I live in a neighborhood full of families and the number that actually use their yards for anything other than mowing is minimal. As for my own kids they seemed to have much more fun in the nearby woods than the yards.
You say "they" like this isn't something that every single person in the world does constantly -- nobody is immune to it. Confirmation bias is just a derogatory term for people having priors.
Yeah, and it really is everyone. For example, remember when the White House Press Secretary tweeted a video that had apparently been doctored to make it look like a journalist had attacked one of their staffers? There was a really clear, convincing comparison that overlaid a semi-transparent version of that video on the original, showing that it leapt ahead in the part where his hand went near her because it had been sped up to make the interaction look more violent. Many people spread it, including YouTube debunker Captain Disillusion with this message: "Getting lots of requests on the topic, but there's nothing for me to examine. This person has examined it, very simply and clearly. And I concur." https://twitter.com/cdisillusion/status/1060564297103917056
Now, having compared the two videos myself and not found anything like this, obviously I had a look at it - and worked out the trick almost immediately. The comparison had the overlay ahead of the original by the same number of frames the whole way through from frame 1, but it was so faint that during normal viewing the difference was only visible in fast-moving parts, creating the illusion it leapt ahead in those parts. Easiest trick imaginable, could probably have been done trivially with film a century ago, and fooled someone who'd built a career and reputation around debunking faked videos along with many others.
(As for the White House video, that's a long story but the short version is that it seemed to be pretty much exactly what it purported to be, and the only actual "doctoring" was probably the obvious, intentional stuff like repeating parts of the video zoomed in.)
You say that "People are not that stupid" but have you looked at all the obvious fake/false information being passed around on facebook. I think that shows that people really are that stupid.
I think it shows that nothing about Photoshop or deepfakes matters in the slighest since the kinds of content that people are falling for now is a stock photo with some text under it.
Seems to me that that the end of your comment supports the parent commenter's point, rather than showing the irrelevance of deepfakes for the soundness of public opinion — that people are so easily and constantly deluded now gives little reason to hope for a discerning public in the face of stronger fakery
Much of that misinformation is also made with far cruder tools than a well-trained GAN. People will be fooled by what they want to be fooled by. Remember how Republicans thought Nancy Pelosi showed up drunk to some political event because someone just slowed down the video? Or the whole wave of cleverly-edited "expose" videos on ACORN and Planned Parenthood done by the Project Veritas guys? The reality is, anyone who believed those videos already had a negative opinion of those organizations and people that jived with the lie they believed.
It doesn't matter if Nancy Pelosi wasn't actually drunk, she's a lunatic anyway!
It doesn't matter if Planned Parenthood wasn't actually selling body parts for profit, they're baby killers anyway!
It doesn't matter if ACORN wasn't actually telling pimps how to file taxes, they're Obama lovers anyway!
The problem is not that it's possible to convincingly falsify video evidence. That's the kind of problem you need to deal with as the judge of a courtroom, and courts already know how to deal with manipulated and falsified evidence in other contexts: strong monetary and criminal penalties. However, we're talking about the people at large, who are not unimpassioned triers of fact but people who have strong opinions that they are angry about. The court of public opinion is not an impartial or fair court, it is a cacophony of angry people shouting into the void until society gives them a perceived win.
Look at QAnon nonsense: 4chan convinced a good chunk of conservative America that Trump is fighting a global child cannibalism ring by just writing a bunch of incomprehensibly long-winded stories. People aren't stupid, they're angry.
It's funny you mention the court system as knowing how to deal with manipulated and falsified evidence, but you imply the videos from Project Veritas, &c., were "cleverly-edited exposes," when it is the courts - and even Planned Parenthood, while in a legal case - that have found those videos to be factual, and to not have any particular omissions, and to be valid evidence:
> The district court stated, inaccurately, that the CMP video had not been authenticated and suggested that it may have been edited.
> In fact, the record reflects that OIG had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. And the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.
[Planned Parenthood are the plaintiffs in this specific case.]
Re your QAnon comment at the end -- I'm not sure if you saw, but it seems that (as of today) people are defending Q on HN as well :( Is disinformation against HN policies @dang, and if not, shouldn't it be?
I wonder if this is limited to improvisational theater or if something like a roleplaying game, where the person has to act out a role with no script, can help as well. I would think that they get to perform the same sort of social interactions and while still being "low cost".
I'm guessing that the best script for people with some kind of anxiety is: acting that you simply don't care. That way, you don't look stupid, just a little uncooperative or disinterested. From there you can build on confidence, thus keeping your head from overflowing with negative thoughts, and actually making a more interesting performance.
Some people really do just want to be drones and are perfectly happy going in and doing a simple mundane task over and over.
If anything, this last election should have exposed this. There is a whole cohort of people out there that feel they've been slighted and left behind because of the shift in manufacturing. They feel like they should still be able to go in and be a drone and get paid well enough to raise a family.
I wonder if you wouldn't be justified in following up their question with your own of "Why should I choose to work for you?". Seems only fair that they should try and sell you on being part of their team as well.
I've always asked teams why someone should come work there during the interview process. For one, a lot of employees are not terribly good actors, so you can read the room if you see people stammer through this question. Two, by even just asking that question, you can flip the tenor & tone of an interview by nicely showcasing that: you have options, so you're looking to understand why this is a fit for you and not just a fit for the hiring side.
That's pretty bold. I would imagine most companies' honest response would be "Well, you don't HAVE to come work here, we have 10 other people interviewing after you." I mean, congratulations if you have options, but in most employer-applicant relationships, there is a huge power imbalance benefiting the employer.
It's not bold, it's a perfectly reasonable question. In most parts of the US, it's a developer's market. Exploit that while you can.
FWIW, every time I've asked this question, the response is always for the interviewer (sometimes with a slight smile) to try to sell me on working there. Never have I gotten a response like you predicted, and I'd be very surprised if I ever do.
You're not a fungible assembly line worker; you're a highly skilled individual in great demand. Even if you don't really believe that, find a way to convince yourself of it temporarily before the interview: it will have positive results.
Power imbalances often arise solely because the people involved perceive it as such (i.e. it's a purely psychological effect). Therefore, simply perceiving the situation differently and then acting on that can make a lot of difference.
Of course you would. In fact, it doesn't have to be in response to anything they say. I think both questions are valid for both interviewer and interviewee.
There's only one of me to go around, so I'm pretty particular about where I am.
You don't even need a paper score card. The Munchkin card game suggests using pennies to keep track of your hp. You could just suggest that, everyone should have something they can use as "counters" and you don't need to sink the costs into a score pad.
