disassociated

Apollo 13: Survival, a Netflix produced documentary, trailer, recounts the story of what was meant to be the third Apollo crewed landing on the Moon, in 1970. An exploding oxygen tank in the body of the command module craft, on-route to the Moon, however spelt the end of the landing attempt.

Instead the flight became a desperate race against time to return the Apollo astronauts to Earth before they ran out of oxygen and fuel.

The Apollo 13 flight transcript is well worth listening to. Note how calmly Jack Swigert, followed a few seconds later by Jim Lovell speak, when informing mission controllers on Earth of the situation. “Houston, we’ve had a problem.” Sounds more like someone saying they’ve missed the bus and will be ten minutes late for work.

American filmmaker Ron Howard’s 1995 docudrama, Apollo 13, starring Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, and Kevin Bacon, is also an excellent recounting of the story.

Sydney based Australian author Charlotte Wood has gone through to the shortlist of the 2024 Booker Prize, with her novel Stone Yard Devotional, which was announced on Monday 16 September 2024. If Wood were to win the Booker Prize this year, she would become the first Australian author to do so since Richard Flanagan in 2014, with his novel The Narrow Road to the Deep North.

The 2024 winner will be named on Tuesday 12 November 2024.

Anam, by Melbourne based Australian author André Dao, has been named winner in the Fiction category of the 2024 Prime Minister’s Literary Awards. Anam was also shortlisted for the Miles Franklin this year, and the Mark and Evette Moran Nib Literary Award in 2023.

Winners in other categories were Close to the Subject: Selected Works by Daniel Browning, in Non-Fiction, and We Could Be Something by Will Kostakis, in Young Adult.

Tamarra: A Story of Termites on Gurindji Country, co-authored by Violet Wadrill, Topsy Dodd Ngarnjal, Leah Leaman, Cecelia Edwards, Cassandra Algy, Felicity Meakins, Briony Barr, and Gregory Crocetti, took out Children’s Literature. The Cyprian by Amy Crutchfield, and Donald Horne: A Life in the Lucky Country by Ryan Cropp, won in Poetry and Australian History respectively.

The 2024 winners were announced in the Australian capital, Canberra, last week, on Thursday 12 September, with recipients each being awarded eighty-thousand dollars (Australian).

Last week the Australian federal government announced its intention to restrict access to social media platforms to younger Australians. For now details remain scant. The government is yet to specify an exact age at which young Australians would be able to begin using social media. The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, however has indicated somewhere between ages fourteen to sixteen was being considered.

Also unclear is how an age threshold would be enforced. Would this be the responsibility of a child’s parents or guardians? Would it be up to the social media companies? Would the so-called gatekeepers, companies including Apple and Google, who distribute social media apps through their app stores, also have a part to play? Should there even be any sort of ban in the first place?

This is a convoluted issue to say the least.

There are plenty of reasons to restrict social media access to younger Australians. Social media channels are rife with bullying, harassment, and all manner of what can be called inappropriate content. There are also concerns about the amount of time children spend looking at the screens of smartphones and other devices.

Yet parents have been providing their children with mobile/smartphones for decades, for safety and security reasons. Would any ban mean parents are required to take back their children’s smartphones, and replace them with so-called “dumbphones”, capable only of calls and messaging?

Would a ban, were one introduced, be phased in? That is, would young Australians, who have been using social media, and the smartphones they use for access, be told they can no longer do so, because they have suddenly become the wrong age? Imposing an age restriction on the use of social media is truly a significant step.

Gaining access to social media would become a rite of passage for young Australians. Akin to holding a drivers license, being able to vote, or buy alcoholic beverages. But are we looking at the matter the right way? A ban is a quick, easy, fix. If there’s a problem with over exposure to social media, imposing a ban is no better than sweeping the issue under the carpet. Besides, people find ways to circumvent bans and restrictions. That won’t come as a surprise to anyone who was once a teenager.

Like it or not, smartphones and social media are deeply enmeshed in our way of life. They’re not toys and petty distractions. Despite the high noise to signal ratio, they’re tools we use to interact and engage with the world around us. Some Australians make their living solely through social media. Restricting access to younger Australians may be detrimental to their education and even well-being.

Australian Greens party senator, Sarah Hanson-Young, describes the proposed ban as a “knee-jerk” reaction, and says it is the social media companies who should be subject to regulation, not young Australians. Hanson-Young also points out some social media channels are vital for some teenagers:

“We don’t ban kids from going to the beach — we teach them how to swim and make sure they swim between the flags. There are safety measures put in place to keep them safe — flags, lifeguards, adult supervision and swimming lessons. We need to teach children how to use social media and understand there are many positive benefits, particularly for marginalised kids, to being online.”

Given the number of adults in Australia who devote, as if addicted, unhealthy amount of times to phones and social media, some sort of minimum age access seems reasonable. After all, do we really want kids who haven’t even started high-school, spending their days gazing at smartphone screens?

The South Australian state government may be treading a somewhat sensible middle-ground. And middle-ground is what needs to be found here. They propose banning access to social media to children aged under fourteen. Those aged between fourteen and fifteen would require approval from parents or guardians to access social media. Is there merit in this proposal, or not?

It is obvious there is no one, straightforward solution, that will please everyone. As Anthony Albanese, the Australian Prime Minister, says:

We know that it’s not simple and it’s not easy. Otherwise, governments would have responded before.

Gravitational waves have been helping scientists and astronomers answer some of the big questions of the universe. But gravitational waves may be able to do something else: detect the presence of vessels with Star Trek like warp drive engines, as they move through the cosmos.

One problem with the warp drive space-time is that it doesn’t naturally give gravitational waves unless it starts or stops. Our idea was to study what would happen when a warp drive stopped, particularly in the case of something going wrong. Suppose the warp drive containment field collapsed (a staple storyline in sci-fi); presumably there would be an explosive release of both the exotic matter and gravitational waves. This is something we can, and did, simulate using numerical relativity.

I imagine a cloaking device wouldn’t be much help, if a vessel was trying to move about unnoticed. The gravitational waves generated by the ship’s warp drive would pretty much render it visible.

Australian food critic Terry Durack, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald:

Coffee’s changing. The cost of beans continues to rise, and everyone is on the lookout for alternatives. Old-fashioned espresso coffee is in danger of being shouldered aside, just as cow’s milk is making way for oat, almond and soy.

With coffee prices rising, people are apparently looking for alternatives to coffee-based brews, and maybe I don’t blame them.

A month or so ago, I bought a small cappuccino after stopping by a place in Redfern — one of the inner suburbs of Sydney — for five dollars. That’s about what I usually pay, for a large drink, but this was a small serve. A super small serve. The cup must’ve been two-thirds the size of the usual sized small/regular takeaway coffee cups. The alternatives to cow’s milk I get. But now I see why some people are keen to try alternatives to their once daily caffeine fix.

Jake Evans, writing for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation:

Facebook has admitted that it scrapes the public photos, posts and other data of Australian adult users to train its AI models and provides no opt-out option, even though it allows people in the European Union to refuse consent.

For sure, Facebook operates a little differently in Australia. According to information provided by Melinda Claybaugh, Meta’s global privacy director, who was speaking at an Australian parliamentary inquiry into AI adoption, the social network has been collecting user data since 2007.

Only Facebook members who set their profiles to private, were spared. Australians, unlike residents of the European Union who are protected by strong privacy laws, also do not have the option to opt-out of having their data collected, if they elect to make their Facebook page publicly visible.

One can only wonder what sense Meta’s AI technologies made of the content posted by Australians to their Facebook pages, and what conclusions they drew about us.

The Internet Archive (IA) has been fighting a number of legal proceedings recently, after making digitised copies of numerous books and novels freely available, through their website. At no point did the IA seek permission from any of the authors involved, nor did they offer them any sort of payment, for copying and distributing their work.

Last week the United States Court of Appeals ruled against the IA, who were seeking to overturn a lawsuit brought against them by a number of publishing houses. The outcome may force the not-for-profit organisation to shut down.

The IA is perhaps best known for the Way Back Machine, a repository of past and present websites. According to the IA, they have archived over eight-hundred-and-sixty billion webpages, including copies of disassociated since 1998.

But websites and books are not all that the IA has taken copies of. TV shows, software applications, and images, are also among their vast collections of digital paraphernalia, much of which is also subject to copyright, as Bryan Lunduke writes:

First and foremost: Has the Internet Archive made, and distributed, digital copies of work you own? This ruling will certainly not hurt your case should you decide to take legal action against Archive.org. And — holy smokes — the amount of copyrighted material on Archive.org is absolutely massive.

Although past versions of my website archived by the IA may constitute them distributing digital copies of my work, I’ve never viewed that negatively. In fact, I’ve always found it useful to have access to earlier instances of disassociated, especially as I didn’t backup all of my old website designs. In my case though, I don’t see the IA’s duplicates of my work as any sort of copyright violation. Rather, I think of these copies as something of a “mirror” of disassociated.

Whether people look up my website via the URL, or the Way Back Machine, doesn’t particularly matter. The content is the same. It hasn’t been altered in any way I’m aware of. Further, as far as I know, the IA isn’t charging anyone to see the archived versions of disassociated, and therefore making money by way of my efforts.

But the Way Back Machine isn’t just there for me to go looking up old versions of my website. It’s also akin to a museum of the internet. A place where we can go and see websites that have long since gone offline, and study the history of the web. To this end, in my opinion, the Way Back Machine serves an important purpose.

The IA’s duplication of novels, and distribution through a “library”, is a different matter entirely. Although some well-known novels are now in the public domain, those published in recent decades usually are not. Copyright laws prevent novels from being duplicated and distributed by unauthorised means. And that’s the way it should be. Consider that many Australian authors earn less than thirty-thousand (Australian) dollars a year. Poets usually make well below ten-thousand dollars. Both these figures are far less than the minimum wage in Australia.

Depriving writers of income by freely copying and distributing their work is plain wrong. I’m really at a loss to understand why the IA pushed ahead with such a program. Equally, I find it hard to believe they thought they were doing the right thing. But what’s truly unfortunate is how the judicial findings against the IA could bring about their end, and that of the Way Back Machine.

I’m no fan of horror movies, though I’ve sat through a few. The Birds, Psycho, The Changeling, Ghost Story, Triangle, Autopsy, to name a few most of them.

I might make another exception though for Milk & Serial, a one hour long “found footage” horror film, directed by Curry Barker — who also wrote the screenplay, and has a lead role — that critics have been raving about. If you’re tired of Hollywood doing the same thing over and over again, then Milk & Serial, which you can watch on YouTube here, might just be what you’re looking for.

It seems it is perfectly possible to make original* films, that tell great stories, in this case horror titles, without the need to remake the same old films again and again.

* I know there’s a few “found footage” titles out there, but I think Milk & Serial tells its own story.

National Novel Writing Month, AKA NaNoWriMo, the popular, twenty-five year old, write a fifty-thousand word novel in thirty-days challenge, infuriated authors last week, after organisers appeared to support the use of AI tools by participants. While they didn’t specifically endorse apps such as ChatGPT, they did not rule them out either:

NaNoWriMo neither explicitly supports nor condemns any approach to writing, including the use of tools that leverage AI.

NaNoWriMo’s neutral stance however has upset many writers. Not only do they feel generative AI tools threaten their livelihoods, some have also seen their own works used to “train” AI chatbots, usually without their permission or knowledge.

To these authors, the neutral position represents support of this conduct. But like many segments of society, NaNoWriMo, and its community of amateur and professional writers, have been grappling with the advent of AI technologies. Organisers say their (since amended) AI policy was intended to put an end to what had become inflammatory discussion on the topic:

In early August, debates about AI on our social media channels became vitriolic. It was clear that the intimidation and harassment we witnessed were causing harm within our community of writers. The FAQs we crafted last week were written to curtail those behaviors.

I don’t really know much about the NaNoWriMo community, but with over half a million members globally, it surely represents a wide and varied group of writers. Although some six-hundred NaNoWriMo manuscripts have gone on to be published, for many participants the writing challenge is simply a fun way to pass some time. The majority are not looking for publishing deals. I’d venture to say some participants may not be the greatest of writers. Others might struggle, for whatever reasons, to put a story idea they have, into words.

NaNoWriMo is saying they don’t have a problem with some of their members using AI tools, if it helps them with the process, be that drafting or proofreading. But they make an obvious caveat:

If using AI will assist your creative process, you are welcome to use it. Using ChatGPT to write your entire novel would defeat the purpose of the challenge, though.

I’m not in favour of using AI apps in any creative endeavours, particularly writing. Personally, I don’t think AI has any place in NaNoWriMo, for the precise reason organisers have stated above. AI defeats the purpose. But we’re getting to the point where it’s going to be hard to tell what work has been AI assisted, and what hasn’t. Plagiarism tools may be effective, but not if the AI apps stay one-step ahead. Imposing a ban on AI apps seems pointless. AI is here to stay, and is only going to more deeply embed itself in our lives. This is what we need to expend our energies on navigating.