Google Translate is a little… funny

blather, Crazy, critters, Hmm..., religion No Responses »

Jul 242018

So I was passed this link. Since it’s to an RT (Russia Today) story, I naturally assume it’s not trustworthy, so I put it to the test. The story claims that if you feed a string of the word “dog” repeated 20 times into Google Translate, set it to some non-English language translating to English, it spits out End Times prophesies. Seemed dubious. But what the hell I gave it a shot.

Start with:

dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog

And you get with most languages, a string of “dog” repeated twenty times because “dog” is not a word in that language.

But there are a few anomalies:

Icelandic (and Norwegian, and Swedish): “However, however, however, however, however, though, though, however, however, though died though, however, however died died”

That’s a little odd. But then:

Hausa (a west African language): “Doomsday Clock is three minutes at twelve We are experiencing characters and a dramatic developments in the world, which indicate that we are increasingly approaching the end times and Jesus’ return”

Umm. That is *specific*enough of a turn of phrase that I assume that it is the result of someone at Google having a little fun. the RT article apparently spoke with a computer expert who thinks that the Google translation algorithm is an imperfect AI (I’m shocked at the very idea!) that “hallucinates” if you feed it gibberish.

So, experimenting further. Sticking with Hausa, I changed the number of times I use “dog:”

DogX6: dog dog dog – reader email

Dog X 16: Doomsday Clock is three minutes at twelve We are experiencing characters and a dramatic developments in the world

Dog X 24: krist dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog dog

I swapped out “dog” for “cat” and only got a string of “cat.” Color me stunned that cats won’t be involved in the apocalypse.

I tried dog x 20 with other languages. The great majority only spit out a number (generally less than 20) of “dog.” But that “end times” message was repeated in Igbo (another west African language) and Samoan.

And Urdu gives: Double Dude Double Drop Double Drop Double Drop Double Pain Two

I assume if you said “dog” to someone who speaks Urdo, they’d think you meant “two” or “drop” and maybe even “pain,” so I guess that one makes sense in way. But the “end times” message sure seems like it was programmed in, hallucinating AI or no.

so if you see an unkempt, unshaven wild-eyed weirdo in a bathrobe standing on a soapbox screaming about dogs, it’s up you to decide: “whackjob or prophet?”

Not a happycat

cats, critters No Responses »

Jul 222018

Fingers is not the same since Raedthinn died. She has become lethargic, as I suppose one might expect. She does not seem to go around the house looking for him; it seems she knows he’s gone for good. She does purr a *lot* more than she used to when she was *way* from him. It used to be that the only time she purred was when she was putting the moves on him; if he wasn’t near, she didn’t purr. Now she purrs in three places:

Raedthinns old corner of the bed.
The front window.
On *me.*

She has become a lot more affectionate with me. I guess I’m her rebound guy. Look how thrilled she appears to be with that.

Who are you to judge?

AARRRGH, Crazy, critters, Forward!, Hmm..., humor, politics, youtube, ಠ_ಠ 7 Responses »

Jul 072018

You know, I’m a tolerant guy. As a small-l libertarian, by basic view is “you do you,” so long as that doesn’t harm others and you don’t extract resources from unwilling others in the process. But at a certain point tolerance becomes kinda laughable. And…. this here video depicts something *well* beyond the laugh-line.

“Who are you to judge” is a line often used by people who don’t want to be judged. Well, in this case, who am *I* to judge? I’m non-crazy American, that’s who the frak I am. This means I can judge whoever I want, whenever I want, and I can judge them as harshly as I feel necessary. Now, can I stop these people from doing what seems to make them happy? Nope. Do I *want* to stop them? Nope. Do I feel like laughing at them, and telling them that if they actually think they are horses, they’re nuttier’n a fruitcake? You damn betcha.

You want to cosplay as a pony? OK, sure, whatever floats your boat, Ed. Some people like to cosplay as football or basketball players, and we’re not supposed to laugh at *them.* But if you want me to believe you when you start yammering about “pony space?”

Is this sort of thing a sign of a culture in decline? Maybe. Will it survive the transition to shariah law? I suspect not.

Does the acceptance of this sort of thing – celebration of people believing themselves to be something they manifestly are not, and making fools of themselves in the process – while at the same time we are being told to shun and despise people who wish to be what they actually are (say, masculine men, feminine women, boys who act like actual boys, etc.) imply a sickness in our culture? I suspect so.

Hurray for murder!

AARRRGH, awesomeness, cats, critters, Hmm..., wisdom, youtube 1 Response »

Jun 122018

Is that title clickbait? I’m shocked, SHOCKED that you might think so.

Look, we all know that cats are awesome. But we also know that cats are murder machines. They kill smaller cute ‘lil critters with a joyful relish that is only matched by humanities own love of slaughter. Efforts are often and widely put in place to sterilize or outright exterminate feral cat populations because cats do serious damage to bird populations.

But… what if cats weren’t around? This video makes the hard-to-argue-against point that in a world suddenly without cats, humanities numbers would plummet and civilization would collapse precisely because our fluffy little friends murderous nature is protecting the entire planet from a very serious threat. (note: not a good video for folks what don’t care for seein’ critters kill other critters)

Humans sleep soundly in their beds because rough cats stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

Perhaps the most accurately titled video in history

cats, Crazy, critters, humor, youtube No Responses »

Jun 112018

That cat is about as patient a cat as I’ve ever seen.

25 years of Jurassic Park

art, awesomeness, critters, history, paleo, science fiction 1 Response »

Jun 112018

“Jurassic Park” opened on June 11, 1993… a quarter century ago. A decade ago I mentioned that it had been fifteen years, and that that made me feel old. Imagine what a quarter century does. Gah.

Seeing “Jurassic Park” remains a favorite memory of mine, in no small part due to the company I saw it with. But beyond that, seeing dinosaurs *that* realistic on the big screen was a freakin’ revelation. Movie history can be fairly divided between “before JP” and “after JP,” as movie makers saw the potential of computer animation; many movie makers used the new technology to make wonders… and others used the technology to make cheap crap or overpriced, bloated unnecessary eye candy. But the positives outweigh the negatives in my view, and many of the descendants of JP have been truly spectacular.

Yeah… no thanks

AARRRGH, art, Crazy, critters, Meh., models, science, science fiction 12 Responses »

Jun 112018

Ugh.

Meet Mrs Perfect: Scientists reveal what a ‘superwoman’ really would look like – complete with bat ears, slimy frog skin and a kangaroo pouch

So, it’s an article about what *one* scientist thinks a “perfect” human would look like if said human was genetically engineered with bits of other animals. Granted, some ideas for genetic engineering upgrades make some kind of sense… stranger hearts less susceptible to attacks, better immune systems, more acute hearing, better eyesight, blah, blah, blah. But those could be done with, presumably, little to no change to the actual *form* of the baseline human. But this suggestion goes a little further than that:

Yeah. Ummmm… no.

In order for a human to be “better,” it would need to be able to reproduce. It seems very likely that a human modified to such an extent would not be genetically compatible and physically able to reproduce with a stock human, so this would be effectively a new species. But even if it was compatible, and the major changes were made genetically dominant so they would carry over unchanged into the next generation, there is another problem with reproducing this type of human:

Yuck.

In order to breed, ya generally gotta *want* to breed. Granted, I speak for nobody but myself, and I know there are a lot of guys who’ll do just about anything, and a lot of guys who are into furries and such, but the concept shown here is not exactly… inspiring.

Justifiable homicide?

AARRRGH, cats, critters, Hmm..., news, ಠ_ಠ 1 Response »

Jun 032018

Dallas woman says she killed husband for beating their pet cat, cops say

Even if you you don’t like cats, even if you dislike cats, ya gotta recognize that someone who would beat a cat is someone who would easily graduate to whompin’ on humans for the same ill founded reasons. Is it legal to kill someone beating a cat? Almost certainly not. Is it *right* to kill someone beating a cat? Hmm…

A robot is a dogs best friend

critters, Hmm..., science fiction, youtube 4 Responses »

May 142018

There’s this video from 2008 showing a home-made automated ball launcher for use by dogs (well, *a* dog):

Then there’s this vid from 2015 showing a much simplified commercial product that does more or less the same thing:

The commercial ball launcher concerns me somewhat due to the small size of the balls used… they would seem to be a choking hazard for dogs much bigger than chihooahooas. But otherwise it seems to get the job done, though not as spectacularly as the home-made earlier model.

Dogs, it seems, do not have a problem with robots as toys. I wonder how they’d react to fully autonomous, roughly humanoid robots? Would a dog be as comfortable being the pet of a “Chappie”-style robot as a regular human? I’m sure such tales have been written, but none immediately spring to mind as having been filmed.

The ADA vs. The Constitution

AARRRGH, blather, critters, Hmm..., politics, ಠ_ಠ 2 Responses »

May 122018

Every now and then you see someone at a store or a restaurant with a service animal. And sometimes you see people with what are clearly pets. The one category is, by federal law, allowed pretty much everywhere; the other can be banned pretty much anywhere. And this is fine. Anyone who has a problem with a legit service animal is, let’s face it, a dick. But it seems perfectly reasonable to me for someone who owns an establishment to at the very least be interested in such things. If for no other reason, some permissible service animals are there for reasons beyond the usually obvious. The purpose of a seeing eye dog… even a blind man can see what the purpose of that is. But some critters are there to guard the owner against seizures or anxiety attacks and other serious, but non-obvious, medical issues. Sometimes the person might simply go unconscious, and, give ’em a few minutes, they’ll come to, shake themselves off and go about their business, and all the help they’ll need or want is to be left alone, protected and aided by their critter. And that’s fine… but if you were to see a stranger go lights out on the floor, *you* wouldn’t know what to do, would you. So it seems to me to be perfectly valid to make inquiries.

But there’s the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). And one of the bizarre little features of the ADA is this:

§ 35.136 Service animals
(f) Inquiries. A public entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public entity shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public entity may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person’s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).

Note: “A public entity shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person’s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public entity may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform.”

There are a number of videos on YouTube shot by people with service animals, getting upset about being asked more than two questions, or being asked “wrong” questions. There’s THIS video, which features a woman with a service dog threatening legal action over a sign and saying it’s illegal for an establishment or its employees to make more than those two inquiries.

Ummm…

Since when does the ADA overrule the First Amendment? The ADA may be able to say that a store owner must allow a service animal, but how THE FRAK can it say that it is *illegal* to simply ask someone questions?

Older Entries Newer Entries