Hua Guofang

I’ve been building my beer HQ. haven’t documented very well. But here’s a few pics:

I think what I appreciate above much else is the simple colour schemes. A lot of this reminds me of what was around when I first started painting in the early-mid 80s. There's a strong focus on structure and flow, which caries the piece and the colour schemes match but complement rather than overpower the letters. And there's no trendy-fad type shit in there, which I super-appreciate. #oldmangrafrant

I remember that shitfight with DAO but I can't recall, was that when we had the steak challenge? I still have that sketch in a black book somewhere. I actually respected you,@Drue_Downfor noticing when you were acting in a way unbecoming and for taking the action that you did. Most people have too much pride or aren't mature to do that. A while back I gave myself a 6 month ban from a forum that I've been modding for 15 years, but not before I did a bunch of damage though.

I agree with a lot of this but with some nuance. I agree that the trajectory indicates that it's going to get harder and harder to detect. But it will be the usual cat and mouse game, like that which you referred to regarding the US Treasury and counterfeit notes. Whilst some efforts are going into creating fakes other efforts will be going into detecting them. I agree with one thing the article argues, which you've basically argued yourself, right now, it's easy enough to get the result you're looking for by creating a stupid meme that confirms people's prejudices (my god, just look at the political memes thread on this forum for example. That thread is more propaganda than it is humour). So why bother spending the money to create detectable deep fakes when you can get the desired result from a jpg based meme that takes 5 mins to create? However, there will come a time, probably sooner than many think, that the deep fakes will become ubiquitous (outside of porn). But I think the most common threat will not be a political one but more every day. I think internet based scams are really going to kick up with deep fakes. People will grab a small bunch of data from FaceBook/YouTube/Instagram/Etc to create fake footage of some one, that will then call a family member on facetime/skype/whatever and pull a kidnap scam or even just s simple: "Mum, my travel pouch with my passport and credit cards has been stolen, it's cool, I've shut my accounts down. My friend here in Italy says I can use her account to get some cash wired to me. Can you please send me $1000 to hold me over until I can get a new passport at the consulate and reopen my accounts?" Think about how convincing that kind of thing will be and how easy it will be for criminal groups to pull off, automating them so they can do hundreds, if not thousands of them each day. That's the kind of thing that will be most likely to impact our lives regards deep fakes. In terms of the big power games between countries/religions/ideologies/power, etc., I can see that occurring but I'm not sure about the trajectory. I don't have any real knowledge or experience in this space but I work alongside and on projects with people who do. A list of interesting people to read up on in regards to where tech is going: Elsa Kania Katherine Mansted Herb Lin Danielle Cave Samantha Hoffman Hannah Smith Lesley Seebeck Genevieve Bell Wow, only just noticed how woman-heavy my extended network is in this field. Anyway, check out some of their work in this area - Elsa is a world leader in terms of battle field tech, machine learning, etc (she's only 22 and just translated China's AI white paper into English. As some one who learned Chinese, I can't overstate how hard and impressive that is). Samantha Hoffman has done some super-interesting work on what China has done with the social currency system and mass data collection and surveillance platforms. Herb Lin has some interesting stuff on deep fakes and Genevieve is an anthropologist who is one of the world leaders in how machines/AI is interacting with humans and societies. Serious reading, hit some of if you've got the time.

Let me know if you want to come hit some of Canberra’s legal spots on the trip.

Let me know if you want to come hit some of Canberra’s legal spots on the trip.

For some reason I felt this was a good thread to post this article: Why the deepfakes threat is shallow https://www.axios.com/why-the-deepfakes-threat-is-shallow-16caf6a0-af83-4dbc-9008-6a2d4a2f08ae.html Despite the sharp alarms being sounded over deepfakes — uncannily realistic AI-generated videos showing real people doing and saying fictional things —security experts believe that the videos ultimately don't offer propagandists much advantage compared to the simpler forms of disinformation they are likely to use. Why it matters: It’s easy to see how a viral video that appears to show, say, the U.S. president declaring war would cause panic — until, of course, the video was debunked. But deepfakes are not an efficient form of a long-term disinformation campaign. Deepfakes are detectable. Deepfakes are only undetectable to humans, not computers. In fact, a leading online reputation security firm, ZeroFOX, announced last week it would begin offering a proactive deepfake detection service. “It’s not like you’ll never be able to trust audio and video again,” said Matt Price, principal research engineer at ZeroFOX. There are a number of ways to detect AI-generated video, ranging from digital artifacts in the audio and video, misaligned shadows and lighting, and human anomalies that can be detected by machine, like eye movement, blink rate and even heart rate. Price noted that current detection techniques likely won't be nimble enough for a network the size of YouTube to screen every video, meaning users would likely see — and spread — a fake before it was debunked. But, but, but: If we have learned anything from the manipulated Nancy Pelosi video and years of work from conservative provocateur James O’Keefe, it's this: A lot of people will go on believing manipulative content rather than demonstrable truth if the manipulation brings them comfort. It doesn’t take high-tech lying to do that. The intrigue: As Camille François, chief innovation officer at Graphika, a firm used by the Senate Intelligence Committee to analyze Russian disinformation on social media, told Codebook, “When I consider the problem, I don’t worry about deepfakes first.” She added, “There are really sophisticated disinformation campaigns run by threat actors with a lot of money, and they don’t do fake stuff — it’s not efficient. They steal content that’s divisive or repurpose other content.” Or as Darren L. Linvill, a Clemson University researcher on Russian social media disinformation, put it, deepfakes will be “less of a problem than funny memes.” “A lot of research shows fake news is not the problem many people think it is," he said. "[The Internet Research Agency, a Russian social media manipulation outfit], for instance, barely employed what you could truly call ‘fake news’ after early 2015." When disinformation groups do use fake media in their campaigns, it usually takes the form of fake images presented in a misleading context — so-called "shallow fakes." François uses the example of denying the reality of a chemical weapons attack by tweeting a photo of the same area that predates the attack. "Shallow fakes" are cheaper, faster, require no technical expertise and can’t be disproven by signals analysis. The bottom line: Deepfakes take advantage of human vulnerabilities that can be exploited much more efficiently by other means. That means the disinformation problem won't be solved through technology or policy alone. “Nations that have successfully built resilience to these problems have included digital literacy elements to better protect their populations,” said Peter Singer, co-author of "LikeWar," a book on social media disinformation.

I used to work for an organisation that moved as far away from Washington as it could so it wasn't ever accused of being part of the Beltway, so it could be seen as an independent actor. It didn't matter, people assumed that we were beltway simply because we were part of the political sector. We were most definitely an independent voice, largely because we didn't make money by selling any product other than our analysis - the more like other orgs we were, the less value we had. Didn't matter, people saw us through their biases rather than through our work. Honestly, I can't buy into what you're saying as it is all speculation and guess work. I mean, just the fact that you have conservative and liberal media straight away shows that it's not monolithic. You have groups that compete for market, for ideology for influence, etc. And what you state as talking points are generally what they think will sell best. In that fashion, yes, the media is quite monotone in the way it covers things - sensationalism, scandal, outrage, etc. - but monotone doesn't equal monolithic, they're not all saying the same thing. It used to be my job to do open source collection and analysis. My job would have been a shit tonne easier if they were monolithic!

Great posts and great word. That bottom blue/silver is fire.

@misteravenby pointing out that there are 6 media overlords you've confirmed my point that the media is not monolithic. 6 aint a big number, but it's still more than one and I'd bet my magical third testicle that they don't ever agree much unanimously and they have differing agendas, other than making money. Plus, here's a list of MSM outlets not listed in that post: Washington Post New York Times The Economist LA Times BBC Al Jazeera All 6 of the above MSM outlets are owned by different orgs and people. So added to your 6, that's 12 different MSM players. Not even close to being monolithic. Regards the Bilderburg thing, I'm not sure what you're saying - because they get invited to a particular conference then they're all the same? I don't see how that logic works, especially given that this isn't the only meeting they'd go to together. And BTW, I know people that have been to the Bilderburg gigs, because they are influential in publishi8ng, writing and govt. Every one of them says the same thing, it's a waste of time and is a bunch of bankers saying the same shit they say everywhere else. People go their for personal prestige, so they can say that they are Bilderburg regulars. It's like something for their CV.

Fuck yeah cool view.

I agree that it's the most plausible but not the only plausible outcome. It's not as if there hasn't been conspiracy to murder before and I'm surprised that nobody here is paying any attention to the long-known rumours of his involvement with foreign intelligence orgs. I'm not sure how I'm ignoring any facts here at all as I only mentioned plausibility, not likelihood. It's still plausible that there was a conspiracy to murder in this situation. My gut tells me it's unlikely but I don't think there are enough facts ont he table to rule it out or even make it implausible. I also get annoyed at @misteravenciting MSM here as if there is a single narrative being promoted by the media, which it most definitely is not. I think the idea that there is some monolithic MSM in the first place is crap. The are many different players in the media with differing agendas from simply making money, to promoting an ideology to simple politics.

They really are changing the game, and they train people. https://www.bellingcat.com/category/resources/how-tos/

Plausible is a bit elastic, of course. But it’s basically taking a situation, the known facts (dead dude in a prison cell, charged with blah blah blah, highly connected to powerful people who may be implicated in crimes, long term rumors of involvement with foreign intelligence orgs, politicized environment, etc) and considering possibilities with a higher probability of X. Thats one way way of determining plausibility, there are others and I’m not sitting here crunching numbers or anything, just chewing the fat. But it I am pretty confident that they would be the top three plausible conclusions. Which facts do you think I’m ignoring?

I guess my point is that I’m not sure about anything because our sources lack credibility and have agendas, we know there is a lot of misinformation being sold in public and ALL of our information is partial. At this point it is useless working in any direction at all. I’d only be willing to talk about plausibility and right now, I’d say that it’s plausible that some one strangled him, it’s plausible that the right conditions were engineered for him to off himself as and it’s plausible that multiple unintentional failures allowed him to off himself. There is a fucking dust tornado surrounding this issue, way too early to move in any particular direction. Anyone ever we look at bellingcat.com? Great resource on how to approach open source investigations. Some of the shit they achieve is mind blowing. About 12 months back I spoke to Jim Clapper about what they do and his response was that that kind of capability has changed intelligence ops forever and that covers and legends are very soon a thing of the past. Do yourself a favor and check them out.

Yes, the biases are strong up in this one.

Yeah, and some didn’t, that’s the whole point. How is it useful to look at a single MSM source and go ‘eureka’! Especially when it’s one of the most politicized sources out there, up with CNN, MSNBC, Breitbart, etc. An objective approach would be to say that there are widely differing positions from qualified experts so it’s unlikely that I’m going to be able to draw a reliable conclusion based on the info I have.

I'd reckon that relying on a single source in the MSM is risky: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2019/08/15/mystery-surrounds-hyoid-break-epstein-death-suicide-murder/2017579001/ Barbara Sampson, New York City's chief medical examiner who is handling Epstein's autopsy, said that the discovery of the broken hyoid doesn't determine anything. The cause of the financier's death is still pending. “In all forensic investigations, all information must be synthesized to determine the cause and manner of death," Sampson said in a statement to USA TODAY. "Everything must be consistent; no single finding can be evaluated in a vacuum.” Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, told USA TODAY that he's skeptical. "Fractures of the hyoid bone are almost always associated with manual strangulation," Wecht said. "Because a hand gets up high underneath the chin of the victim." Wecht said that multiple breaks or fractures in neck bones are rare to find in suicidal hangings. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-hyoid-how-a-tiny-bone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-neck-has-sparked-a-wildfire-of-conspiracy-theories Among other experts, Bill Loyd, a surgeon trained in forensic pathology, told Stelter the hyoid was “meaningless” and went on: “Stay away from it. It doesn’t indicate anything. You can twist the hyoid bone theory to tell whatever story you want to tell. It just gives naysers the ability to advance whatever conspiracy theories they want to tell.” Gerald Rodts, chief of spinal surgery at the Emory Clinic, told Stelter: “The presence of other broken bones in his neck, from a guy hanging 66 years old, is very consistent with suicidal hanging.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-only-thing-jeffrey-epsteins-broken-hyoid-bone-proves But at 66, the U-shaped bone between his chin and his Adam’s apple likely would have become so brittle with age that it also could have been broken by hanging. That would include a suicide effort involving no more force than could be generated kneeling down with a noose around your neck until you become unconscious. “Your own body weight completes the job,” a forensic pathologist of long experience who asked not to be quoted by name told The Daily Beast on Thursday. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/16/media/epstein-washington-post-reliable-sources/index.html The hyoid bone At the heart of WaPo's story was the revelation that among the broken bones in Epstein's neck was the hyoid bone. As WaPo reported, such breaks are associated with "victims of homicide by strangulation." That is true. BUT, as WaPo also reported, "Such breaks can occur in those who hang themselves, particularly if they are older." Epstein was 66. And yet the story seemed to concentrate on the broken hyoid bone to paint a picture of possible foul play... What Sanjay Gupta told me To get a better understanding of this, I spoke on the phone with Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent. Gupta immediately noted that "once you get beyond 40 or 50" the hyoid bone "becomes much more brittle and easier to break." Again, Epstein was 66. But what Gupta found most interesting was that, in its totality, the autopsy results presented in WaPo's story actually were more consistent with a suicidal hanging than a strangulation. Why? Because of the multiple broken neck bones. "It actually suggests much more strongly that it was hanging versus strangulation," Gupta explained. "You wouldn't break those other bones during a strangulation."

I hears a different stat Was that the MSM?

Where you get that stat from?

No one up in here complaining about ‘deep state’ coroners yet?

Sony used to make some pretty low-profile buds. Check out what they do. JBL also do some but I don't like their sound. My knee is bung so I'm off the bike at the moment, but for my riding playlists check out MonkeyFishBum on Spotify and see my Electronica and Riding Rock playlists.

@Ray40- take it to the toy thread, please. Read up and practice simples and then practice more.