Eurovision seemed like a flash. Poof! Someone won. Single name singer Dara from Bulgaria says her international career has begun. She's probably right, given the history of stars churned out of the competition since it started 70 years ago. The decision is made by a combination of national juries in participating countries and viewers around the world.
It has given the award to what are now famous musicians/acts - Cirque du Soleil, Madonna, Justine Timberlake and the first performance of Riverdance. ABBA and Celine Dion won.Lots of people have paraded through in those 70 years.
The participants are countries, Euroopean countries, and Canada isn't a "member" and has never formally competed. When Celine Dion won she represented Switzerland.
This is a complicated set-up - it is run by the European Broadcasting Union so would require an arrangement with the CBC for Canada to participate. CBC would broadcast Eurovision similar to the Olympics. And it is a similar to the Olympics in approach with countries competing and lots of friction over political matters. Countries withdrew this year because of Israel's participation.
One article says that we can watch Eurovision acts on YouTube, and goes on to outline some of its strange participants. In 2014 the victor was an Austrian bearded drag queen Conchita Wurst. In 2006, Lordi a group of heavy metal monsters dressed in movie-quality alien/demon prosthetics won. Dustin the Turkey won in 2008 - it was a glove puppet of a turkey who rapped and danced. And there was Buranovskiye Babushiki in 2012 - a troupe of traditional Russian grandmothers who baked bread on a spinning stage while singing their folk-pop song.
I can't decide if I am compelled to go look or repelled to not look. Maybe now I know why it came and went. With Canada's interest in closer European ties, this seems to be in the loop for discussion. Something entertaining may come of this.
Isn't that such a pretty Koi moment. It seems serene.
How can it happen that a driverless Waymo taxi gets confused? Then it "evaded" support crews. Sounds like a human driver, doesn't it? And that's what I worry about - AI behaving human. We're crafty and shifty things.
It is hard to find out more about this story as it comes out of FOX 10 Phoenix with only the headline and a news video that's mostly talking heads. The incidentdatabasess.ai says that it repeated drove away from roadside assistance.
Phoenix seems to have all the action, despite the fact that there are 10 major U.S. cities with Waymo driverless taxis. In another incident in Phoenix, a Waymo robotaxi drove into oncoming traffic, ran a red light and "freaked out" when a police officer attempted to pull it over. It makes one wonder how to know a driverless car has "freaked out." And again, what is the similarity to human behaviour? Or is that just language used to get our attention. These seem to be sensationalist news articles to get clicks for all those ads.
The news coverage and video are on the FOX 10 Phoenix site. I was surprised by the weather alert on the home page with no indication of what kind of weather is being warned about. I scrolled down for a while and found out it was a wind warning.
There seems to be a fair amount of negative coverage of Waymo's fleet in Phoenix. It gets one a bit concerned as Waymo wants to introduce programs in Toronto and in B.C. - would we be seeing headlines about "freaked out" driverless cars?
Tesla has a supervised self-driving capability available in Canada - it requires a human driver behind the wheel. But in a driverless car - where is the steering wheel? This is expected to disappear by 2035. And once steering wheels disappear - brakes and gas pedals are also going away.
My sense is that we have worries over individual cars. We have lots of traffic with so many things happening on the roads. Wouldn't it be a better approach to start with driverless buses? They have defined lanes and routes, often excluding cars. There are already driverless buses with no steering wheels in operation in China and Norway.
This is an interesting area of inquiry to me. I see differences between the Canadian and U.S. coverage of the subject. And the Canadian articles include government regulation and where things are headed. U.S. articles highlight the number of accidents and Waymo vehicles being pulled off the road for safety concerns. There's no mention of government supervision and monitoring. I don't think I would have noticed these differences 2 years ago. I wonder how things will be 2 years from now.
Here are some beautiful Candelabra Primulas from 2017 at Chanticleer Garden in Pennsylvania.
I feel left out. Six billion people will watch the upcoming World Cup. That's almost 3/4 of the world's population. I don't imagine that 3/4 of the world is really interested in the World Cup. And how many people will have access to viewing the Games on TVs, screens, etc?
Even in-person numbers are impressive. There are 104 matches in 16 cities and 5 million people are expected to attend in person. That's a lot of people.
The counting of the six billion is a massive undertaking. It will combine traditional TV ratings, digital streaming analytics, social media data and consumer surveys. They have people meters - homes equipped with devices that log what channel is on and who is watching. There is data from cable and satellite providers used to track viewership. There are methods to track viewers on apps and websites, on YouTube and Facebook. There is direct tracking for the networks that broadcast the games. And there are public screens and public spaces that are tracked. There are gaps to fill in where surveys are used to ask people which matches they watched. Somehow it all comes together.
What qualifies for having viewed the games - total viewers who watched at least one minute of coverage. That seems like an overly generous definition of "watching a game".
On the other hand, that might mean I won't be left out and will have qualified to be one of the six billion.
Here's a model of Toronto that was at City Hall. You can see the CN Tower front and centre.
I wonder how many people will fit into those streets during the FIFA Games?
Follow the Gourd! Follow the Sandal! Follow the Bible for what you eat. That's the latest trend in the Make America Healthy Again movement. Eat what is in the Bible. I shouldn't be surprised, we are transfixed with food and why not source it from the Bible?
What is referenced in the Bible? Here's a start at the very beginning:
Gen. 14:18 - Bread Gen. 25:34 - Lentils Deuteronomy 8:8 - Wheat Ruth 1:22 - Barley 2 Samuel 17:28 - Beans That's just for staples and grains. The list goes on to fruits and nuts, vegetables and herbs, proteins and dairy, and other things like honey, olive oil, vinegar and salt.
And when were these things eaten in the Bible? For the Passover meal, the Last Supper and the Miracle of the loaves and fishes. Someone has put together the list HERE.
There is the inclusion of unusual and supernatural foods referenced in the Bible - bread baked over human excrement, angel cakes, and of course, manna from heaven.
Further referencing the bible, here are recommendations for biblical meals:
1. Jacob's Lentil Pottage (stew) from Genesis 25:34 is listed as one of the most famous meals in the Bible - lentils, onion, garlic, olive oil, cumin, coriander and thyme.
2. Roasted fish with herbs and lemon as prepared by Jesus for his disciples by the Sea of Galilee - John 21:9 - whole fish, olive oil, lemon, parsley and garlic.
First year English in University included Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. I know why. He is considered the "father of English literature" even though it is written in pre-English which is quaintly referred to Middle English (1150-1500AD). That means it is not as old as Old English (450-110AD).
One should start university with the start of English Literature...I guess. If we started with something in Old English it is unrecognizable to modern speakers. Middle English evolved through French influence so is closer to modern English.
At the time, I was confused that we would study something that needed deciphering with much effort to even get the words translated.
I hadn't realized that Chaucer 's "words" have posed problems for a long time. A headline says a tiny typo may explain a mystery about Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" and "Troilus and Criseyde."
The article in Smithsonian Magazine about the "Typo" says this:
“Lots of very smart people have torn their hair out over the spelling, punctuation, literal translation, meaning and context of a few lines of text,” James Wade, a literary scholar at the University of Cambridge..." His breakthrough is that he thinks there are typos when a sermon referring to Chaucer's The Song of Wade was scribed.
In a study published in the journal The Review of English Studies, the researchers argue that the modern English translation of the poem from the sermon contains a typo. This is described in the article HERE.
Much discussion continues... It brings back memories of "way back when" in University.
This picture was taken at Brock University's most recent addition - the Performing Arts Centre. A Flaming Pear Filter to get the black and white effects. I added the saying.