 3D, with you - and you are with them - and they look completely normal. Like themselves
Even though the two are actually hundreds of miles
apart. For a start this will replace all normal calls, video calls, Zooms, all that - it’s in a different league
But imagine what else it can do. Sexually, emotionally, everything. You could talk to the dead and they will be there in front of you - alive - with an AI simulating their persona and using their voice (this tech already exists). Is this the end of grief?
You just need a brain and the ability to extrapolate
Lex Friedman is an extremely smart guy not given to hyperbole. He says in that video “this is the most incredible thing I’ve ever seen”. He is clearly shocked and moved
The LibDem by-election machine depends heavily on being very visibly the only alternative to the Tories that is really trying hard, so they get lots of Labour voters saying OK, I suppose I'd better go for you. In the absence of that, from a starting point of 12.6%, I don't honestly think they have a path to winning. I think Labour are correctly favourites, but I wouldn't rule out a Tory win.
Morris Dancer is correct that VR != Metaverse. As usual, with Farcebook, it’s an attempt to monetise everything you do/are.
Interesting.
Fold in AI and it gets very much so.
I was imagining someone a little older, more like Lex Luthor, pink weathered skin, red braces and a sinister laugh , building uber-robots in a leather-appointed penthouse somewhere .
Discussion of having your avatar run by an AI representation of you so you can have personal one-to-one interactions with millions of people at the same time.
The sort of futuristic discussion that could have been had 30 years ago about the use of smartphones to have video conversations across the globe and how that would change things. This is sort of similar but the next step.
The logic of your post, however, is that Labour may well not win - in which case their intervention would simply have saved the seat for the Tories - just as in Finchley at the GE.
I spend most of my day on Teams calls, and the purpose of those calls is to share information, usually by sharing the screens we are looking at. The person talking is the least important element of the call
Judging by his emotional reaction and the 2D version we see (the 3D will obviously be miles better) this is the case
Actual reality beats virtual reality nearly every time, which is why Leon is drinking cocktails on a beach rather than wearing a VR headset in Primrose Hill.
"...for background, WE BOTH DID THESE SCANS for this research project that we have at Meta called Codec Avatars and the idea is that instead of our avatars being cartoony and instead of actually transmitting a video, what it does we've sort of scanned ourselves and a lot of different expressions and WE'VE BUILT A COMPUTER MODEL of each of our faces and bodies and the different expressions that we make and collapse that into a codec..."
Scanning 3D objects and manipulating the resultant mesh to produce the illusion of a real object is an outdated technology. It's been replaced by a different technology: an AI processing multiple images to produce a deepfake. It's considerably quicker, producing subtler results, blackboxes the model and doesn't require a scan. We already have cases where AIs can produce deepfakes of real people in real time with generated voices that sound like the real person and matches the lip movements.
Your reaction is like preferring a cathode-ray-tube television to flat-panel TVs.
This solves all that
I'm not querying the awfulness of the destruction. Just wondering what someone could be charged with?
Also I hope the wood from the felled tree is used to create something beautiful - perhaps a carving in miniature of the tree itself, made out of its own wood.
(Edited: I see @JosiasJessop has asked the same question. That'll teach me to comment before reading the thread.)
I’m gonna cool off with a swim from my over-water villa
It makes it seem all the more certain that Sunak's dogshit lurch wasn't planned.
How embarrassing for the party to be caught on the hop like that. I hope they've at least managed to print out some posters about the new priorities around bus lanes and bollards.
Go back to your constituencies and prepare for town councillorship.
Sure it does. It solves it in the same way as mass producing tents solves the housing crisis.
The creepiest (R4 series recently) is the stuff being done on abolishing ageing and death.
The next creepiest is avatars or long dead people in your bed when you are trying to read Anthony Trollope. All the bad things about long term marriage and none of the good.
The third creepiest is living a life through screens all the time and having to talk to and listen to groups of dull people failing to make a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQq8M88s3BU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62-aWHGKeMo&t=691s
I posted this a few weeks back. Nobody reads what I post...
If LDs fight it and Lab don't it is a slam dunk LD win
If Lab fight it and LDs don't it is a possible (just possible) Lab win
Why are the LDs the spoilers? Why is it not that Lab are the spoilers?
Seems to me that the same argument could be put to Labour and even more strongly as if it were a two way fight with the Tories the LDs would be more certain winners not Labour.
[To be honest, I mostly forget the function exists. But the disgruntled condemnation of others isn't exactly an encouragement to try and remember.]
And egging on those insisting no more funding for Ukraine is one Donald J Trump.
This nonsense is no sane way to run a country and hopefully for the America, the world, and Ukraine especially Trump never gets anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Wrapping the photographic texture onto the jerky avatar tips it way over into the uncanny valley. It's why cartoon-style skins are so much more effective.
Naive and simplistic as this may sound to the breathlessly excited on here, they need taking down several pegs not enabling and praising.
I also like it when I am in the same Team's call as the person at the next desk. Surprises the other attendees when we appear in each other's screens.
Teams means that dozens of unnecessary journeys do not happen. Also, it is easier to get someone in for 10 minutes of a meeting where their expertise is required. Much more time efficient than constantly travelling to meetings.
However, hybrid meetings are usually a pile of shite. Can't hear half the folk in the room, and don't get to share their buffet.
Truly the idiocracy.
The internet would be decentralising, democratising, build links and communities between people. Independent, localised control, everyone taking charge of their own destiny. Some of this has come to pass, but possibly more has happened the opposite way around.
It seems entirely rational for Labour to put everything into winning this particular one, as Nick argues.
The Tory Party conference looks more like a beauty parade for who succeeds Rishi Sunak.
Our
@nedsimons
looks at what the runners and riders are up to in Manchester.
https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1708051194768130183?s=20
https://x.com/trussliz/status/1708032421831016740?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
How many really good debates to you see online, compared to debates that are held face to face? Where people properly research their opponents' views, and attempt to refute them. Online debates mainly degenerate into ad homs and character assassination, very rapidly.
Imagine 100m MAGATs having their own personal Donald to talk to.
With better hair.
Fucker lives in the uncanny valley already.
But the logic of my argument - Any issue with it as to who would be most likely to win in a two way fight with the Tories? That is all I am saying when Nick points out that it is the LDs who are the spoilers.
It may well be that a hundred years from now, people will see democracy as just a brief blip that interrupted centuries of autocratic and oligarchic rule.
But again, anything approaching photorealism is a drawback right now given the uncanny valley problem. It works much better for eg. furry or waifu.
In the old days, angry green pen letters would have been largely edited or filtered out of newspapers, and the editors allowed a spectrum of views in the letters page that represented readers.
That requires objectivity and integrity but I think most would be fair. The point is that good discussion in public - except in small groups in the pub where people largely self-moderate - requires a level of active moderation for the debate to be of a quality that facilitates breadth of expression and unlocks freer thought.
And in the media in general ,"narrowcasting" has replaced broadcasting.
People can now choose to only hear and see things they want to hear or see.