#and while yeah on a fundamental level they ARE the larger and more dynamic part of this equation

[pretty-bun]

Which Clover Is Best? - An Analysis By Me

First and foremost, you must all know by now how much I love Clover. I mention her way too much on this blog, and here is my magnum opus – a comprehensive guide on Clover’s character in each version of the story, and my ranking of which Clover is best. Is this excessive? Of course, but I have no other way to use my Tuesday night. Do I have any idea how to analyse characters? Hell no, I’m using Wikihow to help me. Am I going to use my knowledge on Feminist literary theory? Fuck yeah I am.

But here we go. Here is my over analysis of Clover. Heart emoji, rabbit emoji, clover emoji.

_____

The Novel

“Four rabbits were crowded against the wire, pressing their noses through the mesh. Two – Laurel and Clover – were short-haired black Angoras. […] Clover, the Angora doe – a strong, active rabbit – was clearly excited by Hazel’s description and asked several questions about the warren and the downs.”

Clover in the context of the novel has no real role – she has been given no time for characterisation, as the only doe with any kind of real role is Hyzenthlay. However, Clover plays an importance part of the warren dynamics; she is the first rabbit to bear a litter in Watership Down.

This is a monumental moment for the warren, instantly assuring the rabbits that the warren will continue, if just for a little while, after they pass.

Using the concept of stock characters in fiction, you can attribute the character of “farmer’s daughter” to Clover. These stock characters are portrayed as desirable and naïve, and these characteristics can be seen in the above quote, and often the farmer’s daughter character will be community minded, a concept that is visible in that she is to breed and dig runs for the rest of the warren. But to limit her to such a simple standard can lead to detrimental readings of the story.

The language of the Watership Down novel is highly phallocentric, a term used by the post-structuralist theorist Jacques Derrida, and the phallocentric nature of the novel determines that the meaning is derived from masculine agenda, and the importance of it means that feminine jouissance – a feminine language derived from the French word for the female orgasm – is a deconstruction of the phallic language, threatening to shake the stability of it. The phallocentric culture is derived from binary opposites, such as male/female, language/silence, presence/absence etc., with the first word having meaning over the other. Feminist readings of the novel will note this, and this leads back to Clover in that she is the binary opposite from the masculine characters in the novel – where they have language and presence, she instead has silence and absence; she is only in the novel for a moment to birth the first litter of the down, and then she becomes a static character.

But the novel iteration of Clover is a realistic portrayal of rabbits in nature, so maybe its unimportant to focus on the feminist aspect of the novel, and in nature it is the does role to breed and dig.

However, in the context of each version of the story – novel, film, series and miniseries – Clover’s role is important, and that importance is told to the audience.

 The Film

In the film, Clover has an extremely brief role in the film, and so there is not much to be said about her. The film counterpart of Clover is only added to further the plot of Hazel, rather than to further the plot of the film.

Her scenes could easily be taken from the film with little consequence, the only part which is needed is the part in which Hazel gets shot. In this version, Clover does not escape her hutch, and once freed from it, is immediately caught.

But her design is much cuter, in my opinion. Her white fur and sweet voice is once again indicative of her naïve curiosity to the outside world, with white often being used to describe characters of innocence and purity, but in some instances can be used to represent faith. As she is the reason why Hazel gets shot in the first place, the faith aspect could possibly be representative of death, especially considering how religious the Lapine world is.

 The Television Series

Clover in the children’s series gets more characterisation than the version that exists in both the novel and film, although her characterisation is still limited.

Clover seems to be rather motherly, as she is seen comforting both Pipkin and Blackberry on differing occasions. But her main role is, once again, to be a love interest. This is a reoccurring concept with her character, however in this version, her love interest is Hawkbit, and this is only touched upon in the last season.

She is much more feminine in this version, mostly by virtue of the story revolving more around human characteristics of the characters, and her outward physic is much more sexualised than the other iterations of her design, but this is not necessarily bad, and is more an artistic choice to take. Once again, this is because she is a stylised character in this version compared to the realistic version seen in the novel and film.

Clover has a girl next door kind of quality to her, with a sense of basic wholesomeness as her main focal point; she isn’t a bad character, however is not a good character either. This was likely not intended, and probably the result of no characterisation set for her.

Clover is not the focal point of any larger plot, and mostly sticks to expanding on her friendship with Blackberry and her romantic intentions for Hawkbit. She is just above the film in terms of actual character, however on my own personal opinion, I find her to be the second best designed Clover out of the four, with the films version the best. I think her design is reflective of her character; she is bigger and softer looking than the other rabbits, which leads back into her originally being a hutch rabbit, and her proportions are much more pleasant than some characters (coughcoughprimrosecoughcough), although she does fall victim to the season 3 design change.

Her original colour is a soft peachy pink, which doesn’t feel at all like it clashes with the rest of the colour palette (not in the way I feel Pipkin did), but her season 3 design is a much harsher yellow. It was not at all a good change, and felt totally out of place. Season 3 also took out many of her softer features, such as her slightly rounder physic, and the tufts of fur which gave her a fluffier look.

Season three introduced a much better pacing to the overall show, but failed in the design aspect miserably, and it’s a shame that Clover fell victim to it.

 The Miniseries

Clover in the miniseries is both better and worse than all the other versions, but the things the miniseries did better will come before the things they did worse.

Clover received a lot of characterisation, which finally placed importance on her once again. Although she is not stated to be the mother of the warrens first litter, her importance comes from a different and more empowering source – she helps plan the escape form Efrafa. In a story filled with minimal roles for females to play, changing the narrative to incorporate strong female leads who act independently is fundamental. Alongside this, it also adds something that has never been in the other adaptations. By doing this, the miniseries becomes its own work and not just a CGI version of the film.

Her design is also interesting and different; the muddy browns of her coat give her a much more realistic feel, while still making her separate from the other designs of her. Her coat patterns are beautiful as well and give the audience a tell that she is not a wild rabbit in the same way the plump look of the television series Clover tells the audience she is from a hutch.

That is where the praises stop.

While she received much more characterisation in the miniseries than any other version, her characterisation is almost for the worst. Almost. She and Hazel fall into the trap of archetypal Lovers – this aspect of both of their characters could have been a good dynamic if the writers hadn’t taken them a step too far. The importance scene in all the other adaptations where Fiver finds Hazel after he is shot, a scene to highlight their deep relationship as brothers, is replaced with Clover finding Hazel in the drain. They barely had any interaction up to this point, so Hazel playing damsel in distress to his girlfriend comes off as incredibly cheap as it completely disregards the bond of Hazel and Fiver. Hazel’s motive to take does from Efrafa becomes less about liberation and more about saving his girlfriend, which completely undermines Hazel’s original character. This goes for Hyzenthlay, too; by having Clover take her place in most of the scenes in Efrafa, it makes Hyzenthlay a static character who doesn’t help free the rabbits in an act of mercy.

The writers could have had their lifted characterisation of Clover and kept Hyzenthlay as she is supposed to be if they had just held back from taking Clover too far.

 So which Clover is best?

Based on my own personal opinion, I believe that the television series Clover is best – her design is cute for most of the shows life, and she gets a level of character while still letting the lead characters lead. In basis of character and impact on the story, the film’s Clover comes in last (although if this was based on aesthetics, she’d be first). The difference between the novel and miniseries isn’t much; they’re almost on par with each other, but it bugs me that Clover’s miniseries version takes so much away from the original characters so she comes in third.

With that, here’s the final ranking:

1. TV Series

2. Novel

3. Miniseries

4. Film

[scifigeneration]

How to get culture right when embedding it into AI

by William Michael Carter

MIT’s experiment with a serial killing AI called Norman, based on Psycho’s Norman Bates, underscores the importance of ensuring we get it right when embedding AI with culture. MIT

If, like Rip Van Winkle, you’ve been asleep for the last decade and have just woken up, that flip phone you have has become super-popular among retro technologists and survivalists alike, and, oh yeah, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is either going to kill you or save you.

AI is the latest in a long line of technology buzzwords that have gripped society, and if we are to believe the people at the respected technology analysts firm Gartner Inc., 2018 will be the year in which AI is truly integrated into our daily lives. As unnerving as the surreal robotics being cooked up at Boston Dynamics or the deployment of facial recognition AI in Chinese public schools may seem, this technology is a product of the human condition and as such, we are embedding our own culture within its coded DNA.

Debates about AI currently focus on the notion of ethics. In the study of culture, ethics are embedded within values, and they’ve become an important part of the deliberations about how AI will integrate into our lives. What hasn’t been discussed is whose ethics, and ultimately whose values, we are talking about.

Is it Western versus Eastern, or is it American versus everyone else? As values within culture are influenced by the community and larger society, ethics are dependent on the cultural context in which communal values have developed.

‘Enculturation’

Thus, culture plays an important role in the formation of AI through what’s known as the enculturation of that data.

Anthropologist Genevieve Bell, the previous Intel vice-president and cultural visionary, was able to steer the tech giant towards a more profound understanding of how culture and AI interplay with each other.

Genevieve Bell is seen in this 2015 photo at the Women Innovation & Technology summit in Miami Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee)

Bell’s research indicated that human interaction with technology is not culturally universal. It is neither the same nor objective, and we encode culture within and throughout technology at a conscious and unconscious level.

If this is true, what happens in the eventual development of culture in AI?

For anthropologists, human cultural evolution has many markers: The manipulation of tools, the development of abstract thought, and more fundamentally, the creation of language in which to communicate.

Culture begins when two or more living entities start to communicate and exchange information and, with more complexity, ideas. Cultural development among non-human AI entities is something that hasn’t been discussed yet, let alone the melding of human and AI culture.

Bots developed their own language

Recently, Facebook’s AI research group (FAIR) made brief mention of an experiment in which two bots were tasked with negotiating with each other. It was reported at the time that the bots began to develop a more efficient language to communicate with one another.

Facebook computer science researchers quickly pulled the plug on what was rapidly becoming the development of a more efficient AI language between the two bots, not because they were frightened of the emergence of AI self-creation, but because the bots did not return expected results — a negotiation in English.

In a world where code is essentially made up of zeroes and ones, yes or no commands, there isn’t much room for the unexpected. But at times, we should embrace the opportunity and explore the possibilities, as culture does not manifest itself in a singular fashion.

Culture is what we make it. It is a set of norms that we as a society agree upon, consciously or unconsciously, and it frames how we operate within our daily lives.

AI can absorb cultures

AI has the unique ability in the future to absorb all of the world’s cultural norms and values, developing a potentially true pan-global culture. But first, we, the creators of AI, must understand our roles and how we impact that ability to absorb. AI represents, after all, a microcosm of the culture of the people who build it as well as those who provide input into AI’s foundational data framework.

Science-fiction novelist Alastair Reynolds, in his book Absolution Gap, describes a planet in which the only intelligent creature is a vast sea that absorbs information from the beings and creatures that swim in it. The sea learns from that information and redistributes that knowledge to other beings.

Called “pattern juggling” in the book, the current manifestation of AI as we know it is very much like that fictional sea, absorbing knowledge and selectively distributing it with its own enculturated data.

Using Reynolds’ knowledge-absorbing ocean as an example, AI is currently like the separated salt and fresh water bodies of Earth — each with its own ecosystem, isolated and independent.

What happens when these very unique ecosystems begin to communicate with each other? How will norms and values be determined as the various AI entities begin to exchange information and negotiate realities within their newly formed cultures?

Norman is a warning

MIT’s Norman, an AI personality based on a fictional psychopath produced a singular example of what we have long known in humans: With prolonged exposure to violence comes a fractured view of cultural norms and values. This represents a real danger to future exposure and transmission to other AI.

How so?

An example of personalities going awry when brought together? The Associated Press

Envision Norman and Alexa hooking up. Both AI’s are representative of the people who made them, the human data that they consume and a built-in need to learn. So whose cultural values and norms would be more persuasive?

Norman was built to see all data from the lens of a psychopath, while Alexa as a digital assistant is just looking to please. There are countless human examples of similar personalities going awry when brought together.

Social scientists argue that the debate over AI is set to explode and, as a result, that multiple versions of AI are bound to co-exist.

As philosophers, anthropologists and other social scientists begin to voice their concerns, the time is ripe for society to reflect on AI’s desired usefulness, to question the realities and our expectations, and to influence its development into a truly pan-global cultural environment.

About the author:

William Michael Carter is an Assistant Professor of Creative Industries at Ryerson University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

[bigyack-com]

Europe and the U.S. Share a Lot, Except When It Comes to Cars

The 2020 Geneva International Motor Show is over before it began. A victim of Covid-19, manufacturers have retooled to unveil new releases “digitally.” We Americans may shrug our shoulders because unlike viruses, many European cars and brands can’t cross continents.Sure, the new Kia Sorento, Volkswagen Golf GTI and Mercedes E-Class that were scheduled to debut on the Geneva show floor will be coming to America, as will the BMW i4 electric sedan that was to be shown as a concept. But the new Seat Leon hatchback and Renault Captur Hybrid will be no-shows here in the United States. There are many reasons there will be no Dacia Dusters in Delaware driveways.First off, Americans are not starved for choices. As the second-largest automotive market in the world after China, the United States has dozens of brands to browse.“As attractive as the U.S. market is, it’s saturated,” said Stephanie Brinley, principal analyst for IHS Markit. “In the States, consumers are confused with all of the choices; it can be overwhelming.”True enough. In the past 25 years or so, Suzuki, Daewoo and Daihatsu have left our shores. Scion, Geo, Saab, Eagle, Plymouth, Mercury, Saturn, Pontiac and Oldsmobile have joined Studebaker on that great off ramp.For some European brands, coming to the United States means new dealerships and parts distribution. That’s expensive. Vehicles must pass our government emissions, safety and lighting requirements. That’s very expensive. And how does a company market an expensive product to consumers who are loyal to existing brands? That’s bottomless-money-pit expensive.Even with Fiat Chrysler Automobiles’ existing network of Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep franchisees, it has struggled to get Americans to fully embrace the Fiat and Alfa Romeo brands. A newcomer to the U.S. market would need a Caddy full of euros to introduce a brand. And by Caddy, I mean the Volkswagen Caddy, which is a small van used for deliveries and family hauling. And no, we don’t get it either.People of each continent use their vehicles differently. “Americans like large vehicles and S.U.V.s that do 100 percent of everything,” Ms. Brinley of IHS said. “We plan for the most extreme-use case, while Europeans are more comfortable squeezing things into a small space.”While traveling in Slovenia recently, I met the musician and Wudisban Records executive Marko Kocjan, known as Emkej, who drives a Skoda Octavia wagon, a VW product the size of the Golf SportWagen (that just left our market because of sluggish sales). In Ljubljana, Slovenia, the Octavia is a popular, though larger, choice.“Me and my fiancée, Ajda Perme, came to the conclusion we needed a safer car and wanted extra room in the back for snowboarding and transporting music equipment to concerts. I love its space.”American musicians would probably find the Octavia wagon far too small to haul keyboards, guitars, drums and amps. But like many European buyers, Mr. Kocjan makes the Skoda work.“It is a car we can afford, plus the tax rate and fuel costs are in our range,” he said.Many European countries tax vehicles on size, weight, engine size and fuel consumption at a far higher rate than our states.So while there’s a more powerful 2-liter engine, Mr. Kocjan’s Octavia is driven by the smaller, more efficient 1.6-liter diesel with a five-speed manual transmission (rowing your own gears is much more popular in Europe).Americans would find that powertrain pokey and inconvenient. It might be more appealing to Missourians — who pay around $2 per gallon, according to AAA — if they had to pay triple the price. That’s what Italians pay when filling up. You’re more likely to see Bigfoot sipping espresso there than a thirsty Chevrolet Tahoe.And size matters to both continents, just not in the same way. No one needs to point out that America likes its trucks. Ford’s F-150 has been the best-selling vehicle (not just pickup truck) in America for over 30 years, but it is not officially sold in Europe.With low fuel prices, we’re more likely to pick something larger and more comfortable to cover that ground. “We have a lot more room to spread out,” said Ray Telang, U.S. automotive leader for PricewaterhouseCoopers. “The U.S. market is filled with buyers who value size, they want S.U.V.s. The footprint of the U.S. has more rural areas. We are not as constrained by space.“The European buyer drives narrower roads, pays a lot more for fuel and has to find a place to store the car in more crowded cities. Smaller works better there.”But Mr. Telang also said the tastes were merging a bit. “As crossovers become more fuel efficient, the demand is accelerating in Western Europe, just not to the same level as in the U.S.”Hatchbacks and wagons have always been popular choices overseas, and it can be argued those are close cousins to crossovers when it comes to usability and practicality.Generally, European S.U.V.s are smaller than three-row models such as the Chevy Traverse, Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander that we buy in droves. Ford is a popular brand in Europe, but there are few Explorers there. And you will see far more Jeep Renegades overseas than Wranglers.The huge VW Atlas that’s built in Chattanooga, Tenn., has been rebadged the Teramont in many foreign markets. And even though VW makes the midsize pickup Amarok, it’s not sold in our truck-loving country.And then there’s design. In the home of the brave, we’re timid when it comes to styling.Our roads are crammed with Honda Accords, Toyota Camrys and Nissan Rogues that roll with safe designs.We would rather be seen in a Pontiac Aztek than the Fiat Multipla, which is best described as the only transportation device with a muffin top. A Citroën Berlingo would be roomy enough for our market, but the sheet metal would probably be ostracized.Europeans are often willing to try different things, like the old three-wheeled BMW Isetta and Reliant Robin. The elfin Smart car made a noble stab at our market, but is leaving it while remaining in Europe. The oddly cladded flanks of Citroen’s C4 Cactus crossover would probably not generate much U.S. interest.We don’t see Vauxhall or Opel cars circling cul-de-sacs, but the best of Europe’s automotive industries have influenced our cars in many ways. Volvo and Saab pioneered many safety technologies we now take for granted. BMW fundamentally changed the way cars performed with firm but comfortable suspensions.It forced Cadillac (which has a minor presence overseas) to abandon its soft floaty ride for a much crisper dynamic. Americans wouldn’t rule out Peugeots or Skodas because of the way they drive. On my last visit to Europe, I enjoyed the dynamics of a rental Renault Clio. The small four-door hatchback was comfortable on the highway and attacked curves with spunk. The small engine did not pack much punch, but I appreciated its efficiency after pulling into gas stations with fuel prices at $1.45 a liter. Yeah, remember, there are nearly four of those in a gallon.It’s human nature to desire forbidden fruit, but maybe it’s best we stick to what we have. Automakers know their markets very well.Mr. Kocjan of Slovenia said: “I wanted a Cadillac Escalade when I was a kid, but now I see how big they are and I don’t know. I would love to have a Mustang … for a few days.”Years ago, an Opel Insignia wagon cruising through Rome caught my wife’s eye. She was tempted to buy when the stylish machine ended up stateside rebadged as the Buick Regal TourX, but she did not pull the trigger. That’s what counts.After just a few years it’s been discontinued, partly because of, you guessed it, lack of sales. Read the full article

[ntrending]

How designers cope with ever-changing iPhone screens

New Post has been published on https://nexcraft.co/how-designers-cope-with-ever-changing-iphone-screens/

How designers cope with ever-changing iPhone screens

At its annual hardware event on Wednesday, Apple announced a trio of new phones: the iPhone XS and the iPhone XS Max and the iPhone XR, all of which tout fancy new screens, including the largest iPhone display to date. The promise of more screen real estate is exciting for users who want to see bigger pictures and videos, but it’s also new territory for designers to explore. That wasn’t always such an exciting proposition.

The dark ages of mobile design

In the early days of the mobile web, new phone unveilings often triggered hurried and hands-on recalibration of apps and websites to ensure they’d render properly on a screen with more pixels or wider screens. When the iPhone first launched, at a Steve Jobs-headlined Apple day in 2007, viewing a website in its mobile browser required a lot of pinching. Sites designed with a desktop in mind had strange image resolution, overlapping text, and wonky navigation bars when rendered on a handheld device. Worse, some sites wouldn’t render at all—especially those based on Adobe’s defunct Flash platform.

And the changes just kept coming. “As a designer, I only think in terms of width,” Currie says. While infinite scroll has rendered vertical space obsolete, “width is the precious resource,” he says. “If you’re doing something in German, you’re asking really fundamental questions like, will this word fit on the screen?” That means each new smartphone model—every millimeter change in an Android or additional pixel in an Apple—required a unique approach.

Developers initially responded by building different versions of the same website for every single device. A given company had a desktop website, a mobile website (or two), and perhaps even a tablet website. “That worked for maybe a year,” says Chad Currie, creative director for Slide UX, an Austin-based design firm. “But you hit a point where it just wasn’t feasible anymore; it was just too many devices.” Each version of a website took significant man hours and lots of money.

Early patchwork designs aged badly fast. “When mobile first became a thing, people were really treating it as a dumb, small device, which it really was,” says Chris Lilley of the World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C, “It was like, ‘Yeah, you’re looking on your phone, what do you expect?’” But as screens got better and mobile use skyrocketed, the balance for web designers and app builders shifted. They would either have to invest more in every version of a given website, or they’d have to find a way to simplify the development process.

Responsive design is born

The phrase “responsive design” was first coined in 2010 by Ethan Marcotte. Influenced by an architectural shift away from static blueprints to dynamic physical spaces, Marcotte proposed the following: “Rather than tailoring disconnected designs to each of an ever-increasing number of web devices, we can treat them as facets of the same experience. We can design for an optimal viewing experience, but embed standards-based technologies into our designs to make them not only more flexible, but more adaptive to the media that renders them.” It was the essay read ‘round the world.

In his initial proposal, Marcotte identified “three technical ingredients” for responsive frameworks. The media query function, already a part of CSS (the stylesheet language the Internet is based on), allowed developers to stack the same components in different ways to render well on every device. Three images might render side by side by side on a desktop, but they could be made to automatically render in a vertical row on mobile. So long as those images were flexible—sizing up or down, or even zooming in and out according to the size of the device—and arranged on a fluid grid with text and other components, Marcotte argued one site really could rule them all.

“It allowed for one set of styles to be defined for smaller screens, and another for larger screens. Media queries meant developers could group together a list of rules for devices under, say, 400 pixels. And they could have another group of rules for devices larger than that,” writes Jay Hoffman in his The History of the Web project. “Two designs. One codebase.”

Designing for your current device

“These days, it’s pretty uncommon—whatever framework someone uses—for people to be ‘hand-rolling’ their own responsive designs,” Currie says. Early solutions like the open source responsive framework Bootstrap, which generate responsive layouts according to a 12-item grid, already “feel pretty old,” he notes. CSS itself now offers responsive services, and features that once required hours of original work can be easily replicated across sites.

Even if something does go wrong in the rendering, Currie says, “companies like Apple, they built some fallbacks in there, so you don’t embarrass yourself.” Instagram, for example, refuses to build an iPad app in favor of a smartphone-only platform. For the wayward ‘grammer who chooses to download the mobile app on their tablet anyway, the app renders at mobile size in the center of the device. Four blocks of black automatically generate around its edges, to ensure the experience still fills the sizable iPad screen.

But surprises lurk around every corner. In 2017, the Essential Phone introduced a new obstacle around which designers had to maneuver: A notch. Though unobtrusive to users, who know it only as the home base for their front-facing cameras, the two protrusions of only semi-usable screen at the top of each device caught on. Apple’s best-selling iPhone X has an even wider to accommodate several cameras for its Face ID system, which create a big gap at the top of the screen.

“It’s built into the code base and the operating system that if the notch rolls out and you never update your device, it’ll still work, basically,” Currie says. The latest version of the Android operating system puts status icons for things like battery and service level in the space around the notch to make it useful, while leaving a typical rectangular box below. Still, the transition to a world full of notched devices wasn’t seamless. Popular apps like Amazon’s e-book reading Kindle app lagged months behind before they could take full advantage of the iPhone X’s oddly-shaped screen.

Responsive design may strive to be “everything to everyone”—and it increasingly is—but there are still some limitations. Currie’s company, Slide UX, used to design around a 320 pixel standard, roughly the size of the first iPhone. As phones on the market got bigger and bigger, Slide recently shifted to a 360 pixel minimum standard. “We’re OK with leaving those [older, smaller] devices behind,” he says. “We landed on [360 pixels] as our common denominator. If we can get it down to that size, we know that we can serve most devices.”

Written By Eleanor Cummins