Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of a Killing

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 181 posts

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#61

Post by Semiapies »

peteretep wrote: post #38
JoblessWonder wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all started with a tip that gave them the general area though. This is my favorite example of gathering data just from examining a video: https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/case-studies/2014/08/22...

> It all started with a tip that gave them the general area _though_ You've made this point twice in the comments. What are you getting at?

Agreed. It's still interesting video forensics. That's a detail that isn't somehow invalidated by the fact other components of good journalism also happened.

Some people have very binary thought processes.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#62

Post by oh_sigh »

ezoe wrote: post #42
browsercoin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that "deepfakes" will be unverifiable. There is very robust forensic framework for analyzing videos for authenticity, and it often relies not just on the visual component but all the other vectors that open up as a result-EM waves being generated, audio analysis, etc. A deepfake that passes this analytical function would imply that we will not be seeing advancements in digital forensics due to AI, which do…

If there is a program which output the authenticity of input, Can't we use that to further improve the NN? Eventually, given enough computation, trained NN reliably output videos even the said program can't bust. I see a dark future ahead of us.

This is the ideas behind GANs and progress is reliant upon the generator and discriminator generally can't get too far ahead of one another

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#63

Post by jorblumesea »

funwie wrote: post #8

This is one example of routine acts committed by Cameroon’s military especially in the English-speaking regions. No reaction from international community. Instead, the west is asking Cameroon to investigate. They’re basically asking Cameroon govt to cover up its atrocities. Video clearly shows Cameroon military shooting at mother with children. Same as hundreds of other incidents. What’s there to investigate? Condemn…

I think the issue is that they're doing our dirty work, and if we condemn them, we might get less cooperation against Al-Shabaab/AQIM.

While I'm sure no one is happy with this, the war on terror is a dirty war and our partners are less than ethical.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#64

Post by exotree »

mcguire wrote: post #54

A brilliant piece of work to place the location. On the other hand, this seems to be...below...the BBC: " The government statement makes clear that all these men enjoy the presumption of innocence, and that they will be given a fair trial. " " The two women killed outside Zelevet received no trial at all. " No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them. "

Every single word of that is true. It is exactly what should be said.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#65

Post by Timmah »

elyobo wrote: post #57
mcguire wrote: post #54

A brilliant piece of work to place the location. On the other hand, this seems to be...below...the BBC: " The government statement makes clear that all these men enjoy the presumption of innocence, and that they will be given a fair trial. " " The two women killed outside Zelevet received no trial at all. " No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them. "

Seems fine, unless you read it as them arguing that they should not be given a fair trial; I read it the opposite way, as them arguing that the women and children should have been.

editorializing:

(of a newspaper, editor, or broadcasting organization) make comments or express opinions rather than just report the news

News isnt to tell us how to feel. That's a pretty serious rule to break.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#66

Post by segmondy »

mcguire wrote: post #54

A brilliant piece of work to place the location. On the other hand, this seems to be...below...the BBC: " The government statement makes clear that all these men enjoy the presumption of innocence, and that they will be given a fair trial. " " The two women killed outside Zelevet received no trial at all. " No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them. "

You won't make such statements if you saw the complete video.

To kill unarmed women and children? Sheesh, what would you have written in place of those?

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#67

Post by emmelaich »

tptacek wrote: post #50
endersshadow wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but why? They're up there fighting Boko Haram -- this is a war-torn part of the world. Why is the Cameroonian military killing the people they're charged with protecting? It's something I'd really like to know, after reading through this. I don't understand anything but the most superficial issues facing this region, and it rather shocked me that the national military that's up there to quell the Boko Haram insu…

I think you're just using the wrong word, is all. "Justified" isn't what you're looking for.

The person you're responding too doesn't use the word justify.

Anyway, it's clarified as motivated.

i.e. what was the murderer's justification or motivation.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#68

Post by emmelaich »

exotree wrote: post #64
mcguire wrote: post #54

A brilliant piece of work to place the location. On the other hand, this seems to be...below...the BBC: " The government statement makes clear that all these men enjoy the presumption of innocence, and that they will be given a fair trial. " " The two women killed outside Zelevet received no trial at all. " No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them. "

Every single word of that is true. It is exactly what should be said.

> "No presumption of innocence was extended to the children who died with them."

So, would it be better if they held a trial and then killed them?

Does anyone believe that their innocence or otherwise has anything to do with them being killed?

Are there circumstances that make you think that the killing of children is OK?

It's at least a non-sequitur, possibly self-aggrandising yellow journalism and at worst it could be taken as a start at justification.

Sentences like these give me the creeps.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#69

Post by duxup »

abalone wrote: post #56
aidos wrote: post #17

Incredible bit of analysis and presentation. It's hard to watch this sort of footage for me now. Once upon a time when I was younger I could handle it, but with young children the same sort of age it really tears me apart. Though, I think people should be forced to confront it, because it's the only way it's ever going to improve.

Totally. In terms of handling it, there was a French horror film "Inside" which is very good but involves attacking a pregnant woman. After having kids I found I just couldn't stomach it, which was a change. Same for Sicario's child murder scene which I found just terribly lazy and desperate to be "edgy" and all these rave reviews just pissed me off. Having kids definitely over sensitized me.. in a good way.

There was a Frontline show about life in North Korea, they follow some folks who sneak into North Korea and try to distribute food / money to the poor.

One child about 5 or 6 they meet says his mom had to go to the next town to work and had to leave him ... she never came back.

The little boy tells the story as directly as a 5 year old would tell it, he is homeless with no family fending for himself in the streets.

At the time my oldest was 5.... I can't get that child's voice and image out of my head.

Re: Anatomy of a Killing

#70

Post by sulam »

Timmah wrote: post #65
elyobo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems fine, unless you read it as them arguing that they should not be given a fair trial; I read it the opposite way, as them arguing that the women and children should have been.

editorializing: (of a newspaper, editor, or broadcasting organization) make comments or express opinions rather than just report the news News isnt to tell us how to feel. That's a pretty serious rule to break.

These are facts. If you feel like these facts are biased, I have the perfect group for you to join.
Post reply on HN