This is surreal. Almost a scene from some Sci-Fi spy movie, in which the protagonist/antagonist performs a surgical attack on a strategic target while preventing unnecessary civilian death...
1) I heard something about "fake reports" about gunshots. But maybe the perp shot off some guns just to get the cops to show up?
2) This woman stuck around for 15 minutes or a half hour while this thing was saying "you need to evacuate, this has a bomb"???
3) This woman recalls a male voice but the news played a female voice. This goes to show how bad our memories are!
Watching a video, the audio was so surreal I had to ask myself how I would respond if I heard that without any clue where it was coming from.
Hopefully I never find out, but I guess now I'm a bit more mentally prepared to not linger.
I think, so long as this wasn't a test run for a coordinated attack on the telecoms, then this is not a very bad terrorist attack.
Hmm. Well, it will be interesting to see whatever motivated this bombing.
But it seems this person or group of people took multiple measures (Christmas morning, gun shot sounds, verbal notice of intention) to make sure civilians had notice and time to get to a safe distance.
Just seems a bit odd and unprecedented that an act like this was carried out with explicit intent to minimize civilian harm and casualties.
Will be interesting to hear more about what actually happened, by whom, and their motives, if any of this ever becomes known.
Reports of gunshots weren't fake because multiple witnesses heard gunshots. No idea if it was related to the bombing or not.
Example:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/25/us/nashville-explosion/index....
>McCoy said he was originally woken up by what he believed were gunshots prior to the explosion. He got up and looked out the window, he said, but went back to bed when he didn't see anything. Asked if the noise he heard could have been something other than gunfire, McCoy emphasized that he believed it was, saying he owns a gun and goes shooting, so he's familiar with the sound of gunshots.
"How Many of Your Memories Are Fake?"
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/how-many-...
"Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident":
https://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&co...
For the purposes of arguing, let's say someone got ahold of some municipal evacuation recordings and chopped them up for this. It's not likely they had enough phrases to warn people a bomb would be going off in specifically fifteen minutes.
EDIT: For anyone curious about other instances of bad edits, listen to the word "this"; there's another word before that, and it was cut off: "thi-this area must be evacuated now". Also, "if you can hear this message, <unnatural pause> evacuate now." It's not likely any professional voiceover person would announce this way, nor would anyone who's paid attention to basic edits before consider this passable.
If this is all true, I guess the next question to ask is who would have access to those announcements, and who would think to use them? Most people would probably just use some text-to-speech thing unless it was easy/they had good reason. I'm probably overthinking this, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B--BNdnuvA
The original video:
It's still possible that since the engine didn't reproduce a 1:1 copy and there's no discernable (at least to me) artifacts in the one copy of sound footage we have, that was the real person, and she just announced it slightly differently.
Here is the recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nygTJeu9fU
I actually also watched the video before reading that it was a female voice and also thought it was male.
Listening again, I could see it being a man with a voice like David Sedaris.
Why a rational human would broadcast this message-
a) The penalties if there were deaths would be much, much more severe. The manpower involved in the hunt would be exponentially larger.
b) They have some other goal that would be sabotaged if there were deaths.
c) They have morality and can rationalize bombing buildings, but not killing people.
This isn't a "good deed". It's a presumably rational person playing the situation.
Granted, bombing stuff hardly classifies but if you decide it's necessary to bomb something, preventing unnecessary harm for moral reasons could still be seen as a 'good deed'.
Why not both? A deed can be both good and rational.
Less of a bad deed, sure. But given that they still did the very dangerous thing, no not a good deed.
The context I replied to implied that tracking a bomber by a warning they gave would be "punishing" a "good deed". That seems dubious.
Oh yeah, sorry, I missed the context. It's a good deed, but not good enough to outweigh, you know, bombing. The recording should be traced like any other part of the bomb.
Given the sophistication of the attack, I wouldn’t say it’s impossible they have neural net experience. But as someone who spent a good chunk of time trying to get Dr Kleiner to sing (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=koU3L7WBz_s) it wasn’t remotely easy a year ago to do this locally.
Using “say foo” in macOS would’ve been the most straightforward solution, I think.
Regardless, for all we know the person isn't concerned with being caught (and may currently be deceased given that possible human remains have been found).
Not virtually. Actually.
NSA et al can do - will they publicly tip that hand for this?
"virtually" also means "almost", which is what GP was using it for.
Siri, detonate this bomb in incognito mode