Questões de Inglês

A questão referem-se ao texto destacado:

“Of course they’re fake videos, everyone can see they're not real. All the same, they really did say those things, didn't they?” These are the words of Vivienne Rook, the fictional politician played by Emma Thompson in the brilliant dystopian BBC TV drama Years and Years. The episode in question, set in 2027, tackles the subject of “deepfakes” – videos in which a living person's face and voice are digitally manipulated to say anything the programmer wants.

Rook perfectly sums up the problem with these videos – even if you know they are fake, they leave a lingering impression. And her words are all the more compelling because deepfakes are real and among us already. Last year, several deepfake porn videos emerged online, appearing to show celebrities such as Emma Watson, Gal Gadot and Taylor Swift in explicit situations.

[…]

In some cases, the deepfakes are almost indistinguishable from the real thing – which is particularly worrying for politicians and other people in the public eye. Videos that may initially have been created for laughs could easily be misinterpreted by viewers. Earlier this year, for example, a digitally altered video appeared to show Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives, slurring drunkenly through a speech. The video was widely shared on Facebook and YouTube, before being tweeted by President Donald Trump with the caption: “PELOSI STAMMERS THROUGH NEWS CONFERENCE”. The video was debunked, but not before it had been viewed millions of times. Trump has still not deleted the tweet, which has been retweeted over 30,000 times.

The current approach of social media companies is to filter out and reduce the distribution of deepfake videos, rather than outright removing them – unless they are pornographic. This can result in victims suffering severe reputational damage, not to mention ongoing humiliation and ridicule from viewers. “Deepfakes are one of the most alarming trends I have witnessed as a Congresswoman to date,” said US Congresswoman Yvette Clarke in a recent article for Quartz. “If the American public can be made to believe and trust altered videos of presidential candidates, our democracy is in grave danger. We need to work together to stop deepfakes from becoming the defining feature of the 2020 elections.”

Of course, it’s not just democracy that is at risk, but also the economy, the legal system and even individuals themselves. Clarke warns that, if deepfake technology continues to evolve without a check, video evidence could lose its credibility during trials. It is not hard to imagine it being used by disgruntled ex-lovers, employees and random people on the internet to exact revenge and ruin people’s reputations. The software for creating these videos is already widely available.

Fonte: Curtis, Sophie. https://www.mirror.co.uk/tech/deepfake-videos-creepy-new-internet-18289900. Adaptado. Acessado em Agosto/2019.

Responda a questão de acordo com o texto abaixo.

Man who stood up for six hours on flight so wife could sleep goes vira

1- A man who stood on a plane for six hours so his wife could sleep across three seats has divided opinion online, with some describing the gesture as "romantic" and others as "selfish" on the wife's part.

2- Courtney Lee Johnson shared a picture on social media of the man standing in the aisle of the cabin and leaning on the tops of two seats as a woman lay across an entire row with her feet up. "This guy stood up the whole 6 hours so his wife could sleep. Now that is love," she claimed in the caption.

3- While some commenters expressed disbelief that cabin crew had allowed the man to stand for six hours, others said they thought the wife was wrong to expect or allow him to do so.

4- "That's not love. That's selfishness on the woman's part," one commenter said. "Can't she just place her head on his shoulders and sleep? Love doesn't work like that."

5- "Unless she's sick and this is the only rest position in the circumstance that will make her stay alive. If not, it does not make sense", said another.

6- "If that is love then I rather be lonely," said a third.

7- Another said: "I won't judge their marriage. My hubs is the kind of man who would do this for me, but I am not the kind of wife to ask this of him!"

8- It's not the first time plane etiquette sparked debate online.

9- In March, a US man's $220 compensation demand from an obese passenger for taking up part of his seat proved controversial. Reddit user Big Bawluh had been booked on a five-hour flight, which he said he endured uncomfortably "pressed up against" the other man and wanted to be "compensated".

10- "The problem here was that this large dude stuck you with being uncomfortable on your flight, right? Well, the [US]$150 didn't make you any less squished in your seat, so it really feels like you just blackmailed this guy for being fat," one said.

11- Others were supportive.

12- "You had every right to ask the flight attendant for a solution, and between the man and you, a solution was agreed upon. Everyone else can relax, because it wasn't their seat being overtaken on a flight."

13- However, another said the real problem was with the airlines themselves.

14- "But until consumers organize and demand that airlines stop cramming more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces, most of us have decided to just grit our teeth and deal with how uncomfortable air travel is."

Lorna Thornber

In: https://www.traveller.com.au/man-who-stood-up-forsix-hours-on-flight-so-wife-could-sleep-goes-viral-h1hw2q

Responda a questão de acordo com o texto abaixo.

Man who stood up for six hours on flight so wife could sleep goes vira

1- A man who stood on a plane for six hours so his wife could sleep across three seats has divided opinion online, with some describing the gesture as "romantic" and others as "selfish" on the wife's part.

2- Courtney Lee Johnson shared a picture on social media of the man standing in the aisle of the cabin and leaning on the tops of two seats as a woman lay across an entire row with her feet up. "This guy stood up the whole 6 hours so his wife could sleep. Now that is love," she claimed in the caption.

3- While some commenters expressed disbelief that cabin crew had allowed the man to stand for six hours, others said they thought the wife was wrong to expect or allow him to do so.

4- "That's not love. That's selfishness on the woman's part," one commenter said. "Can't she just place her head on his shoulders and sleep? Love doesn't work like that."

5- "Unless she's sick and this is the only rest position in the circumstance that will make her stay alive. If not, it does not make sense", said another.

6- "If that is love then I rather be lonely," said a third.

7- Another said: "I won't judge their marriage. My hubs is the kind of man who would do this for me, but I am not the kind of wife to ask this of him!"

8- It's not the first time plane etiquette sparked debate online.

9- In March, a US man's $220 compensation demand from an obese passenger for taking up part of his seat proved controversial. Reddit user Big Bawluh had been booked on a five-hour flight, which he said he endured uncomfortably "pressed up against" the other man and wanted to be "compensated".

10- "The problem here was that this large dude stuck you with being uncomfortable on your flight, right? Well, the [US]$150 didn't make you any less squished in your seat, so it really feels like you just blackmailed this guy for being fat," one said.

11- Others were supportive.

12- "You had every right to ask the flight attendant for a solution, and between the man and you, a solution was agreed upon. Everyone else can relax, because it wasn't their seat being overtaken on a flight."

13- However, another said the real problem was with the airlines themselves.

14- "But until consumers organize and demand that airlines stop cramming more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces, most of us have decided to just grit our teeth and deal with how uncomfortable air travel is."

Lorna Thornber

In: https://www.traveller.com.au/man-who-stood-up-forsix-hours-on-flight-so-wife-could-sleep-goes-viral-h1hw2q

A BROKEN PEACE

By Jasmin Mujanović

    The Dayton Peace Accords, which formally ended the Bosnian War in 1995, fragmented Bosnia, ensuring that each of the warring ethnic factions – Serb, Croat, and Bosniak – would be left with a patch of territory to call its own, but with the country being treated as a single entity in the international arena. This internal fragmentation was itself the product of ethnic cleansing [limpeza étnica] and genocide, the process by which nationalist militias created neat, mostly homogenous territories, which they hoped could later become essentially autonomous regions. Although the Western diplomats who negotiated Dayton legitimated these violence-based demarcations of land as the price of peace, they believed that reform could establish Bosnia (also known as Bosnia and Herzegovina) as a vibrant, diverse, and democratic society, capable of membership in the European Union.

    Almost a quarter of a century since the end of the Bosnian War, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 100,000 people, the shadow of violence lies over the upcoming elections [Note: These elections were held in October 2018.] in this small country, which is still severely divided along ethnic lines. The leader of Bosnia’s main Serb nationalist bloc, Milorad Dodik, backed by the Kremlin, has militarized the police units under his government’s control. He has also recruited the services of Russian-trained paramilitaries from neighboring Serbia. And Russian militants, recently fighting on the frontlines of the war in Ukraine, are now routinely hosted in his presidential palace in Banja Luka, the de facto capital of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska (RS), one of the two entities that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other is the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or informally, the Bosniak-Croat Federation). Dodik makes no secret of his intentions: he wants the RS to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is willing to use arms to accomplish exactly that if either the Bosnian state government in Sarajevo or the international community try to stop him.

    Meanwhile, the leader of the primary Croat nationalist bloc, Dragan Čovič, may do the same. Despite the nominal ethnic divisions between their two parties, Čovič and Dodik are united in a shared antipathy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina as a territorially integrated state. Each of them wants to revive the territorial-expansion projects conceived in Belgrade [capital of Serbia] and Zagreb [capital of Croatia] in the 1990s: Dodik wishes for the RS to join Serbia, while Čovič aspires to resuscitate the “Herzeg-Bosna,” possibly with the idea of attaching it to Croatia. Herzeg-Bosna was Zagreb’s version of the RS: a self-declared “republic” from which non-Croats were ethnically cleansed, much as non-Serbs were forced out of the RS. The original architects of both the RS and Herzeg-Bosna have been convicted of dozens of counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. Yet Dodik and Čovič remain unapologetic in their aim to preserve and revive, respectively, these para-states.

    Though the largest community in the country, the Bosniaks are fractured by provincial disputes. The Party of Democratic Action (SDA), the bloc cofounded by Bosnia’s first president, Alija Izetbegovič, is now purely a vehicle for the enrichment of the Izetbegovič family and their allies. As a result, the past year has seen three major splinter groups [grupos de dissidentes] break off, each accusing Bakir Izetbegovič, Alija’s son and the party’s leader, of rampant corruption and criminality. And for their own part, Bosnia’s leftists and anti-nationalists have managed to split their vote across four different parties, practically ensuring their own massacre at the polls [urnas].

    Amid this game of thrones, the Euro-American alliance that once guaranteed Bosnia’s peace is fragmented by its own factional disputes, and unprepared to intervene in the event of genuine emergency. And beneath it all is a pulsating cacophony of public anger at the country’s corrupt elite, whose decades of self-dealing have left Bosnia as one of the poorest states in Europe. The country is undeniably already on the brink [beira de precipício], and October’s elections could easily push it over the edge.

Adapted from Prospect, October 2018. [Note: Please remember that the country of Bosnia is also known as Bosnia and Herzegovina.]

A BROKEN PEACE

By Jasmin Mujanović

    The Dayton Peace Accords, which formally ended the Bosnian War in 1995, fragmented Bosnia, ensuring that each of the warring ethnic factions – Serb, Croat, and Bosniak – would be left with a patch of territory to call its own, but with the country being treated as a single entity in the international arena. This internal fragmentation was itself the product of ethnic cleansing [limpeza étnica] and genocide, the process by which nationalist militias created neat, mostly homogenous territories, which they hoped could later become essentially autonomous regions. Although the Western diplomats who negotiated Dayton legitimated these violence-based demarcations of land as the price of peace, they believed that reform could establish Bosnia (also known as Bosnia and Herzegovina) as a vibrant, diverse, and democratic society, capable of membership in the European Union.

    Almost a quarter of a century since the end of the Bosnian War, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 100,000 people, the shadow of violence lies over the upcoming elections [Note: These elections were held in October 2018.] in this small country, which is still severely divided along ethnic lines. The leader of Bosnia’s main Serb nationalist bloc, Milorad Dodik, backed by the Kremlin, has militarized the police units under his government’s control. He has also recruited the services of Russian-trained paramilitaries from neighboring Serbia. And Russian militants, recently fighting on the frontlines of the war in Ukraine, are now routinely hosted in his presidential palace in Banja Luka, the de facto capital of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska (RS), one of the two entities that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other is the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or informally, the Bosniak-Croat Federation). Dodik makes no secret of his intentions: he wants the RS to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is willing to use arms to accomplish exactly that if either the Bosnian state government in Sarajevo or the international community try to stop him.

    Meanwhile, the leader of the primary Croat nationalist bloc, Dragan Čovič, may do the same. Despite the nominal ethnic divisions between their two parties, Čovič and Dodik are united in a shared antipathy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina as a territorially integrated state. Each of them wants to revive the territorial-expansion projects conceived in Belgrade [capital of Serbia] and Zagreb [capital of Croatia] in the 1990s: Dodik wishes for the RS to join Serbia, while Čovič aspires to resuscitate the “Herzeg-Bosna,” possibly with the idea of attaching it to Croatia. Herzeg-Bosna was Zagreb’s version of the RS: a self-declared “republic” from which non-Croats were ethnically cleansed, much as non-Serbs were forced out of the RS. The original architects of both the RS and Herzeg-Bosna have been convicted of dozens of counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. Yet Dodik and Čovič remain unapologetic in their aim to preserve and revive, respectively, these para-states.

    Though the largest community in the country, the Bosniaks are fractured by provincial disputes. The Party of Democratic Action (SDA), the bloc cofounded by Bosnia’s first president, Alija Izetbegovič, is now purely a vehicle for the enrichment of the Izetbegovič family and their allies. As a result, the past year has seen three major splinter groups [grupos de dissidentes] break off, each accusing Bakir Izetbegovič, Alija’s son and the party’s leader, of rampant corruption and criminality. And for their own part, Bosnia’s leftists and anti-nationalists have managed to split their vote across four different parties, practically ensuring their own massacre at the polls [urnas].

    Amid this game of thrones, the Euro-American alliance that once guaranteed Bosnia’s peace is fragmented by its own factional disputes, and unprepared to intervene in the event of genuine emergency. And beneath it all is a pulsating cacophony of public anger at the country’s corrupt elite, whose decades of self-dealing have left Bosnia as one of the poorest states in Europe. The country is undeniably already on the brink [beira de precipício], and October’s elections could easily push it over the edge.

Adapted from Prospect, October 2018. [Note: Please remember that the country of Bosnia is also known as Bosnia and Herzegovina.]

A BROKEN PEACE

By Jasmin Mujanović

    The Dayton Peace Accords, which formally ended the Bosnian War in 1995, fragmented Bosnia, ensuring that each of the warring ethnic factions – Serb, Croat, and Bosniak – would be left with a patch of territory to call its own, but with the country being treated as a single entity in the international arena. This internal fragmentation was itself the product of ethnic cleansing [limpeza étnica] and genocide, the process by which nationalist militias created neat, mostly homogenous territories, which they hoped could later become essentially autonomous regions. Although the Western diplomats who negotiated Dayton legitimated these violence-based demarcations of land as the price of peace, they believed that reform could establish Bosnia (also known as Bosnia and Herzegovina) as a vibrant, diverse, and democratic society, capable of membership in the European Union.

    Almost a quarter of a century since the end of the Bosnian War, which resulted in the deaths of nearly 100,000 people, the shadow of violence lies over the upcoming elections [Note: These elections were held in October 2018.] in this small country, which is still severely divided along ethnic lines. The leader of Bosnia’s main Serb nationalist bloc, Milorad Dodik, backed by the Kremlin, has militarized the police units under his government’s control. He has also recruited the services of Russian-trained paramilitaries from neighboring Serbia. And Russian militants, recently fighting on the frontlines of the war in Ukraine, are now routinely hosted in his presidential palace in Banja Luka, the de facto capital of the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska (RS), one of the two entities that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other is the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or informally, the Bosniak-Croat Federation). Dodik makes no secret of his intentions: he wants the RS to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is willing to use arms to accomplish exactly that if either the Bosnian state government in Sarajevo or the international community try to stop him.

    Meanwhile, the leader of the primary Croat nationalist bloc, Dragan Čovič, may do the same. Despite the nominal ethnic divisions between their two parties, Čovič and Dodik are united in a shared antipathy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina as a territorially integrated state. Each of them wants to revive the territorial-expansion projects conceived in Belgrade [capital of Serbia] and Zagreb [capital of Croatia] in the 1990s: Dodik wishes for the RS to join Serbia, while Čovič aspires to resuscitate the “Herzeg-Bosna,” possibly with the idea of attaching it to Croatia. Herzeg-Bosna was Zagreb’s version of the RS: a self-declared “republic” from which non-Croats were ethnically cleansed, much as non-Serbs were forced out of the RS. The original architects of both the RS and Herzeg-Bosna have been convicted of dozens of counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes by the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at the Hague. Yet Dodik and Čovič remain unapologetic in their aim to preserve and revive, respectively, these para-states.

    Though the largest community in the country, the Bosniaks are fractured by provincial disputes. The Party of Democratic Action (SDA), the bloc cofounded by Bosnia’s first president, Alija Izetbegovič, is now purely a vehicle for the enrichment of the Izetbegovič family and their allies. As a result, the past year has seen three major splinter groups [grupos de dissidentes] break off, each accusing Bakir Izetbegovič, Alija’s son and the party’s leader, of rampant corruption and criminality. And for their own part, Bosnia’s leftists and anti-nationalists have managed to split their vote across four different parties, practically ensuring their own massacre at the polls [urnas].

    Amid this game of thrones, the Euro-American alliance that once guaranteed Bosnia’s peace is fragmented by its own factional disputes, and unprepared to intervene in the event of genuine emergency. And beneath it all is a pulsating cacophony of public anger at the country’s corrupt elite, whose decades of self-dealing have left Bosnia as one of the poorest states in Europe. The country is undeniably already on the brink [beira de precipício], and October’s elections could easily push it over the edge.

Adapted from Prospect, October 2018. [Note: Please remember that the country of Bosnia is also known as Bosnia and Herzegovina.]