Zelensky video deepfake
Video with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky asking to retreat and surrender their weapons was published hours ago [1].
Although I must admit the quality of the video is mediocre, the voice of the president is a little unnatural and stagy, the color of the skin of the face doesn't match, though the facial expression is not bad.
Nevertheless, here we are, deepfake video created specifically for war!
(PS: I'm Ukrainian and just try to be sarcastic about the whole thing which is horrific, be careful and take care) (PS2: considering our attitude towards the situation, we're not even taking this video serious)
307 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 256 ms ] threadSuch as: Zelensky is a nazi, the Ukraine war is all CGI, anything related to Hillary or Bill Clinton (yes still), and so on and so forth.
Information dissemination must be similar to fluid dynamics. It just has to be.
If you include reactions, sure. But regular fluid dynamics very much leaves the substance intact. Water flows down a stream and is still water at the end.
Even that has fish shit added.
government doesn't want you to hear people -> subject matter expert sees -> informs that information is faulty -> minority fight against the tide
Although usually this follows the covid lab grown pattern where the fight against the tide crowd usually treats their info as 100% certain which muddies the water when informed opinions have varying confidence levels.
It’s simpler and more insidious than that. I’ll use the old Eleanor Roosevelt quote:
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
Most people are not that intellectual and probably spent most of their life gossiping. They wouldn’t know how to even discuss certain topics if the low hanging fruit of gossip and conspiracy wasn’t available to them to add something in a social interaction.
Take Reddit for example, some of them wouldn’t even know what to say if they couldn’t add that one immediate punch line (followed by sequential punchlines by other people). If you take this away, they will literally have no way of joining the convo.
They won’t be able to come up with an angle, ask a probing question, entertain an alternative perspective, provide analogues or metaphors, they’d simply have no voice. It’s akin to providing these people with ‘what do you think about the weather today?’ as a lifeline in casual social interaction.
Politicians generally channel ideas in order to get elected - and then screw everyone over once they have power for 4 years.
The frustration is, why is gossip and conspiracy lifelines necessary for topics that most people should have no issue discussing? You really can’t add anything without that stuff?
Anyways, I heard Hunter Biden is a drug addict, and Putin has cancer, and that’s why he’s invading Ukraine.
Having a topic under discussion is hardly "gossip" or a "conspiracy lifeline".
One thing is to discuss how candidate X chooses to dress, whether candidate Y cheated on their partner, or how candidate Z looked so stupid in that incident yesterday. Another very different thing is to discuss candidate X's personal background (and how it makes them more likely to understand a given issue), that candidate Y does not practice what they preach (and probably cannot be trusted), or that candidate Z has owned up to their screw-up yesterday (and self-criticism is a good trait for leadership).
See: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/18/great-minds/
The quote seems appropriate for a person that doesn’t want to be talked about.
I get what it’s going for but “only small minds talk about people” feels like it serves political elites very well. Don’t talk about me and my conduct. Talk about the generalised idea of conduct by people who are somewhat like me!
I studied politics at university and learned enough about political ideology to last me a lifetime. But my biggest takeaway from history is that ideology almost always plays a back seat to human beings that want to retain or expand their power. Ideas are pretty malleable around that aim.
http://www.dpcamps.org/repatriation3.html
People there don’t just think they should dictate what you do, but also what you think!
That being said, you are absolutely on your own. The hospital struggles, the schools struggle, the roads are awful, and anything remotely related to 'government' is funded just above the point of being dead. And if you do not seem to be 'from here' (read: white, straight, middle- to upper-middle class, or have the right last name) you absolutely will be excluded from most social, religious, and other institutions.
In other words, it's not all puppies and sunshine.
That other 10% is political discussion. Which is a hot garbage pile covered in blatant racism and antisemitism.
I know a woman who lives in Chicago who doesn't believe in dinosaurs. It's not a religious thing, it's just that dinosaurs don't fit into her mindset somehow.
I dated a woman in New York (native New Yorker) whose entire family believed that the moon landings were fake.
I know a guy in Houston who believes that drinking his own pee is helping him live longer.
Crazy is everywhere. It obeys no geographic, social, wealth, or political boundaries.
However, organized, coordinated crazy is a problem, even more so when it is sufficiently organized and coordinated to become an effective player in our political system.
The result is many conservative circles are still obsessed with her even though she is relatively unimportant.
I've noted this before, but being in the public eye for too long tends to be really bad news for presidential hopefuls in the US (Biden being the exception that proves the rule in that he eked out a win against a wildly unpopular incumbent who was actively discouraging his own supporters from voting).
I'm not a fan of HRC but the demonization was in full gear 30 years ago.
"I thought it was a matter of record!"
[1]: https://youtu.be/Z3PP_SWHUQQ?t=93
https://www.amazon.com/One-Left-Lie-Triangulations-Jefferson...
> Zelensky is a nazi
Considering Trump voters have a history of being called Nazi for the affiliation, I don't see it as a stretch to call Zelensky one for the Ukrainian "Azov Battalion." Think of it as the sword cutting both ways.
> the Ukraine war is all CGI
This one I see constantly... folks expect 4K quality LiveLeak material to be streaming out of Ukraine. Truth be told I'm surprised at the relative dearth of material, but there's still enough floating around social media to make this one rather laughable.
> anything related to Hillary or Bill Clinton
Oddly, I haven't heard anything on this one. Though I have seen a meme going around referring to Biden, Romney, Pelosi, and Kerry having "children involved in the UA energy business." This, at least partially false, but with a rooting in the truth... Hunter Biden as well as advisors / associates of the others have all done business in the UA energy sector. I'm still not quite sure how and why Biden's handling of the former UA prosecutor that had an investigation going against Burisma which employed Hunter isn't a larger political scandal.
All in all there does seem an age gap (IME) with your typical Boomer / Fox types spreading the garbage content, folks towards the Millenial side don't.
"Oh of course this is not true... except for maybe this little sliver here..."
That's the thing that gets latched onto and eventually the conspiracy nuts argue the whole thing must be true.
Exactly how things operate, "Project Northwoods was true, therefore the government is bad, therefore very real 'Government Program X' is bad" is the general algorithm.
With that said, I'm hacker. I seek the truth and will discuss it regardless of whether some wingnut seizes on it to make a false assumption.
I also have no problem attempting to correct the Boomer Doomers I run into at work and in life... they're just usually happy to go "Oh well, fair enough..." and then go back to watching whatever it is they're on about.
Cotdamn Gell-Mann Amnesia
I would speculate that some kinds of corruption are beyond the scandalous and into the range of bipartisan consensus. In the sense that if certain cans of worms were opened, and government bureaucrats educated to treat them as illegal, investigate and prosecute people for them, then it would affect too many key people in both parties and/or covert/intelligence operations abroad.
Having family members serve on boards of directors of things for improving access to politicians seems to be one of those. So is the issue of divesting from one's commercial holdings when assuming an office which creates conflicts of interests. Trump got a total pass by just saying "Oh, I let my sons manage it" - as if that removes the problem at all. But too many house representatives and senators have stocks or other such stakes which they would rather just keep.
He's not a Nazi, of course, him being of Jewish ancestry, but it did raise some questions for me when a Russian bomb (that killed about 20 civilians) did its thing in Kyiv very close to a boulevard named after Bandera. Bandera is of course a war criminal and a Nazi collaborator. That thing with a Kyiv boulevard being named after a war criminal and a Nazi collaborator you don't see in the MSM. The bombing took place here [1], you can see the Bandera-named avenue just close by.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/50%C2%B029'19.1%22N+30%C2%...
That is strong evidence that he isn't, but short of proof. A counterexample from California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Unz
Insofar as it was ire against your implication that "there is no proof against it" would somehow validate the insinuation, it wasn't.
And, sorry, even if you claim that that wasn't what you meant to do, the mere mention of it does imply that. We don't (AFAIK) have absolute proof that the Moon isn't (mainly) made of green cheese, either (those moon rocks the astronauts brought back could just be part of a thin rock crust over the cheese[1]), but what does it imply if I throw out the claim "We don't have proof that the Moon isn't made of green cheese!" in a general discussion about cosmology?
___
[1]: Aha, so "Moon Pie" should be a cheese pie!
But it doesn't warrant an unprovoked single-party invasion. We're better than that these days.
> That is strong evidence that he isn't, but short of proof.
It's about the strongest evidence possible. Also, I'd think a person who's such a raw contradiction of "Jewish Nazi" would show signs of obvious psychological illness (either as a cause or a symptom, e.g. suicide to help the final solution along).
Add to that the fact that the claim he's a Nazi have all the hallmarks of a lie concocted to fabricate a moral reason for the invasion, by people with a history and strategy for creating such lies, and it's proved false practical sense. It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zelensky is not Nazi, in fact it's even proven beyond most unreasonable doubts.
> A counterexample from California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Unz
I don't think so. Ctrl-F "nazi" -- zero hits.
It's not as strong as the synthesis of all the other evidence, particularly: his actions and statements throughout life, none of which point towards him being a Nazi. That is stronger evidence than his ethnic identity.
With respect to Ron Unz, you might want to read that wikipedia page more carefully than a quick C-f; that guy is a big fan of Hitler and hating jews. The same synthesis of actions and statements that vindicate Zelensky will plainly damn Unz.
Does that mean the US, today, generally supports the institution of chattel slavery? No, that's absurd.
Lots of people want those monuments removed and streets renamed, but that's apparently cancel culture. The only country I know of that has actually faced it's rotten past is Germany
I didn't say that, way to go. Come on, this is HN, not some sub-reddit shithole.
> it did raise some questions for me when a Russian bomb (that killed about 20 civilians) did its thing in Kyiv very close to a boulevard named after Bandera. Bandera is of course a war criminal and a Nazi collaborator.
A bomb killed 20 civilians. Who the fuck cares if a street it fell onto was named after a war criminal? Makes it a legit target?
So, let's carpet bomb all those Strada Ion Antonescu it took me all 15 seconds to find across Romania. After all, you are saying it's illegal to name a street like that, so let's de-nazify them. Right?
The treatment of "illegal immigrants" is currently better than the chattel slaves of old, but policies like getting rid of birthright citizenship points in a direction of America wanting to being back chattel slaves
1) Strada Ion Antonescu https://goo.gl/maps/WsVVsW13Eb9BjnRm9 2) Strada Ion Antonescu https://goo.gl/maps/Fe4Ggh3EPZyF7Z6r8 3) Strada Ion Antonescu https://goo.gl/maps/ANV22wPVDnaoFRVw5 4) Strada Ion Antonescu https://goo.gl/maps/hhN2jDvsiD9eXnVB6 5) Strada Ion Antonescu https://goo.gl/maps/a4gjwkDAzD5VrXj77
Of course, nobody should judge all Romanians, nor even the political leaders who were not directly involved in the naming decision, for that. Countries are not a homogenous unit.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Strada+Mareșal+Ion+Antones...
> Countries are not a homogenous unit.
I expect things that stand in your face (like a boulevard in a capital city, a bust sculpture of a genocide perpetrator in a downtown place in another capital city) to not be left to the local authorities. Even Bandera's wiki page mentions the EU and Israeli administrations not being at all happy with Ukraine naming things after Bandera back in ~2011, apparently that has all been forgotten now that Putin has attacked and everyone acts surprised how come Putin calls the Ukrainians as being nazis. And I didn't mention anything about the infamous "Freikorps" now battling the Russians close to Sumy, most definitely their name was not taken from a Heine poem or anything like that.
[1] https://foto.agerpres.ro/foto/detaliu/158701 (if you're Romanian you might recognise one of the characters in that photo)
I mean, they should. Calling an entire country of 44 million people Nazis is ridiculous regardless of whether a boulevard in a capital city is named after Bandera.
That's the way these things usually work. A slow erosion of public opinion through insinuation. People like Tucker Carlson aren't going to instantly go back to brown-nosing Putin, but they'll slip in occasional questions about Zelensky here and there, until certain insinuations are taken as ground truth.
But you’d probably protest if someone called you an anti-semite for this alone.
In your town?
> It is illegal to have streets named after Antonescu
Hm, really? Then again -- and sorry if this comes as a shock to you -- Romania isn't all that well-known (at least in the northern half of the EU) for living up to the law.
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30700460 :
> So, let's carpet bomb all those Strada Ion Antonescu it took me all 15 seconds to find across Romania. After all, you are saying it's illegal to name a street like that, so let's de-nazify them. Right?
My own search for "Strada Ion Antonescu" on Google Maps popped up seven results across Romania, but that was zoomed out from Lviv to Thessaloniki to see the whole country. Don't know if there'd be more if I zoomed in.
What questions of any importance or relevance to this war would it possibly raise? Are you suggesting that if Ukraine really was wall-to-wall Nazis that maybe Russia is somehow justified here? Maybe WW2 wasn't quite finished after all? Good grief. Stop stirring the turd for no good reason other than to rile people up.
You're doing some interesting mental gymnastics here. Do you think "a Russian bomb doing its thing very close to a boulevard" is in any way evidence of the "mainstream media" hiding the Truth or whatever? Who do you work for? Do you actually believe the Russians are attacking Ukraine because of nazis? Do you believe their invasion and the murder of civilians is warranted?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
The the root cause for that is probably the extreme distrust of the "MSM" that's been cultivated for decades. The ironic thing is many of the rank-and-file of those people think that distrust gives them greater access to the truth, when in reality it just makes them easier to lie to.
Care to elaborate? Intuitively what you're saying sounds plausible, but not why that would be the case.
Many of these same people consider themselves "skeptics" because they instinctively distrust the official sources.
(ii) if you can't believe mainstream media, it's hard to search for information that might contradict $radicaltheory, never mind trust someone else's thoroughly researched and sourced one. So even if it's a pretty wild theory that lots of other stuff seems to contradict and very little seems to corroborate, how can we be sure it isn't a coverup. Scepticism about well established facts leads to agnosticism about the veracity of well-established fiction.
(iii)"if you tell people this and they laugh at you and say it's ridiculous it's because they're the credulous idiots who believe anything they read in certain sources" is a very powerful meme.
(iv) people who don't believe in certain sources still tend to want to get stuff they can believe in from somewhere, and the average website that concurs that MSM is not to be trusted and embraces the meme that its reader base are the true freethinking sceptics publishes considerably more fake news and terrible takes than the mainstream media
> Network Error: dns_unresolved_hostname
The globalist elites have had it taken down!
It makes them easier to control.
I've had some heated discussions with my father over this. He has a disdain for anything reported by main-stream media, that is at least partially warranted. But he overcorrects to this by accepting the reporting by fringe media outlets / decentralized media figures (podcasters, youtubers, etc) without the same critical lens that he would otherwise apply. If someone says something to the tune of: "the MSM won't report on this because <insert reasoning here>, but we will!", he almost always accepts what they say next. It's very frustrating for me since he will say this line as an automatic "I win this argument" trump card on any idea regardless of the independent merits.
This shouldn't be a bold statement, but I feel like some people need this shouted at them: Just because something is reported on by a main stream media outlet doesn't mean it's automatically true. And conversely just because something is reported on by a main stream media outlet doesn't mean it's automatically false either. Alternative media is perfectly capable of presenting misleading, or false information!
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
There is an implication by the OP that people in very conservative parts of the state don't believe Google / MSM and point to deep fakes instead. In the past, they would've been more receptive to the MSM who could've debunked this. I posted these two incidents to show that the MSM did, in fact, lie in the past and this may be shaping why people don't believe them now but instead go online looking for "the truth."
What is a problem, though, is that their sources are always things like americafreedompatriot, thetruereporter or other similar blog bullshit that claim to have 'the truth' (my personal favorite is welovetrump that's definitely unbiased).
My experience is they tend to look for sources that feel good and agree with what they believe, then use that as truth. No critical thinking.
As similar as fluid dynamics are to a functional public education system
Heisenberg supposedly said "When I meet God I’m going to ask him about relativity and turbulence. I think he'll only have an answer for the first".
Deepfakes, can you spot them? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30606263
https://github.com/iperov/DeepFaceLab
This is a dynamic we've not seen before - Zelensky is out and about so he's seen by his people, but a huge amount of this entire effort is being shared online through social media. You don't have to convince people its authentic - you can just convince everyone that everything is fake.
There's a subreddit called "AteTheOnion" which chronicles people mistaking wildly obviously fake and humorous articles from The Onion and other sites.
If people aren't able to discern those articles from reality what hope is there?
1 - https://www.reddit.com/r/AteTheOnion/
ISWYDT.
I mean I like to think of myself as fairly critical and I do this. I'm sure there's a ton of subliminal messages that have established themselves as facts in my head.
Same tactics as with what Internet at large nowdays calls "trolls". The onces that you spot were probably ment to be spotted, so you lower your guard against the actual propaganda that isn't as obvious.
Just don't straight up believe everything you see on the internet. The 'propaganda' happens on either side.
I don't think you can deepfake Donald Trump. The man is a recursive deepfake of himself.
In any case, 2020 might be the first time enough voters realized that a bull run on Wall St doesn't move the needle much for their own economic well-being.
Realizing Covid wasn't going to go away and coming around to addressing Covid in June 2020 or so wouldn't have affected the market, which had already priced in Covid. But it would have made Trump an actual crisis-time leader with the corresponding popularity boost just from leading people through a difficult time - publicly validating the hardships everyone is feeling goes a long way. But instead, he dug his heels in opposition to how things were developing.
If anything, I think saying that Trump is a basic contrarian is a better predictor of his positions. The problem is that while our society has major flaws that make contrarian viewpoints compelling, contrarianism on its own does not produce useful reforms.
Mostly in blue states! back then, red states where doing fine, but Seattle & New York were the first major epicenters. It was a deliberate political calculus to cast Democratic-led regions as inept. Florida "banned" New Yorkers for a bit. Minimizong COVID also made businesses happy, so it appeared to be a 3-fer for Republicans, until it boomeranged.
On the contrary, being confounded by an inconsequential challenge is a bigger sign of ineptitude than the reverse.
Wall Street was on a bull run leading into 2016 too, and that realization was one of Trump's arguments at the time. Once he won, he dropped that line, but if 2020 was such a time, I'd count 2016 too
You can take a huge GAN and then use a single image of a face as a guide for navigating the latent space.
I think the idea is that data needed to imitate a _specific person_ would require less data. Overall a model like that might have orders of magnitude more data in general and maybe a smaller amount required to imitate the features of a particular one.
I imagine it like - A master cabinet maker can make new variations of cabinets super easily once they've made hundreds of similar cabinets?
Better models are coming out which are already pretrained on a significant amount of data, so the model already learned a lot about what is common to all example of video generation (keeping the edges aligned coherently at every frame, keeping texture and lighting coherent etc.) and will not need to re-learn that for every target.
Since initially, deepfake models were trained from scratch for every single target, you had to provide a lot of data from the person you want to target so that the model can learn what is common as well as what is specific.
Now you can get descent performance with much less data, since you only need to learn the specifities.
However, this only helps if you need a limited deepfake: The model cannot infer the exact facial expression of the target when they are, for example, laughing unless you provided an example of that in the training data (assuming there is no way to infer the laughing expression from someone by looking at other provided expressions). It will instead generate a generic laugh. All missing informations are substituted by what was seen, on average, in the pre-training phase.
That wouldn't work for a long complex deepfake meant to be sent to someone reasonably close with the target.
But for the types of deepfake where it's targeting a personality that we all know, but not very well at all, much less data is neeeded than before for a similar result.
You can fake it reasonably, but you need to have a very large collection of audio clips to do so, and if you do a bad job it literally jumps out at the viewer.
Video might be off, but it requires close attention and large screens to notice - much easier to miss if you're viewing on a phone.
One reason researchers suspected this must be possible is that human beings, as well as other animals, can learn stuff by watching it for just a few seconds. But we have some prior baggage, because we spent our whole lives learning.. other, vaguely related stuff, and it turns out that knowledge is often transferable.
[0] This isn't the only way, there's also meta learning
Especially in coordination with a media campaign, it would be an effective way of undermining the opponent by making them look simultaneously grossly unethical and desperate. Even better if you can get the FBI involved to investigate whether the video was created directly by the opponent or "only" by his supporters. And anybody describing what actually happened could easily be straw manned into sounding like a nutter.
And the quality is already perfectly fine for this.
The video is not excellent, but the audio is pretty spot on, if you ask me.
Edit: re-worded the first sentence.
-nonsensical title
-no comments
-all videos on account are unlisted
-you just found it
Hmmm. How did you “find” this?
- Largely inactive since 2019 until ~15 days ago.
- Ukrainian with ML background[1]
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20083793#20093381, Archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20210224044558/https://news.ycom...
I'm a lurker, sorry for that.
> - Ukrainian with ML background[1]
Thanks. I did finish Yandex's school of data science (2015-2018). I've been to Moscow in 2018 for their graduation ceremony.
Edit: My remark about me visiting Moscow is to demonstrate that I did not harbor any anti-Russia sentiments.
The explanation that you found it and uploaded it makes perfect sense and clarifies things for me anyway.
Similar to GP, I read your post as though that Youtube video was the initial source, rather than something you uploaded.
After the initial piloting fake information spreads like virus.
To be clear: the video is not mine. I simply uploaded it to youtube as an unlisted video to support my point. This original video was posted on Feb 28th to one of telegram channels I'm subbed to. The channel is https://t.me/wildwildhack which is a channel for "wild wild hack" hackathon organized by the reface.ai guys.
It turned out that people don't believe tricked imaged without any context.
Photoshop exists because people believe images that have been modified. Pretty much every billboard, magazine cover, print advert, or Instagram post you see has been photoshopped literally because people believe images enough to make it worthwhile spending the time changing it to be 'better'.
Adobe built a multi-billion dollar business on the basis of tricking people with images that aren't real.
The assumption that it wouldn't work for video, or that people won't believe modified news images, is counter to all of the available evidence.
In a world of easy image trickery, people stopped believing any image they didn't want to believe.
I am just realising that Star Trek: Deep Space Nine actually had a similar scenario in an episode that aired in 1998. Essentially, a deepfake of a meeting of military leaders is created in a plot to persuade a neutral nation to join a war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Pale_Moonlight
https://streamable.com/8inzvg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxVcokRghpE
> Varje meddelande att motsåndet ska uppges är falskt.
(Every message stating that resistance has ceased is false).
No doubt something similar is stated in Ukraine.
https://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteassets/5-information-och-f...
The caption implies that this is from 1993, but it's a much more recent crop of cadets on a visit to Vares later.
Not necessarily. Here it is:
> Cadets view the sign on the Nordbat 2 school in Vareš and testify of the city's appreciation of the Swedish UN Federation's efforts in autumn 1993. (Johan Nordén/Försvarsmakten)
That must be intended to say the appreciated efforts took place in autumn 1993. But yeah, somewhat ambiguous.
> but it's a much more recent crop of cadets on a visit to Vares later.
Kind of a pilgrimage? If the pic was relatively recent at the time of that blog post (September 2017), many (most?) of those cadets probably hadn't even been born in 1993.
I'm not middle-aged, I'm from the Middle Ages.
(Works better in Swedish: Jag är inte medelålders, jag är medeltida.)
The continuation of the phrase mentioned later in the same pamphlet is also nice:
SV: Motstånd skall göras ständigt och i alla lägen.
EN: Resistance shall be made constantly and in all situations.
It also mentions the classic "En svensk tiger" (lit. "A Swede stays silent") illustrated by a tiger in the Swedish colors since the word has double meaning in Swedish.
Minor nitpick, the correct translation isn't "resistance has ceased" but "resistance shall cease".
Du har rätt :)
I quoted and translated from memory, then googled for the correct quote.
The current statement is:
> Om Sverige blir angripet av ett annat land kommer vi aldrig att ge upp. Alla uppgifter om att motståndet ska upphöra är falska.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout
Last confirmed holdout in 1974, almost 30 years after ww2 ended for Japan.
> If Sweden is attacked by another country, we will never give up. All information to the effect that resistance is to cease is false.
By the way, I'm curious about the word "uppges". After running the sentence both through DeepL.com and Google Translate they seem to return the translation "Any message that the resistance should be stated is false" (though DeepL does list "abandoned" and "quit" among many options in the translation result dropdown). Also, after checking out Wiktionary [0]. I see it only lists "to give as a fact; to state" as a translation for the verb.
This is the first time DeepL has failed me in providing a reasonable translation on the first try. Is this usage of "uppges" to mean something analogous to "cease" very rare or old fashioned, and somehow missing from Wiktionary? Would the meaning of that sentence be unambiguous to any native Swede even if they had never seen that message before?
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uppge
The text is from the 60's and it shows in exactly the type of language used.
> Varje meddelande att motsåndet ska uppges är falskt.
a more direct translation: "Every message that resistence should be given up is false"
This is why we "linguistic prescriptivists" fight our lonely rearguard action: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712765
Stay Alert! Trust no one! Keep your laser handy!
(OK, that last one came from somewhere else).
The Computer is your friend.
[1] https://wikiless.org/wiki/Paranoia_(role-playing_game)?lang=...
Which is exactly why RT and its American (and other) repeaters are so insiduous.
Is this a usage of ska I haven't learned?
Do note however that Swedish is famous for multiple meanings of words.
The verb "ska" (short form of "skola"), has at least 5 meanings.
1. will do <something>: "jag ska bara äta först"
2. (conditionals), something could happen: "om du hade pengar, skulle du ha råd med en iphone"
3. (enforcing rules): "man ska inte slå sina barn"
4. (signaling intention): "jag ska åka på semester"
5. (communicating an statement, not nessecarily truthful): "han ska vara välhängd"
I love this, as in California the phone directories all had a section about what to do in an earthquake and other emergency. Local knowledge for local situations.
The reason was that in those days the telephone book was the only book you could guarantee would be in every house (the unstated reason was that it was the only thing a government could use to push a message into every house -- even in the US where the phone system was nominally private, the government exerted significant pressure on their operations).
I wonder how many people even knew that section existed, much less consulted it.
The Californian one on earthquakes? No idea. But the Swedish one on war: Pretty much everybody certainly knew of it, and probably most had at least cursorily perused it.
https://petapixel.com/2012/10/01/famous-valley-of-the-shadow...
I guess hindsight is 20-20 but does kind of seem like an obvious place to look, no?
you can train a network to detect it, then a network to convince it, ad nauseum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network
https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/gan/discrimin...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/russia-bans-pi...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY3eOtJwOhE