Recently I have produced some short video lectures to distributed to research partners. I can write reasonably well in english, but my speaking is terrible. I manage to prepare fine-tuned english subtitles.
A text-to-speech can help creating english audio tracks for those producing original content in other languages
A lot of opportunists in Brazil want the Internet to be a place for against-the-law speechs. It is not censorship if a court rules a social media company to delete pages/messages/whatever that violates any law.
Telegram and Google, as companies, published misinformation. They did not publish their opinions or provide alternatives. They misrepresented the current law project.
You are free to publish your opinion on a movie, your code, your own selfie. You are not free to publish bullying content, fake content, or anything that harms others.
You make the wrong assumption that the truth on every issue is widely known and universally accepted.
> They misrepresented the current law project.
If criticising an ongoing bill is not allowed, how is it different from the USSR? If everyone has to agree to the government policy without exception, why do you need elections for? You can just let the Politburo (I mean the Great Supreme Court of Brazil) decide everything.
There is a good partial solution in the ordinary law: it is enough to strengthen the codes of ethics while regulating the presence and expression in the networks of politicians with a mandate.
Freedom of expression does not necessarily include the right to have your opinion amplified by powerful artificial means. Just as your right of self-defense does not include the use of nuclear weapons.
The principle of freedom of expression is about the right to say what you want at the top of your lungs. Radical political leaders with an open channel to their followers are the problem. With audacity and political will it is possible to tame them.
> Telegram and Google, as companies, published misinformation.
They didn't.
> You are free to publish your opinion on a movie, your code, your own selfie. You are not free to publish bullying content, fake content, or anything that harms others.
You're misrepresenting the current law project. Have you read it least? The 1st big problem is who will have the say in what is/isn't fake? The people backing this bill often spread lies and have zero commitment to truth and honesty. Fake news is everything that is inconvenient. Clearly, they have no issues with fake news when it supports them.
There is no place for a ministry of truth in a democratic system. I don't want my country to follow the Chinese example.
> It is not censorship if a court rules a social media company to delete pages/messages/whatever that violates any law.
What is being removed didn't violate any laws. Opinion and free speech is a constitutional and international right. The court orders were nonsensical and legal only because they came from the supreme court which is above everyone else so they can interpret things as they wish.
It's insane to have a supreme court overruling the legislative and the executive branches in a weekly basis. The supreme court actions are undemocratic and create dangerous precedents. It's slowly becoming a judicial dictatorship. Even elected representatives are afraid of them.
Hi, shikshake. Next month my PhD will complete six years (+2 of the "regular" 4 years). I still have to evaluate my proposal (finish planning details, invite experts and perform case studies). I am exhausted. I have published 3 papers as first-author, but none of them is actually my core thesis. My graduate program requires minimum publishing criteria, so I pursued this criteria. You need the thesis and the publications, period. But I have a marriage, one kid before the beginning of the PhD, one kid born on the second year, a pandemic on the fourth and fifth year, the discovery of autism of the second child on the beginning of the sixth year. It is too much for me. I am lazy, I procastinate, I am a news addicted.
But I have a wonderful adviser. She always says "keep working in whatever you can", "write your way out".
It is worth noting that my first two years was spent with a bullying ex-adviser that was more in the business of "filtering" students then properly advising.
In almost every business day of last three years I have made some kind of progress, but it was not enough, I am still late. Every time I open the LaTeX editor, I think about quitting. Anxiety is high. I keep blaming myself for the (lots of) bad decisons I made. When I finally can get away of bad feelings, I produce something. I am capable of building the proposed system, but it is taking longer then I thought.
I really do not know if I will graduate or not. But what it is working for me is this: 0) Revise the thesis scope (or "I really need to do all this?"), 1) write one paragraph or code function at time, 2) keep a lean todo list (only the essencial).
I keep battling because I really need to finish the PhD, as I also think you need. Just write one new paragraph. Or code a tiny feature. After that, start again: a new paragraph/code. Will we finish the thesis before the final deadline? Who knows. But at least we worked until the last day as much as we can. If we (and I hope we don't) fail, I am sure that battling until the very end will make a huge difference in how we deal with the failure.
> Pelé is not seen as a great person in Brazil, from my perspective
Your perspective is not the same of lots of sportswomen/men, public figures, traditional/web media outlets and a crowd of anonymous people praising him right now.
I wish brazilians would be less demanding with our idols.
A text-to-speech can help creating english audio tracks for those producing original content in other languages