0 users browsing Discussion. | 2 guests | 4 bots
| creaothceann |
Posted on 19-05-01, 22:58
|
 Post: #129 of 456 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 47 days Last view: 4 days |
IMO Eggman is the worst thing in that trailer. My current setup: Super Famicom ("2/1/3" SNS-CPU-1CHIP-02) → SCART → OSSC → StarTech USB3HDCAP → AmaRecTV 3.10 |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-01, 23:51
|
|
Custom title here
 Post: #427 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
Posted by tomman Would you believe he picked up an electric shield after trashing some Macs? Yeah, I wouldn't either. But in all fairness to Sega, the licensor typically has little control over what is done after Hollywood licenses a property for adaptation. Sometimes it works out well, but usually it runs through the meat grinder and comes out an insult to the source. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-05-02, 04:57
|
|
Dinosaur
 Post: #286 of 1317 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 2 days Last view: 11 hours |
It's the Mario move all over again... ...but this time they raised the bar. And by "raised", I mean "shot it with a bazooka". But at least I gotta admit that among all this raging dumpsterfire, the only good part of the trailer is the Paramount logo effect with the Sonic rings replacing the stars. Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-02, 05:07
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #428 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
Posted by tomman Honestly, it reminds me more of the Inspector Gadget movie. "It is like the Mario and Inspector Gadget movies had a thalidomide baby. " That part was, in fact, fantastic, and I wish that the entire movie had been struck by the love of Sonic that infected that logo. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-02, 05:41
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #429 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
And now for something completely different: a video about A ROBOT TOASTER and why your modern computer-controlled digital toaster is a piece of shit before the might of 1950s engineering. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| nyanpasu64 |
Posted on 19-05-02, 06:26
|
|
Post: #42 of 77
Since: 10-31-18 Last post: 1193 days Last view: 1119 days |
The toaster insulation may be asbestos, and he may be getting mesothelioma. |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-02, 08:09
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #430 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
Posted by jimbo1qazOnly if he's breathing a bunch of it. Asbestos doesn't automatically give you lung cancer if you touch it. Just because he touched an insulated wire once or twice doesn't mean he is now marked by the reaper. It is predominantly a risk for people who work with it on a regular basis. Miners, constructioners, brake jobbers, that kind of things. Also, he thinks it is paper insulation. --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| CaptainJistuce |
Posted on 19-05-03, 06:33
|
|
Custom title here
Post: #431 of 1164 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 66 days Last view: 3 days |
So platformer-RPG Bloodstaind has a release date now. The announcement trailer seems to have a message beyond "we have a release date. And that message is "Stop telling us how bad the preview build looks, we KNOW the shaders weren't applied yet! We TOLD YOU THIS WHEN WE RELEASED THE PREVIEW BUILD!" --- In UTF-16, where available. --- |
| wareya |
Posted on 19-05-03, 10:46 (revision 1)
|
 Post: #59 of 100 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1785 days Last view: 1350 days |
They did go through a final artpass for the levels though. It's pretty impressive how different things are when you look closely. But yeah, people bitching about placeholders is dumb, and this is a funny response. Good marketing, too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A640g5gDBJA |
| Broseph |
Posted on 19-05-03, 11:39
|
 Post: #80 of 166 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 1564 days Last view: 1241 days |
Definitely a big improvement. Though I do prefer 2d sprites for these games I knew there were probably not going to use them. Still excited for the game either way. |
| creaothceann |
Posted on 19-05-03, 14:33
|
|
Post: #130 of 456 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 47 days Last view: 4 days |
Streets of Rage 2- Sonia The Hedgehog My current setup: Super Famicom ("2/1/3" SNS-CPU-1CHIP-02) → SCART → OSSC → StarTech USB3HDCAP → AmaRecTV 3.10 |
| Kawaoneechan |
Posted on 19-05-03, 15:02
|
|
Trash
 Post: #215 of 599 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 199 days Last view: 11 hours |
Not gonna lie, that's a bit hard to look at. |
| KoiMaxx |
Posted on 19-05-04, 07:41
|
 Post: #67 of 159 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 209 days Last view: 22 hours |
I know this technology has been around for some time already, what's concerning me is how it's becoming more readily available to the mainstream. Deepfake videos are getting terrifyingly real I still have no idea what I'm talking about. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-04, 23:52 (revision 1)
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #230 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1765 days |
I don't get it. Wikipedia tells us Photoshop came out in February 19, 1988; 30 years ago. And it hasn't caused a worldwide cataclysm, despite enabling people to doctor images with their computer. Before that, people did it by hand. An NSDAP newspaper in 1932 allegedly doctored a few photos of Adolf Hitler cheering the outbreak of WWI so well that modern scholarship today hasn't been able to definitively prove they were forgeries, other than by circumstantial evidence (he wouldn't have had that mustache in 1914 when the image was taken, no negatives have been found, he can't be found in other people's photos of the same crowd, Mein Kampf doesn't mention it) There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-05-05, 08:54
|
|
Full mod
 Post: #234 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1104 days Last view: 175 days |
Like KoiMaxx says, such things have been *possible* for a long time, but now they are becoming *easy*. Also, there's a difference between seeing somebody allegedly in a compromising situation, which takes some effort and stage-management to get all the right clues in-frame and tell the right story, and seeing somebody straight up "say" something in their own voice. If you wanted to convince people that, say, NASA faked the moon landings, imagine how difficult it would be to even draw a *cartoon* that unambigously depicted NASA's complicity, versus a five-second video of the head of NASA in 1969 saying "The moon landings? Yeah, totally fake." The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-05, 16:17
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #234 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1765 days |
People rarely believe detached pictures without context, so why would they for videos? Even an audio recording of the head of NASA in 1969 saying "The moon landings? Yeah, totally fake." would be a bombshell if it were proven to be legitimate, and having a pretty video wouldn't do much to make it more believable. And to make this five-second video would require a very good voice impersonator, which arguably is harder than finding someone with enough Photoshop skills to draw the supposed studio the moon landing video would have been recorded in. And with a very good voice impersonator, you could just make an audio recording, apply a quick EQ, and claim it's an "intercepted phone call". Allegedly, some Russian prank call enthusiasts did just that. Or lipsync it to an existing video, like Mr. Robot did. I mean, I've heard the same thing about how an adversary could forge a video of, say, the Prime Minister of a country they just invaded telling people to surrender, and then distribute it. But a nation-state adversary could do that already, even if the technology isn't conveniently packaged in an app for them to use. So the 'target audience' of this technology isn't entirely clear to me. Random shitposters? Pornography enthusiasts? Even if you had unlimited amounts of perfectly faked material, you'd still need to distribute it somehow. A fresh Facebook page just posting unsourced videos wouldn't be too credible. And a Facebook page with a good reputation would quite quickly lose it by posting such material. Possibly you could post it on online forums as events are developing, but it's not much more effective than "we haven't confirmed the perpetrator belongs to group X, so let's not speculate until we have the facts" or just a good ol' inspect element screenshot, or a 404 link to a news website with a 'plausible' URL and a made-up quote. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/science/aliens-found-on-mars.html Even without any photoshop/deepfake/etc, you could just take a speech of someone and splice it to give the impression that they're saying something entirely different. Then you could give a link in the description to the original speech on a .gov website. That's a far greater threat, since you can provide a source which passes cursory inspection, and one which has actually happened. And when called out on it, you can claim you were just editing out an irrelevant tangent or something like that. Here's another one, done by an actual nation-state actor: recording analysis. And also this movie from 1997. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| KoiMaxx |
Posted on 19-05-06, 01:07
|
|
Post: #68 of 159 Since: 10-29-18 Last post: 209 days Last view: 22 hours |
Yeah, this is kind of my concern. People can usually make out something is fake if it's well outside the general perception of an entity. However, if the faker is smart enough to make something very close to the truth, albeit ultimately inaccurate, people will then have a harder time separating fact from fiction. On top of that, the human mind is very easy to distract -- get something sensational or controversial they can get fixated on, and it's easy to manipulate them into believing something, or missing something very important. Like how many passes you can count in this video. I still have no idea what I'm talking about. |
| Screwtape |
Posted on 19-05-06, 07:50
|
|
Full mod
Post: #236 of 443 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 1104 days Last view: 175 days |
> People rarely believe detached pictures without context, so why would they for videos? Even an audio recording of the head of NASA in 1969 saying "The moon landings? Yeah, totally fake." would be a bombshell if it were proven to be legitimate, and having a pretty video wouldn't do much to make it more believable. The point is, videos provide their own context. If your video of some random guy saying "The moon landings were totally faked" isn't convincing enough, you can add a chevron bar across the bottom saying "Walter P. Kirkudbright, NASA Chief Scientist", have him standing next to somebody more recognisable who *was* around in that era like a TV news anchor... the options are much wider than a single static image would allow. And as for people believing pretty videos, Captain Disillusion has been debunking viral videos on YouTube for a decade, and that's just goofy magic tricks and fake products done with prosumer software like Adobe AfterEffects, nothing requiring a fancy machine-learning setup. Nobody's saying that deceit was never previously possible, or even that undetectable deceit was never previously possible. The issue is that plausible deceit is getting a whole lot cheaper, and when a technology that used to be useful-but-expensive becomes useful-and-cheap, you always get flocks of inventive and creative people coming up with new and surprising uses for it. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. |
| Duck Penis |
Posted on 19-05-06, 12:25
|
|
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #237 of 717 Since: 01-26-19 Last post: 1766 days Last view: 1765 days |
Posted by KoiMaxx But with good sleight of hand they could pass off just a text quote as perfectly legitimate. And without it, not even a 4K video would be taken as proof. It's possible the low-information dregs would get hoodwinked into staying home/showing up by something like this, but mostly everyone else would simply refuse to consume any content published by their adversary, unless it was already filtered and analyzed by one of their own. And said low-information dregs do no longer need to worry about it, as our gracious benefactors have kindly decided to stem the tide of fake news in accordance with their role as good corporate citizens. Posted by Screwtape Right, context isn't the right word here. Source, more like it. Sure, you could post a plausible fake of CNN (in fact, this requires no deepfake at all, only paying some guy a few dollars and minor editing), but to get anywhere sustainable you would need to find "sources" to shore up your argument. It doesn't have to be a good one, and probably your chevron would be enough, but it would also be enough if you just had a picture. relevant xkcd Same principle as these images you see with text on the bottom like "Source: CDS". There's nothing you could do with these deepfakes that you couldn't do with good ol' MS Paint. You can just take a picture of some fellow, open the text tool, type in "The moon landings? Yeah, totally fake." If they already believed the moon landing didn't happened, it will just be taken as further proof. And if they did believe it happened, they would either ignore it or scrutinize it until they found some flaw, whether real or imagined, that allowed them to dismiss it. Posted by Screwtape Nothing of note. The Osama bin Laden corpse Photoshop is the only one I remember that sparked any serious discussion. Posted by Screwtape IOW, porn. For anything else, deceit was already dirt cheap, or in practice free. A Facebook page produces very little if any original content but rather just reposts it from elsewhere, which seems to imply that the limiting factor would be something else than the volume of the firehose (e.g. how fast you can make accounts/how fast they can ban them). The forged phone calls I posted earlier probably weren't so expensive to make (provided you had the material to cut from), but they were extremely effective. Splicing a speech is even cheaper and more effective. Why isn't it more common? Because there's no need for it. It does have an application I can see for disinformation in the heat of the moment, but a well-prepared adversary (countries usually know which countries they're going to invade well in advance) would have both the time and resources to do it the old-fashioned way. Maybe you could argue e.g. terrorist attacks would be unplanned for, but I don't think so. I mean, the country varies, but the motives, perpetrator, means, etc almost always are the same. So if you wished to forge "evidence" of, say, people of religious group X cheering terrorist attacks in country Y, it would be sufficient to prepare it for common values of X (who, presumably, would be those you wanted to agitate against) and keep Y sufficiently oblique (e.g. only vague references to historical injustices done by the broader victim region/people). Then you could just release it whenever things go kaboom the next time, which they inevitably will. I think it's way overrated, anyway. On par with the AI generates millions of fake news stories hysteria. How are you going to get them out, when all the opposition is banned anyway? There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this. |
| tomman |
Posted on 19-05-06, 16:31 (revision 1)
|
|
Dinosaur
Post: #294 of 1317 Since: 10-30-18 Last post: 2 days Last view: 11 hours |
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/19/05/05/0255230/pornhub-expresses-interest-in-acquiring-tumblr Verizon no longer gives a damn about Tumblr, after killing its user base with their "family-safe" BS, so they're looking to offload the rotten carcass to someone else. Apparently Tumblr user base nicely fits (:giggity:) Pornhub's parent company (MindGeek) business model, and so they have expressed interest on a possible purchase. Not that it's going to happen like, ever, but then some "journalists" are already in "devastating news" mode, involving the usage of the phrases "copyright infringement", and "deflation of salaries". Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free, enemy of All Things JavaScript™ |
