SVZ0zAflBhUXXyKrF5AV t1_jeh3x8b wrote

Don't try to force it to happen and don't resort to bribing with treats and food all the time. Bits of food can be used in the right circumstances. Treat them like a dog, not as a human. Be mindful of your personality, attitude and your body language. Be especially mindful of their personal space.

Animals can read people like a book. They do it all the time, even when we may not realise we are communicating anything. We have to be mindful to not accidentally communicate the wrong thing.

Be consistent. Try and learn the basics of how dogs think and act, what makes them tick.

I think it is really important that we learn to listen to animals. They do talk to us in their own way through their body language and sounds. It's up to us to learn to listen and understand.

Just imagine if you and I just met and you are tired and have had a rough day. Now imagine if I totally ignored everything you tried to say or do and ignored your personal space and got right up in your face. You'd hate it and resent me.

Animals really appreciate calm, quiet, relaxed, aware and assertive leaders. By assertive I don't mean a bossy iron fisted tyrant. Any weak or vulnerable animals in the group will really appreciate such a leader who can look out for them. Depending on the animal they may even run and hide behind you if they are frightened.


I imagine I don't need to say this, but either way I just wanted to make this crystal clear about the word assertive:
Being a calm and assertive leader is radically different from an angry person taking their temper out on someone who hasn't got a clue what's going on.

Do not get angry and do not take your temper or frustrations out on animals if you're having a bad day. All it teaches them is to fear you. They're not punchbags for relieving stress.

Trying to get to know animals who have learned to fear humans is difficult and tragic. It is very rewarding when they finally realise that you're a good person that they do not have to constantly fear, that they can be your friend.


SVZ0zAflBhUXXyKrF5AV t1_jefnq5k wrote

I cannot find the report now, years ago an ISP here in the UK did a trial of data mining (I think they used deep packet inspection) and injecting averts on their unsuspecting customers.

When they were caught out they said they decided not to tell their customers as they claimed their customers wouldn't understand. The government and related watchdog did nothing about it. I recall reading that the relevant branch of the EU threatened to sue the UK government if they didn't act. I don't recall what the outcome was.

I believe the trial was conducted by BT Internet and a third party company whose advert related tech they used.

At the time I recall the IT/tech news sources were reporting it as that's where I read about it. I don't know what the general news media reported on the subject.


SVZ0zAflBhUXXyKrF5AV t1_j9l0df8 wrote

I'm not fond of the phrase "the AI will know you so well".

I know that to many people such a system would be a convenience working transparently particularly if they aren't quite sure what they're searching for or how to optimally phrase the query, but personally I really don't like them gathering that much data and tracking me that they know me that well.

I realise it's already basically unavoidable, but knowing how they use the data and why they collect it, along with how they track and target people, it doesn't reassure me.


SVZ0zAflBhUXXyKrF5AV t1_j69h6cx wrote

From a science fiction perspective there's Them! (1954) and It Came from Outer Space (1953). There are episodes of the original Twilight Zone and Outer Limits like that too.

If you want something a bit different, take a look at The Flight of the Phoenix (1965). It's about a group of people who are stranded in a desert when their plane goes down. It stars James Stewart.

Then there's films like Lawrence of Arabia (1962), Sahara (1943) and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) both with Humphrey Bogart, The Lost Patrol (1934) with Karloff in a minor role, The Walking Hills (1949).


SVZ0zAflBhUXXyKrF5AV t1_j62bp3h wrote

Nothing can happen, especially something like this, in Russia without Putin being involved. He's told the FSB to leave Wagner alone, much to their control freak annoyance. Wagner are linked to the military and GRU, who the FSB also dislike.

Basically, Wagner is called a private army but actually do Putin's bidding through the GRU but if any questions are asked Putin has plausible deniability kind of like saying "It's nothing to do with us. They're not part of the military." We know it's a lie it's so obvious, they've been seen mixing with ordinary Russian troops, but it's one of the games Putin plays. Using plausible deniability also how Putin gives orders in the Kremlin.

That is a double edged sword though. In a different conflict, when one Wagner group got too close to an American outpost the Americans contacted their Russian counterparts who disowned all knowledge of them. The Wagner group didn't turn back so the American troops opened fire with everything they had. They heard the radio chatter of the men as they realised the Russians had left them to die rather than to own up to being associated with them. They're very expendable.

The reason for using prisoners and mercenaries in this current war is because Putin believes the Russian public won't care if that type of people get killed rather than the general Russian public.

They're also being used as cannon fodder. Some prisoners are given a tiny bit of ammo, just enough to make a noise and attract attention, and then sent out. Their sole purpose is to get shot by the Ukrainians and thus give away their positions to the Russians who sent the prisoners out to be massacred. They don't give them much ammo as there's no point, they really are meant to get shot. If they try to escape they're publicly executed in a rather gruesome way.


SVZ0zAflBhUXXyKrF5AV t1_j2brn6n wrote

To the average home computer user, and by that I mean people who don't go actively seeking out tech and IT forums and articles online, I doubt many of those average users understand what's truly involved with privacy online and what is done with the data and metadata the companies gather, profile and build about all their users.

There was an incident many years ago, I think it was something to do with a trial an ISP was doing, where the EU complained that they didn't consult the customers involved and explain what was happening or ask permission. The response, or excuse, was basically it's too complicated for them to understand so they didn't bother. I think it was to do with adverts.