It's a performative virtue signalling thing. I have to watch a lot of random videos of talks about one thing or another, and the ones that are concerned with victimhood in some way (race, disability, gender stuff etc) are much more likely to have a sign language interpreter because it aligns with those particular politics.
It's a performative virtue signalling thing. I have to watch a lot of random videos of talks about one thing or another, and the ones that are concerned with victimhood in some way (race, disability, gender stuff etc) are much more likely to have a sign language interpreter because it aligns with those particular politics.
Wuzizname Donate all used tampons to House Vampire. 11d ago
Because believe it or not sign language can convey tone-of-voice whereas captioning cannot. Also, they use sign language to translate live events that aren't pre-scripted, auto captioning is getting better but it's not as good as a live translator.
I don't know where the drama is in this post or what you were hoping for..
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this comment ♻
Because believe it or not sign language can convey tone-of-voice whereas captioning cannot. Also, they use sign language to translate live events that aren't pre-scripted, auto captioning is getting better but it's not as good as a live translator.
I don't know where the drama is in this post or what you were hoping for..
:marseywheredrama:
Sign language is the primary language of a very small group of people. Many deaf or hard of hearing people don't use it at all. Captions are also beneficial to anyone watching, while signs will be meaningless to most.
Live closed captions can be done with a mix of humans and AI. In some cases a person will re-speak what they hear into the machine, with careful enunciation, so the AI is unlikely to mess up. You could also generate captions using a human steno typist, they are supposed to hit 200 wpm.
Sign language is the primary language of a very small group of people. Many deaf or hard of hearing people don't use it at all. Captions are also beneficial to anyone watching, while signs will be meaningless to most.
Live closed captions can be done with a mix of humans and AI. In some cases a person will re-speak what they hear into the machine, with careful enunciation, so the AI is unlikely to mess up. You could also generate captions using a human steno typist, they are supposed to hit 200 wpm.
Fuck subtitles man it's not the way to the future. We need more deaf translators one for each language and one for each gender. I want to see the politician in the little box at the bottom corner of the screen and the rest of the screen be full of sign language translators.
Unless you hate being inclusive?
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this comment ♻
Fuck subtitles man it's not the way to the future. We need more deaf translators one for each language and one for each gender. I want to see the politician in the little box at the bottom corner of the screen and the rest of the screen be full of sign language translators.
Unless you hate being inclusive?
Live closed captions can be done with a mix of humans and AI. In some cases a person will re-speak what they hear into the machine, with careful enunciation, so the AI is unlikely to mess up. You could also generate captions using a human steno typist, they are supposed to hit 200 wpm.
All of this is more expensive than just having someone on camera. Also, your proposed measures are dependent on the broadcaster(s). Having someone on camera greatly simplifies things for everyone.
>Live closed captions can be done with a mix of humans and AI. In some cases a person will re-speak what they hear into the machine, with careful enunciation, so the AI is unlikely to mess up. You could also generate captions using a human steno typist, they are supposed to hit 200 wpm.
All of this is more expensive than just having someone on camera. Also, your proposed measures are dependent on the broadcaster(s). Having someone on camera greatly simplifies things for everyone.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's a performative virtue signalling thing. I have to watch a lot of random videos of talks about one thing or another, and the ones that are concerned with victimhood in some way (race, disability, gender stuff etc) are much more likely to have a sign language interpreter because it aligns with those particular politics.
More options
Because believe it or not sign language can convey tone-of-voice whereas captioning cannot. Also, they use sign language to translate live events that aren't pre-scripted, auto captioning is getting better but it's not as good as a live translator.
I don't know where the drama is in this post or what you were hoping for..
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this comment ♻
Sign language is the primary language of a very small group of people. Many deaf or hard of hearing people don't use it at all. Captions are also beneficial to anyone watching, while signs will be meaningless to most.
Live closed captions can be done with a mix of humans and AI. In some cases a person will re-speak what they hear into the machine, with careful enunciation, so the AI is unlikely to mess up. You could also generate captions using a human steno typist, they are supposed to hit 200 wpm.
Fuck robots, why do you hate deaf people so much that you want to take away their only jerb?
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this comment ♻
You need to be hearing to serve as a sign language translator. Reducing the number of hearing jobs will help increase equity for the deaf community.
What are all the deaf translators supposed to do for work then? They'll be reduced to begging for change on the subways.
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this comment ♻
They can translate the onscreen subtitles into sign language, obviously.
Fuck subtitles man it's not the way to the future. We need more deaf translators one for each language and one for each gender. I want to see the politician in the little box at the bottom corner of the screen and the rest of the screen be full of sign language translators.
Unless you hate being inclusive?
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this comment ♻
More options
More options
More options
More options
More options
All of this is more expensive than just having someone on camera. Also, your proposed measures are dependent on the broadcaster(s). Having someone on camera greatly simplifies things for everyone.
Sorry sweaty it looks superficially woke so I don't like it.
More options
More options
More options
Closed captioning absolutely can. Just look at their faces
I'm a professional ASL translator why are you trying to put me out of work?
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this comment ♻
Oh I’m sorry I didn’t realize you were handi-abled! My apologies, blessed one,I have submitted my virtue report. It won’t happen again
Haha I totally lied you are a retard! Gotcha!
♻ Please consider the environment before printing this comment ♻
More options
More options
You ask minors for their age sex and location online? Are you CHris ahansens?
More options
More options
More options
More options
For the live audience
More options
It's a flashier display of sensitivity
More options
Live closed captioning? Are you rslured? Automatic translations are notoriously inaccurate.
Everything i post is a piece of creative writing
More options
You realize that live closed captioning was mostly done by humans right?
More options
Zoom's auto closed captioning is great if the speaker isnt gargling a dick. Maybe you're a boomer
Imagine translating nog speak
More options
More options
More options
Cause yanks are fucking stupid and the assumption is that most can't read
More options
It’s performative
More options
Anybody else find sign language to be highly erotic?
More options
More options