Mr. Skeptic wrote:Just go and watch it.

I don't know about you, Mr. Skeptic, but I'm not inclined to lend my eyeballs to enriching some mindfuckbot based only on your feeble recommendations.

I notice an unfortunate pattern RE established forum members' level of politeness/friendliness toward new arrivals. Perhaps if us lot were a little "nicer" more of 'em would stick around?

Keep It Real wrote:I notice an unfortunate pattern RE established forum members' level of politeness/friendliness toward new arrivals. Perhaps if us lot were a little "nicer" more of 'em would stick around?

Mr. Skeptic is in no way a "new arrival". He's been on here for several weeks, and in several threads, and has had ample chance to see how his particular interests are received.

I guess it all depends on what you're looking for. I can see how you might be attracted to youtube videos of uncertain provenance that discuss non-avian dinosaurs in the present day. Do what you think is best, and MYOFB where I am concerned, unless I'm breaking some sort of rule.

I'm interested in this topic because of its proximity to the issue of fake news/fabricated evidence/staged "reality" footage/CGI models in the fashion industry/airbrushing...truly a high-value issue of our times. It wouldn't surprise me if access to some fabricating software were restricted by governments in the not too distant future, in fact. CCTV footage need have value.

Keep It Real wrote:I'm interested in this topic because of its proximity to the issue of fake news/fabricated evidence/staged "reality" footage/CGI models in the fashion industry/airbrushing...truly a high-value issue of our times. It wouldn't surprise me if access to some fabricating software were restricted by governments in the not too distant future, in fact. CCTV footage need have value.

Well, that's a straightforward matter of knowing what some 'real' data look like. You could call it "domain knowledge" if you got specialized enough. I hope you're not suggesting a need to know what's going on everywhere, all the time. In the abstract, a concern with 'staged reality' just goes down the same rabbit-hole the avian dinosaur guy is down. Without significant domain knowledge, you have little hope of influencing the quality of data in that domain.

I'm "impressed" with the way trivial mischief makers/entertainers these days are able to fabricate "evidence" of even this quality...50 years time...

Spoken word sample from 2:10 ish etc...

Keep It Real wrote:I notice an unfortunate pattern RE established forum members' level of politeness/friendliness toward new arrivals. Perhaps if us lot were a little "nicer" more of 'em would stick around?

I notice the pattern that established members politeness/friendliness varies based on the conduct of the posters in question.

I guess I just find this topic relevant and intriguing. It is, of course, 100% in the right subforum...this time...

Keep It Real wrote:I'm "impressed" with the way trivial mischief makers/entertainers these days are able to fabricate "evidence" of even this quality...50 years time...

Spoken word sample from 2:10 ish etc...

It is precisely the fact that trivial mischief makers can achieve trivial results that I'm complaining about. But it isn't the triviality of their results that stirs me. Its the lack of domain knowledge in their audience that gives the content producer so many eyeballs. As I say, if you have domain knowledge in some area, you start to know what's trivial and what isn't. I watch a few flight simulator re-enactments of famous airline disasters, but since there's a reality to compare it to, I find some reason to watch it. A lot of these put into sharp relief the cockpit management issues that make disaster a certainty after some point. These are the issues that the likes of the FAA or ICAO have included prominently in the official record.

Parenthetically, I don't insist that the fact of a large audience is by itself trivial, just that I understand what the real problem is.

BlackBart wrote:I'll take your word for it. If that's how 'MrWolf' gets his jollies, good luck to him.

Well, I think you supposed to not have those 'jollies' to explain reality, get money off of moronic wanna believers or in public. I guess it's his right, but if have people that look up to what you create as information about the world and you are lying, posting falsehoods, fakery or hoaxes, then you are hurting them. Lies and violence are both in the same category for me.

Keep It Real wrote:I'm interested in this topic because of its proximity to the issue of fake news/fabricated evidence/staged "reality" footage/CGI models in the fashion industry/airbrushing...truly a high-value issue of our times. It wouldn't surprise me if access to some fabricating software were restricted by governments in the not too distant future, in fact. CCTV footage need have value.

Of related interest...

New 3D ‘human replica’ technology could take worries about fake news to new heights
(RT.com article)

7-minute video:

Mischief...don't look in the box - it belongs to Pandora!