Users simply upload 10 to 20 photos of their faces, and the app’s AI-powered image generating tool does the rest. It may seem like harmless fun, but some artists say the AI is stealing their work. Even worse, the app is generating sexualized images of minors, and users are unwittingly signing away the rights to their own images.

Fantasy Portraits Ignite Ethical Concerns

Artificial intelligence often learns by scraping the internet for content. The Lensa app’s Magic Avatar function draws from sites where real artists upload their work, like DeviantArt, Behance, and ArtStation. Lensa runs on Stable Diffusion, a text-to-image app trained to learn patterns through an online database of images called LAION-5B.

Some artists are recognizing their distinctive styles and even the remnants of their signatures in the AI portraits, like Kim Leutwyler, a Sydney-based artist who told The Guardian she saw almost every portrait she’s ever shared on the internet in the Lensa results.

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Spanish illustrator Amy Stelladia says she learned her art was being used by AI apps after discovering a website called haveibeentrained.com, which allows artists to search the LAION dataset for their work. The tool also provides an easy way for artists to request that their art be removed from the AI-training network.

For artists, the problem is twofold. First, the AI is flooding the market with cheap art that exploits and devalues human creativity. “They are meant to compete with our own work, using pieces and conscious decisions made by artists but purged from all that context and meaning,” Stelladia says. “It just feels wrong to use people’s life work without consent, to build something that can take work opportunities away.”

Second, AI photo apps like Lensa are making bank while the human artists they draw from barely scrape by. By some estimates, Lensa is drawing in $1 million USD per day, and the artists seeing their work in its results aren’t even getting credited, let alone compensated.

Portrait Results are More Than a Little Problematic

Some users have found that even when they submit source images that are fully clothed and show no skin at all, the results are often semi-nude and sexually suggestive. At MIT Technology Review, Melissa Heikkilä writes that out of 100 avatars she generated, 16 were topless and another 14 were barely clad. Heikkilä notes that she and another colleague of Asian descent seemed to get more images like these than their white colleagues who tried the app.

Lensa’s Magic Avatar has also generated nude art based on photographs of children, lightened black skin, and made users significantly thinner than they appear in the source images they uploaded.

AI training data like LAION is full of racist stereotypes, pornography, and even explicit images of rape. Of course, AI training data reflects the biases and prejudices of human artists and other content producers, but there doesn’t appear to be any attempt on the app creators’ part to moderate that data. While Stable Diffusion offers a filter on its dataset to limit graphic results, Lensa doesn’t appear to use it.

Lensa also doesn’t seem to enforce its policies prohibiting nudity and minors, and it doesn’t prevent users from uploading source images of people other than themselves. That makes it easy for anyone to exploit Magic Avatar and produce sexualized images of anyone they want, including children.

Signing Away the Rights to Your Own Image

When users upload their own images to Magic Avatar and similar apps, they’re essentially selling their personal information for a very low price. Lensa’s privacy policy allows them to “collect and store your Face Data for online processing function.”

Though the images are supposedly automatically deleted within 24 hours after being processed by Lensa, they’re used to train the AI to produce more portraits. Users aren’t compensated when the company uses their images for that purpose. The app thus becomes just another way to give corporations more control over our identities — and that doesn’t seem worth the four bucks.

The post That Popular AI Photo App is Stealing from Human Artists — and Worse first appeared on Dornob.

Standing between the Semis wrapped in Pepsi and FritoLay branding, Musk spoke about the need to reduce carbon emissions before pivoting to talking up the selling points of the trucks. “It looks sick,” Musk said, gesturing at one of the vehicles. “You want to drive that. I mean, that thing looks like it came from the future.”

The first delivery of Tesla Semis went to PepsiCo, which placed an order for 100 trucks back in December 2017. Other customers waiting for deliveries include companies like Walmart, UPS, FedEx, and Anheuser-Busch, most of which placed orders numbering in the dozens. PepsiCo plans to use at least 15 of the Semis to achieve zero-emissions status at its Modesto, California Frito-Lay facility.

Some Promises Kept, Others in Question

Musk originally unveiled the Tesla Semi electric Class 8 truck prototype in 2017, with plans to start production in 2019. Then came delay after delay. After a couple years of prototyping, finalizing the design, and road testing the truck, Tesla faced pandemic-related supply chain challenges and a shortage of battery cells.

In 2017, Musk said the Tesla Semi would run on Autopilot, the automaker’s advanced driver assistance system, but made no mention of it at the recent delivery event. It appears that prices will also rise sharply from Musk’s 2017 estimates of $150,000 for the 300-mile range version and $180,000 for the 500-mile version.

But many of the other specs have remained the same, including a tri-motor system that allows the truck to easily cruise by conventional gas-powered trucks pulling the same load. The Semis will still be charged with a “megawatt class charger” and consume less than 2 kWh per mile. The trucks also deliver three times the power of any diesel truck currently available and feature regenerative braking, meaning the brakes deliver power to the battery when drivers stop pressing the accelerator.

The Gigafactory reveal event came after Tesla completed a 500-mile test trip of one of its Semi trucks fully loaded with 81,000 pounds of cargo. The trip began at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California and ended in San Diego without needing to recharge the battery.

Will the Tesla Semi Ever Actually Take Off?

Tesla’s all-electric Semi trucks could dramatically change long-haul trucking. Current diesel-powered trucks in the same category represent one percent of U.S. vehicle sales, but 20 percent of overall vehicle emissions. If they are, in fact, equipped with Tesla’s semi-autonomous Autopilot system, they could reduce demand for drivers and help prevent accidents that occur when drivers are tired or distracted. The system uses sensors and cameras to provide data on the surroundings to the truck’s onboard computer, alerting the driver to potential collisions and applying the brakes automatically in emergencies.

Self-driving functionality is still probably quite a few years from becoming reality, with potential job losses yet to be determined. In the meantime, drivers will have to get used to a very different user experience than what they’re used to, especially inside the cab. Polish truck driver Tomasz Orynski went viral on Twitter after pointing out impractical design choices that make the Semi “a completely stupid vehicle,” including a central seating position that makes it hard to see oncoming traffic or access the window without getting up.

Among other things, the doors are positioned in the rear of the cab, so there’s no longer room for a mattress. The position of the touchscreens replacing physical buttons and levers also makes them hard to reach while keeping eyes on the road.

Musk Drama Could Make Tesla Less Desirable

Meanwhile, it’s hard not to wonder whether Musk’s misadventures at Twitter will affect Tesla. Recent media coverage suggests that all of Musk’s conspiracy theories, transphobic jokes, erratic behavior, and right-wing political comments could harm Tesla by association. Company stocks continue to nosedive, and investors are increasingly furious with Musk over his preoccupation with the social media platform, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“The market voted today that the $TSLA brand has been negatively impacted by the Twitter drama,” tweeted Gary Black, a hedge fund manager who owns about $50 million in Tesla stock. “Where before EV buyers were proud to drive their Teslas to their friends or show off Teslas in their driveways, now the Twitter controversy is hurting Tesla’s brand equity.”

The post Tesla Finally Delivers Semi Trucks to Customers Amid Musk Twitter Drama first appeared on Dornob.

His complaint? “Apple has mostly stopped advertising on Twitter,” Musk wrote. “Do they hate free speech in America?” Musk then alleged that Apple threatened to remove Twitter from its App Store and criticized the company for charging fees to developers who create apps for its products.

Musk’s Supposed Free Speech Crusade

Going so far as to claim that the “future of civilization” was at stake, Musk theorized that Apple might ban the Twitter app in response to his new content moderation policies. A self-described free speech absolutist, Musk first said he would set up a “content moderation council” with diverse viewpoints to manage decisions like whether or not to ban users who posted hate speech.

He then changed his mind, offering to reinstate formerly banned users like ex-President Donald Trump and neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin. He also reinstated Kanye West (now known simply as Ye) only to ban him again days later for posting a Star of David with a swastika inside of it.

Musk is receiving support from several conservative and alt-right figures for his decisions, especially since publicly aligning himself with the GOP. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis piped in with comments in support of Musk during a press conference, saying any attempt to remove Twitter from the Apple App Store would be a “huge mistake” that would “merit a response from the United States Congress.” Senator-elect J.D. Vance of Ohio also weighed in, tweeting that “no civilized country should allow” Apple to remove Twitter from its App Store.

Apple’s (Non) Response

Thus far, the conflict has been pretty one-sided. Apple hasn’t publicly responded to Musk’s accusations. Data from Pathmatics, a research firm that tracks digital marketing spending, found that although Apple had cut back on its Twitter ad spending since the summer, it was still paying the company about $1 million per month.

The Twitter app has remained available for all iOS devices, but both Apple and Google have stringent policies against misinformation, hate speech, and other misconduct, having previously booted apps like Parler for breaking them.

On November 30th, Musk tweeted that his war against Apple was over, at least for now. “Good conversation,” he wrote in reference to a meeting with Cook. “Among other things, we resolved the misunderstanding about Twitter potentially being removed from the App Store. Tim was clear that Apple never considered doing so.”

How Musk’s Behavior Could Affect Twitter in the Future

Musk’s choices about content moderation on Twitter have thus far complied with U.S. laws. However, the laws are a little different in the European Union, and last month a senior EU official warned Musk that Twitter would have to improve its efforts to combat hate speech and misinformation in order to avoid massive fines.

Thierry Breton, the EU’s Commissioner for Digital Policy, said that Musk agreed to comply with the rules during a video call, adding that: “Twitter will have to implement transparent user policies, significantly reinforce content moderation and protect freedom of speech, tackle disinformation with resolve, and limit targeted advertising.”

Musk’s tweets about Apple follow an erratic stream of conspiracy theories, threats, and complaints posted in the wake of his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, finalized on October 27th. They include a since-deleted post containing baseless anti-LGBTQ theories about the attack on Paul Pelosi, and threats of a “thermonuclear name and shame” offensive against companies that have paused advertisements on the platform.

Meanwhile, the number of tweets containing hate speech and racial epithets has soared since Musk took over and fired much of Twitter’s staff, according to a report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

The post Elon Musk’s Beef with Apple is Just Making Him Look Worse first appeared on Dornob.

He created 10,000 original pieces the size of a standard sheet of paper, each with an NFT twin. Each piece was truly unique, as no painting had a single repeated color in its dots. Every artwork was also signed by Hirst, numbered, stamped, watermarked, given a microdot, and included a hologram of the artist’s portrait on the back. Further utilizing modern-day technology for his first NFT project, Hirst fed his favorite song lyrics into an AI-enabled computer program to generate titles for all 10,000 pieces. Standout titles include “Totally gonna sell you,” “Laugh in our faces,” and “None of this mattered.”

The purchasing period began in July 2021. Buyers could opt for the physical or the digital copy of the piece, and the one they didn’t choose would be destroyed. They had a full year (until July 2022) to decide.

Interest in Hirst’s collection boomed for the first month, with 2,036 purchases and over $47 million in sales. However, over the course of the remaining 11 months, the collection’s gimmicky nature lost its shock value, causing floor prices and trading volumes to steadily decline. By the spring of 2022, “crypto winter” hit and sent the NFT market into a nosedive.

In the end, buyers were fairly evenly split. “The final numbers are: 5,149 physicals and 4,851 NFTs (meaning I will have to burn 4,851 corresponding physical Tenders),” Hirst wrote on Twitter, beneath a photo of himself despondently laying prostrate over boxes of his artwork.

That same day, Hirst also tweeted: “I have no idea what the future holds, whether the NFTs or physicals are going to be more valuable or less. But that is art! The fun, part of the journey, and maybe the point of the whole project. Even after one year, I feel the journey is just beginning.”

Partnering with HENI, Hirst put the pieces on display at London’s Newport Street Gallery from September 9th to October 31st. Everyday for an hour, the physical counterparts of purchased NFTs would be thrown into a fireplace for visitors to watch. The remainder were all burned simultaneously at the close of the show.

Public reception for the show was mixed. Artist Roy Tyson, known as Roy’s People, snatched up the tangible piece #4,967 entitled “What Am I To Know,” opting instead to destroy the NFT version. He says: “I’m a big fan of Hirst and I love the way he pushes the boundaries and doesn’t answer to anyone, doesn’t really sort of stick to any old-fashioned rules of the art world.”

On the other hand, detractors see “The Currency” as a shameless commercial ploy. Art critic Florence Hallett wrote in Britain’s i paper that the collection is “rather like a small child dangling teddy over the lavatory in a bid for the upper hand — only with considerably less sincerity and stupendous amounts of money.”

In his early days, Hirst himself said “I can’t wait to get into a position to make really bad art and get away with it. At the moment if I did certain things people would look at it, consider it ,and then say ‘f off’. But after a while you can get away with things.”

Known not only for his spots, but his art of taxidermized dead animals, Hirst is considered the richest living British artist today. More of his work can be viewed on his Instagram account.

The post Artist Damien Hirst Burns Physical Copies of His NFTs first appeared on Dornob.

Members of the group Just Stop Oil (wearing t-shirts bearing the same slogan) splashed the soup onto the “Sunflowers” painting to protest the extraction and use of fossil fuels, and then glued their hands to the wall. The spectacle was so absurd, some wondered whether it was a psy-op to make climate activism look bad.

Perhaps you’ve added this recent protest to a mental list of other annoying activist actions: road blockages during the protests against racial injustice in the summer of 2020, for instance, and the vegans pouring out milk in British supermarkets. A group of activists has even started deflating tires on trucks and SUVs across the UK and United States this year to call attention to the climate crisis. These acts do not involve violence or direct harm, but they are disruptive. They’re inconvenient. They are, indeed, annoying, even for people who sympathize with the causes they champion.

But you know what’s really inconvenient? Getting killed on the streets by police because of the color of your skin. Suffering that goes unnoticed or ignored by the world at large. Altering the planet we live on enough to kill off our own species, along with thousands of other innocent species. The Earth will survive humans, but why are we so hell-bent on destroying ourselves?

Maybe it’s because collectively, we’re too distracted to see the reality of what’s happening. We’re focused on living our individual lives, consuming media, getting to work on time, receiving packages two days after we pressed a button to order them. We don’t believe it’s really true that such a terrible thing could occur — that our own children and grandchildren will suffer as a direct result of our inaction.

In this context, the actions of the Just Stop Oil activists suddenly appear gentle and tame. They chose that specific painting because it’s protected by glass, and thus easy to clean. No permanent harm occurred. The activists deflating tires aren’t slashing them, they’re temporarily immobilizing the vehicles. And nobody should be crying over a little spilt milk.

There’s no doubt that such actions will make some onlookers angry enough to turn them against the associated causes, but those people are likely a small minority. Others will (rightfully) be annoyed. But will you feel merely annoyed if your area is suddenly struck by extreme heat waves that kill vulnerable people, destroy crops, and dry up sources of drinking water? Will you be inconvenienced when climate change leads to food shortages and spurs mass migration to the few temperate areas that remain?

It’s very easy to bury our heads in the sand and ignore crises that are happening all around us. For activists and others who are vividly aware of the consequences, these are desperate acts attempting to break through that complacency.

The United Nations just announced that there’s no longer a credible pathway to the 1.5-degree Celsius goal needed to reduce carbon emissions to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis, and the world barely noticed. We’re frogs slowly boiling in a pot while watching Netflix and debating whether roughly half the human population should have the right to reproductive autonomy. At least the Just Stop Oil activists got us talking about climate change, even if was only for a minute.

The post The Soup-Throwing Climate Activists Succeeded in One Crucial Way first appeared on Dornob.

The half-billion dollar yacht, designed to be the largest in the world at 417 feet, would have been too tall to clear the Koningshaven Bridge in the port city of Rotterdam on its way out to the ocean. Locally know as “De Hef,” meaning “the lift,” the bridge’s central span would need to be removed. That process would take about a day of work, according to city officials, and about a day to replace the section.

Once word spread to Dutch locals of the possible bridge dismantling, protestors took to social media to oppose the move. Some even advocated egging the boat to voice their disapproval.

“Calling all Rotterdammers: take a box of rotten eggs with you, and let’s throw them en masse at Jeff’s superyacht when it sails through the Hef in Rotterdam,” wrote event organizer Pablo Strörmann on Facebook.

Although the city council had initially okayed dissembling the top section of the bridge, they quickly backtracked after massive public outcry.

The 95-year-old De Hef was the first vertical lift bridge in the Netherlands (and all of Western Europe) when it was completed in 1927. Originally built as a connecting line for the Breda-Rotterdam Railway, it was the first structure to be rebuilt after the bombing of the seaside town during World War II. De Hef faced demolition in 1993 when the railway discontinued its use, but the bridge was already a major landmark in the area by that point, and protests resulted in the structure winning national protection as a Rijksmonument.

It’s no surprise that Rotterdam residents got their feathers ruffled at the mention of dismantling it for the sake a multi-billionaire’s new toy. In the wake of angry complaints, Oceano, the company building the superyacht, announced that it would no longer be applying for a permit to temporarily change De Hef.

“We’re happy it’s not happening,” said Marvin Biljoen, a city councilman for GroenLinks, the Dutch Green Party. “The bridge is a national monument, which shouldn’t be altered too much. That you could still do that with money anyway bothers us.”

But others feel like it is an opportunity wasted. Oceano and Bezos would have completely paid for the disassembly and repair of the bridge, and it would have been all over within two days.

“I talk to a lot of residents of Rotterdam,” said Dieke van Groningen, a Rotterdam councilwoman for VVD, the Dutch Liberal Party. “They’re incredibly proud that these kinds of ships sail through our city.”

Today, Rotterdam is the largest port in all of Europe and remains a major center of global shipbuilding.

“This is the Netherlands at its best,” Ms. van Groningen adds. “It’s about the image of the port, and you should be proud of that.”

Taking cover in the dark of night in early August, the still unfinished Bezos superyacht was towed out of the harbor to the friendlier dock of Greenport in Rotterdam, where it hopes to escape any lingering egg threats.

The post Jeff Bezos’ Unfinished Superyacht Slinks Away After Dutch Residents Won’t Let Him Dismantle Their Historic Bridge first appeared on Dornob.

Visual Artists Supporting Abortion Access

Some of these artists have been campaigning for women’s rights for decades. Barbara Kruger, Nan Goldin, Laurie Simmons, and Nancy Buchanan are among those whose work has touched on abortion rights since the law was first passed. Kruger’s black and white collage Your Body is a Battleground, an image originally produced for a women’s march in Washington in 1989, feels more culturally relevant than ever. “The striking down of Roe should come as a surprise to no one,” Kruger told ARTnews. “And if it does, they haven’t been paying attention.”

Feminist activist Marilyn Minter is among the contemporary artists responding to the impending Supreme Court ruling with both fury and creativity. Minter’s works supporting reproductive justice include a 2020 series called CUNTROL. That same year, Minter also teamed up with Laurie Simmons, Sandy Tait, Rebecca Jampol, Jasmine Wohi, and Gina Nanni to create an exhibition called Abortion is Normal with the Cultural Super PAC Downtown for Democracy. Simmons presented her 1976 photographic work featuring dolls and dollhouses in domestic scenes that explored gender and sexuality.

Artist and activist Dread Scott unveiled images and videos addressing the ruling on Instagram, writing “The impending Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade is a violent assault on women’s rights. Women will be forced to become mothers and others will die. This cannot be allowed to happen. Fight like hell to make sure this ruling never becomes law.” One work in progress, titled “Obliterated Power,” depicts the Supreme Court building blacked out against a bright blue sky.

In early 2022, Alicia Eggert’s neon installation OURs embarked on a tour across states where abortion rights are most at risk in collaboration with Planned Parenthood. The pink neon sign flashes the phrases “OUR BODIES,” “OUR FUTURES,” and “OUR ABORTIONS.” It landed in front of the Supreme Court on January 22nd, the 49th anniversary of the original Roe v. Wade ruling. “Constant rhythmic flashing serves both to beckon people and also to warn them,” Eggert explains in a statement. “Light is a universal symbol of hope, and when it comes to abortion access, this particular moment in time seems pretty dark and uncertain.

Artists Maureen Connor, Landon Newton, and Kadambari Baxi formed the art collective How to Perform an Abortion as both a learning and art project demystifying the historical, biological, and ethical controversies around fertility management. Their recent piece, entitled Trigger Planting, is a 45-foot herb garden visualizing the states where abortion is threatened. All of the plants in the display have traditionally been used for natural contraception and abortion.

Musical Artists, Comedians, Writers, and Actors Speak Up

Also teaming up with Planned Parenthood are 160 female, male, and nonbinary musical artists, actors, and other public figures, who listed their names in a full-page ad as part of the organization’s #BansOffOurBodies campaign. They include Ariana Grande, Megan Thee Stallion, Olivia Rodrigo, Billie Eilish, Selena Gomez, Shawn Mendes, Halsey, Kendall Jenner, and Haley Kiyoko. “We are Artists. Creators. Storytellers,” the ad reads. “We are the new generation stepping into our power. Now we are being robbed of our power. WE WILL NOT GO BACK — AND WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN.”

Playwright Will Brumley has offered his play The Clinic royalty free for anyone who wants to stage a benefit reading, drawing dozens of responses across the country. The Clinic is an ensemble production about abortion providers in Wichita, examining how their lives change when they’re faced with providing service under impossible circumstances.

Comedian Lizz Winstead, co-creator of The Daily Show, founded a non-profit called Abortion Access Front in 2015. The team of comedians, writers, and producers use humor to destigmatize abortion and expose extremist anti-force choices working to destroy access to reproductive rights in all 50 states. Their work includes traveling around the country in support of clinics, mobilizing groups to attend mass protests, and using video and social media to amplify news.

The post Artists Respond to the Potential Overturn of Roe v. Wade with Creative Furor first appeared on Dornob.

Instead, the app would be a safe place for MAGA lovers and their tweets and retweets – err, “Truths” and “ReTruths.” A place where people of “all viewpoints” have the freedom to post all the unpopular opinions they want, as long as they don’t violate a long, vague list of rules.

But the long-awaited app, first expected to launch last October, immediately failed to live up to expectations when it was finally released on February 20th. Truth Social became the number one most-downloaded free app in the Apple App Store within hours of its debut, but many users reported either having trouble registering for an account or getting a message that they were on a waitlist to join. Weeks later, many are still waiting.

Those who do have access report that the site is slow and oddly empty, considering the demand. Trump himself has only posted a single message reading “Get Ready! Your favorite President will see you soon!” Conservative lawmakers like Matt Gaetz, Kevin McCarthy, and Marjorie Taylor Greene appear to be simply posting copies of the content they publish on more popular platforms like Twitter.

In fact, Truth Social appears to be a carbon copy of Twitter, which was Trump’s favorite way to disseminate messages to the public before he was banned for life following the January 6th, 2021 invasion of the U.S. Capitol. (Facebook and YouTube also banned Trump, accusing him of glorifying and inciting violence).

Parler, another far-right Twitter clone, was delisted by the Apple and Google app stores for hosting comments of a similar nature, so it remains to be seen whether Truth Social will suffer the same fate. If, that is, it ever actually functions at all. The botched roll-out of the app, helmed by former Republican U.S. Representative Devin Nunes, has reportedly enraged Trump. According to The Daily Beast, sources have heard the former president on the phone saying things like, “what the f#$% is going on?”

Those who do stick with Truth Social despite its “performance bottlenecks” will find welcome messages proclaiming that the platform does not “discriminate against political ideology” alongside lists of suggested users that include Fox News host Sean Hannity, white nationalist Nick Fuentes, “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander and Kenosha, Wisconsin shooter Kyle Rittenhouse. If they read the fine print of the user agreement, they’ll also see that their use of the app hinges on rules limiting speech on the “free speech” platform, forcing users to agree not to “disparage, tarnish or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site.”

The origins of the app’s funding are also in question. Truth Social was founded under parent company Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG), for which former Rep. Nunes is chief executive. TMTG raised $1 billion from undisclosed private investors prior to its release. In 2021, the group announced a merger with Digital World Acquisition Corp (DWAC), through which it will receive $293 million in cash. The Securities and Exchange Commission is now investigating whether the firm violated securities laws, including whether they sufficiently disclosed when deal talks began.

As of March 7th, Truth Social had sunk to the 123rd most popular free app on Apple’s App Store.

The post The Truth About Trump’s “Truth Social” Social Network first appeared on Dornob.

“The southern border can be an inhospitable place for man or beast, and that is exactly why a machine may excel there,” says DHS Science and Technology Directorate program manager Brenda Long.

The machines are 100-pound quadrupeds with an array of integrated cameras: 360-degree, thermal, night vision, zoom, and more. Sensors detect chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. The robot can also carry up to 20 pounds worth of payload, and while the DHS doesn’t explicitly state as much, it sounds like that could include weaponry. These machines are already capable of being armed sentries. Last year, Ghost Robotics unveiled a version of its robot dogs equipped with long-range guns that can hit targets up to 1,200 meters away.

If you think this sounds like something straight out of Black Mirror, you’re exactly right. Episode 5 of series 4, entitled “Metalhead,” featured a very similar four-legged robot engaging in a terrifying single-minded chase of a woman attempting to flee after an unexplained societal collapse. But we don’t even need pessimistic science fiction to imagine what the presence of such robots could lead to along the 2,000-mile stretch of US-Mexico border.

The government chooses to portray the deployment of these machines in a cutesy, lighthearted fashion. In a feature article about the project, the robots are repeatedly referred to as “Fido,” “man’s best friend,” and “programmable pooches.” DHS says the robots will be most helpful in preventing drug-related crime, human trafficking, firearm smuggling, or even the transport of weapons of mass destruction. But by far, the most common law enforcement-related activity along the border is the apprehension of migrants, who are almost always unarmed. Border Patrol agents apprehended nearly 1.7 million people suspected of crossing the border illegally in 2021 alone.

The usage of these robot dogs won’t be limited to the border in the future. DHS openly states that they could come in handy in places like “towns, cities, or ports” where agents might face dangerous conditions. Like other military technologies, they’re also making their way into the hands of police. Last year, the New York City police department leased a robot dog by Boston Dynamics for $94,000, and used it to defuse a hostage situation in the Bronx. Its presence raised such intense backlash among the public, the department returned the dog to the manufacturer.

“You can’t give me a living wage, you can’t raise a minimum wage, you can’t give me affordable housing; I’m working hard and I can’t get paid leave, I can’t get affordable child care,” Representative Jamaal Bowman, a Democrat representing parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, said in a video posted to Twitter. “Instead, we got money, taxpayer money, going to robot dogs?”

The post Creepy Robot Dogs Will Soon Intensify Surveillance Along the US-Mexico Border first appeared on Dornob.

The city granted the request, and locals aren’t thrilled about it. “It’s the only route to the sea,” a spokesman for the mayor of Rotterdam told AFP. He added that Bezos will pay for the operation, but that’s beside the point for some residents, who plan to throw rotten eggs at the ship as it passes.

The Koningshaven Bridge, known to Rotterdam residents as De Hef, was first built in 1877. It was rebuilt after sustaining significant damage during World War II, giving it a midsection that could be lifted to allow ships to pass underneath. In 1994, the steel bridge was replaced by a tunnel and decommissioned.

The city wanted to demolish it at the time, but public protests saved it, and it became a national historic monument in the aftermath. Back in 2017, the bridge underwent a restoration, and officials promised at the time that they would never dismantle it again. But then along came one of the world’s richest men, seeking an exception for his 417-foot-long boat.

Plans to egg the ship began when Rotterdam resident Pablo Strörmann posted an event on Facebook titled “Throwing eggs at superyacht Jeff Bezos.” The event quickly attracted more than 4,000 confirmed attendees, with another 14,000 people saying they were interested. “Calling all Rotterdammers, take a box of rotten eggs with you and let’s throw them en masse at Jeff’s superyacht when it sails through the Hef in Rotterdam,” Strörmann wrote on the event page.

Strörmann told the NL Times that the event started as a joke, but “quickly struck a nerve” with the community, who were particularly annoyed by the insinuation that if you have enough money, you can buy anything in the world. “Normally it’s the other way around: If your ship doesn’t fit under a bridge, you make it smaller,” Strörmann said. “But when you happen to be the richest person on Earth, you just ask a municipality to dismantle a monument. That’s ridiculous.”

Local officials have responded to the criticism by insisting that the project will actually be good for the city and generating jobs. The price tag for the dismantling project hasn’t been publicly revealed yet, but it will certainly be in the millions, and will likely take months to complete. Shipbuilding is a major industry in the area, and while many superyachts have been constructed and sailed out to sea through the same route, they’ve all fit under the bridge just fine until now.

Once it’s complete, Bezos’ new toy will become the largest superyacht ever built in the Netherlands, and the world’s largest sailing yacht. Bezos is the third-richest person in the world after Tesla founder Elon Musk and French businessman Bernard Arnault, with a net worth currently hovering around $188 billion and climbing.

The post Locals Vow to Egg Jeff Bezos’ Superyacht if Rotterdam Dismantles a Historic Bridge to Let It Pass first appeared on Dornob.

The lifelong dream of Australian developer Doug Tarca and his son Peter, the hotel blew past its budget during construction by a Singapore-based company, ultimately costing in excess of $40 million. Tough environmental regulations required expensive upgrades like non-toxic paint on the hull, on-site sewage and liquid waste treatment, and solid waste incineration. Once the hotel was finally complete, it was towed from Singapore to a prime location off the coast of Townsville, with views of the John Brewer Reef. Before it even had a chance to open, it was struck by a cyclone, which damaged the swimming pool and delayed opening for two months. That meant missing Australia’s prime tourist season, which should have brought a lot of revenue.

In March 1988, the hotel welcomed its first guests ferried 43 miles from shore in water taxies, but boat after boat of them arrived seasick due to rough waters. Unpredictable weather meant guests might be unable to access the hotel at all, or stranded aboard until conditions calmed. A fire aboard one of the water taxies added to growing marketing headaches. It wasn’t long before the hotel was financially underwater, albeit still physically afloat.

In 1989, the hotel was sold to new owners and relocated 3,100 miles to the Saigon River in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, operating as the Saigon Floating Hotel until 1997. Locals, who flocked to its two nightclubs, called it “The Floater.” Tucked up against the dock beside the famous Tran Hung Dao Statue, it wasn’t exactly living out Tarca’s dream on the open seas, but it did well enough for a while. Eventually, however, it ran into more financial problems. The hotel was sold to yet another buyer, who transferred it to the Mount Kumgang Tourist Region of North Korea, right on the border with South Korea.

Opening in 1998, during a time when hopes were high for reconciliation between the two nations, the floating hotel became known as the Sea Kumgang Hotel, or Hotel Haegumgang. It enjoyed another decade of relative success until July 2008, when a North Korean soldier accidentally shot and killed a South Korean woman after she wandered into the restricted zone between the two Koreas. Tours to the tourist region were suspended, and the hotel languished. It has remained in place ever since. Current photos of the ship’s condition are rare, but it can be glimpsed from above on Google Maps.

A recent visit from King Jong-Un decided the hotel’s fate. The North Korean leader was said to be disgusted by its “backward” and “shabby” facilities, and ordered it to be demolished, along with many other structures in the area. It’s unclear exactly when that will happen, but one thing’s for sure: it’ll be a sad ending for such a unique attraction.

The post Australia’s Five-Star Floating Hotel Faces Demolition in North Korea first appeared on Dornob.

But what Cruz, Carlson and others are conveniently ignoring is the fact that many of America’s highways were built during the height of segregation and repeatedly used to separate predominantly minority neighborhoods from white communities. The new highways created hard, often impassible barriers between these communities, sometimes separating neighborhoods from their churches, schools, and businesses. These lines were often drawn in a direct response to requests by white community members, who didn’t want the highways disrupting their own neighborhoods. Many homes in the path of a proposed highway, typically owned by Black and brown people, were seized by eminent domain.

Bloomberg offers one striking example in the form of St. Paul, Minnesota’s Rondo neighborhood, writing: “In the first half of the 20th century it was home to most of St. Paul’s African American residents. The neighborhood’s center was Rondo Avenue, a thriving corridor for Black-owned business and wealth. Grocery stores, barber shops, drug stores, tailors, carpenters, and car shops lined Rondo Avenue, providing spaces to do business, meet, shop, and socialize during segregation and the Jim Crow era.”

By the 60s, that business core was gone, replaced by the new Interstate 94. Homes that used to be a short walk from the shops were now up against the busy six-lane highway, and the neighborhood was split in two. A nonprofit called Reconnect Rondo aims to fix that with a land bridge that reconnects both sides while creating up to 22 acres of commercial, residential, and park space. This example illustrates how the funds from the new public works program, called “Reconnecting Communities,” can help reconnect other neighborhoods cut off by historic investments.

Other places where highways were built right through historically Black and brown communities include Miami, New Orleans, Houston, Chattanooga, Cincinnati, and Detroit, among many more. When communities were walled off by highways, they had fewer access to resources, jobs, and desirable community amenities like green spaces that were still enjoyed by the white neighborhoods on the other side of the highways. The impact was devastating, especially to once-vibrant neighborhoods that previously enjoyed economic and cultural prosperity.

Many of these highways built in the 1950s and 60s are nearing the end of their lifespans. The Biden Administration has proposed tearing down viaducts and replacing them with boulevards, burying highways beneath new tracts of affordable housing, or elevating new highways above neighborhoods for minimal disruption.

No action taken today can redress the historic harm that was done to these communities (though direct financial compensation would be a start). And, inevitably, figuring out exactly how to rebuild these highways without negatively impacting new communities will be tricky. But dismantling highways built with racist intent can be one small, crucial part of the process of dismantling systemic racism in this country.

The post Will Biden’s Infrastructure Help Remedy America’s Racist Highways? first appeared on Dornob.

“It is time for us to adopt a new company brand to encompass everything we do, to reflect who we are, and what we hope to build,” said CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the company’s Connect conference. The new name, “Meta,” is meant to signal a future in which Facebook has slithered away from recent patterns of bad news to an exciting new identity as a “metaverse” company rather than simply a social media giant.

What is the “Metaverse?”

First coined by author Neal Stephenson in his 1992 cyberpunk novel Snow Crash, the “metaverse” is essentially a shared “imaginary place” where we use technology to perceive a layer of virtual objects and information on top of the reality we perceive with our senses alone. But the term is also subjective, and exactly how Facebook (the company responsible for the Cambridge Analytica scandal) interprets it remains to be seen.

As Zuckerberg said at the conference, “The best way to understand the metaverse is to experience it yourself, but it’s a little tough because it doesn’t fully exist yet.” However, he did note that it’ll be an “even more immersive and embodied internet” where “you’re gonna be able to do almost anything you can imagine – get together with friends and family, work, learn, play, shop, create – as well as entirely new categories that don’t really fit how we think about computers or phones today.”

It’s expected that all of this will include augmented reality that we experience through headsets or contact lenses, and that in the metaverse, we’ll all be represented by customizable 3D avatars that can move, speak, and appear anywhere in the world, sort of like a video game made much more real. In a utopian vision of this technology, we use it to enrich our lives, helping everyone from surgeons to construction workers do their jobs better, revolutionizing technology, and virtually erasing physical distances. But there’s a darker side that has much to do with who controls the metaverse and what their motivations are.

A Potentially Dark New Era of Facebook History

Louis Rosenberg, an early pioneer of augmented reality technology, is warning that whether the metaverse is in the hands of Facebook or another company, it could be a lot more dangerous than social media as we currently know it. The physical and the virtual will merge so convincingly that the boundaries “will disappear in our minds,” filling with people, places, objects, and activities that don’t really exist. And just like social media, it could serve as a potent way to disseminate disinformation and inflame political divisions.

What if, for instance, the things we perceive as we walk past people on the street include very private, defamatory, or false information, possibly as a paid filter layer? Rosenberg warns that it’s all too possible. “And no, you won’t just take off your AR glasses or pop out your contacts to avoid these problems. Why not? Because faster than any of us can imagine, we will become thoroughly dependent on the virtual layers of information projected all around us. It will feel no more optional than internet access feels optional today.”

Whether or not the general public perceives the depth of this threat, they’re definitely not comfortable with the “Meta” change. A report from the Harris Brand Platform showed that Facebook’s rebrand led to a sharp drop in public trust, falling from 16 percent in the aftermath of Haugen’s leaked documents to just 6.2 percent after the announcement. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg continues to insist that the rebrand has nothing to do with bad press.

The post Facebook’s “Meta” Name Change Isn’t Going Over Well with the Public first appeared on Dornob.

Entitled “Love Is in the Bin,” the piece made art history when it was first sold on the same auction floor in 2018. Immediately after the last bid for $1.4 million was declared the winner, an alarm bell rang and the painting, originally named “Girl with Balloon,” dropped halfway through a shredder hidden in the base of the ornate gold frame.

The spectacle was orchestrated by the artist, whose real identity remains a mystery, with the help of a remote-controlled mechanism inside the picture frame. The auction house insists it had no foreknowledge of the stunt, claiming later that they too were “Banksy-ed.”

“Some people think it didn’t really shred. It did. Some people think the auction house was in on it, they weren’t,” the street sketching legend said on Instagram the same year the shredding took place.

Although the artist’s intentions for this outrageous prank are unclear, the effect was undeniably a brilliant work of performance art. “When Girl with Balloon ‘self-destructed’ in our saleroom, Banksy sparked a global sensation that has since become a cultural phenomenon,” says Alex Branczik, Sotheby’s chairman of modern and contemporary art. “During that memorable night, Banksy did not so much destroy an artwork by shredding it, but instead created one. Today this piece is considered heir to a venerated legacy of anti-establishment art.”

That day, Banksy was the number one global trend on Twitter for several hours, giving the painting instant notoriety. The buyer of “Girl with Balloon” lent it to the Staatsgalerie Stuttgart in Germany between 2019 and 2020 in all its fringed glory. The gallery said that during that time over 180,000 visitors came to see the iconic art – roughly double their typical attendance.

Then in the summer of 2021, an unidentified European collector put the piece up for sale again, allowing it to go on a month-long world tour before sending it back to Sotheby’s, where it was displayed in a gallery all its own prior to the auction.

The London auction house estimated that “Love Is in the Bin” would fetch between $5 and $8 million during its second sale, but many art experts were not surprised when it went for much more.

“I expected it would make £20 million,” London-based dealer Acoris Andipa, a specialist in Banksy’s paintings and prints, told the New York Times. “It’s such an infamous work. Together with Leonardo’s ‘Salvator Mundi,’ it’s been the world’s most talked-about artwork of the last two or three years.”

This time around, there was no additional demolition though. “I can’t tell you how terrified I am to bring down this hammer,” remarked Sotheby’s auctioneer Oliver Barker, at the end of nine buyers battling it out during 10 minutes of bidding.

Banksy’s most-expensive work prior to this sale, the pandemic-themed “Game Changer” sold in March 2021 for $22 million, with the proceeds going to the patients and staff at a London hospital.

Banksy got his start on the streets of Bristol, England in the early 1990s as a free-hand graffiti artist. Using children, soldiers, policemen, the elderly, apes, and rats as his most-common subjects, he’s become well-known for his stencil-style murals portraying anti-capitalist, anti-war, and anti-establishment motifs, and his carefully guarded anonymity has only added to his fame and mystique as an artist.

The post Half-Destroyed Banksy Art Shreds Sotheby’s Auction Record first appeared on Dornob.

The nearly 1,000-foot tourist attraction. designed by renowned architecture firm Foster + Partners, was originally submitted and approved in 2018, but then blocked in mid-2019 by London mayor Sadiq Khan, who had serious qualms about its look and practicality. Now, UK Housing Secretary Michael Gove seems poised to overrule that decision as soon as the middle of November.

If approved, the towering futuristic turret would be planted next to the bullet-shaped Gherkin office space, designed by the same studio and also once the source of public controversy. The Tulip would also become the tallest structure in the city’s financial district, as well as the second tallest in western Europe.

Designed to bring in 1.2 million visitors a year from around the world, the spire-like building would feature public observation decks, bars, restaurants, and classroom space for visiting school groups, as well as moving pods that would allow tourists to ride around the outside of the building for incredible views.

Promising £1.6 billion in economic benefits to the city and the UK, project-backer City of London Corporation has said the Tulip Tower would also create over 1,000 new jobs and help bring the city back to life after the pandemic.

“The Tulip would play an important role in further realizing a vision for the Square Mile as a vibrant 24/7 world-class destination, and that the building would send a powerful message that London remains open to all,” a City of London Corporation spokesperson told The Telegraph.

London Architecture chairman Peter Murray agrees, adding that: “the whole of London needs a strong center if we are to remain a competitive global city. If it is to do so it needs investments like The Tulip more than ever.”

And a 2019 independent poll found that 69 percent of Londoners would consider the Tulip iconic to their city, with another 65 percent believing it would be an attractive addition to the local skyline.

But there are plenty of vocal detractors, too. Back in 2019, when Mayor Khan refused permission for the skyscraper, he said it “would result in very limited public benefit,” and that “the design is of insufficient quality for such a prominent location, and that the tower would result in harm to London’s skyline and impact views of the nearby Tower of London World Heritage site.” He went on to disparage the Tulip’s “unwelcoming, poorly designed public space at street level.”

Historical preservation organizations are also in opposition. “This building, a lift shaft with a bulge on top, would damage the very thing its developers claim they will deliver – tourism and views of London’s extraordinary heritage,” said Historic England CEO Duncan Wilson in April 2019. On top of this, eco-friendly groups have protested that the project’s natural resource cost would far outweigh the benefit of tourism.

If the Tulip does move forward as expected, it will undoubtedly be revolutionary in its shape and construction, acting as a symbol of urban evolution while providing remarkable views of the city’s ever-changing landscape and culture.

The post London’s Tulip Tower May Get to Bloom After All first appeared on Dornob.

Critics of the work have pointed out that Trump was booed at an Alabama rally for urging the crowd to get vaccinated. Trump said at the rally, “You know what? I believe totally in your freedoms. I do. You’ve got to do what you have to do. But I recommend, take the vaccines. I did it. It’s good. Take the vaccines.”

However, as Plastic Jesus notes, Trump’s anti-mask rhetoric, anti-lockdown messages like writing “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!” on Twitter, and lack of urgent action early in the pandemic have likely contributed to large numbers of preventable deaths from COVID-19. Trump supporters who looked to the former President for pandemic guidance in 2020 weren’t exactly encouraged to protect themselves and others from the virus, especially as he downplayed the severity of COVID throughout the final year of his presidency.

https://twitter.com/PlasticJesus9/status/1446274215947104256

The coffin installation “was really kind of a blow at the people saying vaccines and masks are impeding their freedoms,” the artist said in an interview posted on Twitter. “I wanted to do something because the anti-mask, anti-vaccine, anti-science mob has become so vocal. Once you’re dead and you’re in a coffin, you don’t have any worries about losing freedoms.”

This isn’t the first time Plastic Jesus has used Trump’s Hollywood star to make a statement. One installation encircled the star with a miniature six-inch-tall border wall complete with tiny American flags, razor wire, “KEEP OUT” signs, and graffiti. Another, in September 2018, covered it with a section of black steel bars. The star had been replaced just a couple months earlier after it was destroyed with a pickaxe by a 24-year-old man.

“There have been calls to jail Trump since the day he was elected, and today he was certainly put behind bars – or at least his now infamous star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame was caged,” he wrote in an email to Artnet News. “Although it was very quickly damaged by a Trump supporter trying to remove it, the bars did appear to be stuck fast and were there several hours later – to the amusement of thousands of passing tourists.”

https://twitter.com/ericlevai/status/1446207656075554816

Styling himself as a self-described “provocateur,” Plastic Jesus often skewers celebrities like the Kardashians, Kanye West, and convicted sex offender Harvey Weinstein. However, since his election in 2016, Donald Trump has perhaps been the single biggest target of the artist’s guerrilla-style artwork.

In March 2017, just months before the Trump administration began enforcing a cruel family separation policy at the border, Plastic Jesus hung signs on the padlocked fences of empty lots around Los Angeles that read “Lot served for: Future Internment Camp. By order: Donald J. Trump.” Other works included metal parking signs that read “No Trump Anytime” and stacks of $100 bills stamped with Trump’s face in plastic packaging labeled “completely worthless.”

The post Coffin Placed on Trump’s Hollywood Star Calls Attention to Preventable COVID Deaths first appeared on Dornob.