• 0 Posts
  • 79 Comments
Joined 25 days ago
cake
Cake day: August 17th, 2025

help-circle


  • I’m looking at it more and I’m fairly certain this is just interpolated.

    Look at this frame:

    Seems to me to be pretty normal. No weird hand stuff, fingers look fine.

    Now look at the next two frames, particularly the second one:

    Totally jank. Fingers are blotchy, there’s a ghost finger, overall looks super fake. But then look at the next two frames:

    Second to last has a little bit of weirdness still, but by the last frame it looks totally legit and real. No blotchy fingers, no ghost fingers, overall looks very normal.

    That kind of behavior - where some frames look completely fine and in between ones look blotchy and weird - is exactly what you expect from motion interpolation.

    Look at the example on a cat video on wikepedia, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation

    The framerate is much lower on the original video here, but you can see a lot of the same kinds of artifacts. Blotchy limbs, “ghosts” in movment, things morphing in ways they shouldn’t… its very similar to what’s seen in the trump video. And mind you, to my knowledge this video is done with older interpolation methods that had nothing to do with genAI.


  • I know, im seeing what you mean. I’m saying that could very much be an issue with interpolation. Especially if its AI interpolation. I edited my comment to add a bit more detail but its possible that over half the frames of this video are AI generated while the video itself is still real. Obviously I cant say for sure that that’s what is happening but this very much could be an interpolation artifact. Even in non-genAI interpolation, weird smudginess and morphing of fast moving objects in interpolated frames is a common and well known issue.











  • So let’s look at these requirements:

    • violence: not really. Vandalism and destruction of equipment aren’t violence, to my knowledge PA has not harmed or attacked anyone.

    • non combatants: they targeted weapon shipments and military equipment. While I suppose you could argue the UK military aren’t combatants as they aren’t part of the war directly, but honestly that point is entirely moot given that they didn’t target people.

    • political and ideological aims: sure, they are a political activist organization. Obviously that alone doesn’t make them terrorists.

    So, even by what Wikipedia defines as the “broadest” definition, not terrorists.

    I mean, at an absolute minimum, terrorism requires violence against people, which they did not do. They targeted planes and other military equipment. That’s not terrorism no matter how much damage they caused.





  • Sure they did something highly illegal, but anyone who thinks that illegally trying to stop a weapons shipment is terrorism is insane. If “using force to achieve a political goal” is terrorism, then nearly every country on the planet is a terrorist organization. Idk if thats like actually the UK’s definition or something but that is a ludicrous definition for terrorism.

    Terrorists use terror. Its why they are called that. Not the use of force, but specifically attempting to strike deep fear into a civilian populace. At no point was PA trying to make people fearful. They were trying to stop people from dying.



  • I have mixed feelings on this one, tbh

    On one hand, that was actually the original name. That changed after WW2 and to be honest I kinda think the name was part of a greater campaign to make it seem as though, somehow, the military actions that followed in the next few decades in the middle east, Asia, Latin America, etc. were actually all just “defending” the US. Which is bullshit.

    On the other hand, having perhaps the most insane president this country has ever seen saying that calling it war instead of defense because its more accurate to the current times is quite concerning to say the least.