Connect with us


New Jane Goodall documentary fills in some blanks left by an earlier biopic



Enlarge / Dr. Jane Goodall walking with local villagers and staff members of TACARE, one of the many programs of the Jane Goodall Institute.

A few years ago, National Geographic released a beautifully filmed biopic called Jane on famed primatologist Jane Goodall. The film helped explain how someone with no scientific experience ended up in Africa studying chimpanzees in the hope it would shed light on the origins of human behavior. But, despite a compelling story and restored archival footage, Jane seemed incomplete. While it told the story of how Goodall ended up both a scientist and a public figure, the scenes of her in the present day (to the extent pre-2017 resembles the present day) show that she’s left her research behind to become an advocate for conservation.

How she went from the researcher shown in Jane to the head of an international non-profit was left as an exercise to the viewer to figure out. So, I was excited to see that National Geographic had a follow-up documentary, Jane Goodall: The Hope, in the works. What follows is part review and part interview with Goodall.

For me, the hope was that The Hope would trace how Goodall managed the transition from researcher to international environmental advocate. Instead, the film simply gives a picture of what her life is like today, moving among her projects and following her hectic travel schedule. In that sense, the two documentaries act more like bookends on her career.

The Hope seems to be very conscious of its role as a potential closing chapter. There are several moments when either Goodall or those close to her talk about how she can’t keep up her present pace forever, and there’s one point when Goodall considers her own death. But in our conversation, she was anything but ready to stop. “There may be another phase [in my career], you never know,” she told Ars. And she was anxious to talk about upcoming projects, like a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the start of her research at Gombe National Park.

The film is sprinkled with lots of projects she’s involved in now, which operate under the umbrella of the Jane Goodall Institute. The Hope shows a number of these: her Roots and Shoots program for young people, a sanctuary for orphaned chimps, and a hectic speaking schedule that keeps her traveling nearly constantly. We asked Goodall about how she chose which projects she got involved with, but she said, “I don’t know that I do really choose—the Institute chooses many.” Those choices included the documentary itself, as Goodall admitted, “I wasn’t anxious to do another, but the Institute was.”

Goodall made clear, however, that that sort of structure was essential, as she felt that “there are so many things I need to help with.” As a result, she said there are now 24 national Jane Goodall Institutes, and 64 countries have a chapter of her Roots and Shoots program. We get to see her talking to Roots and Shoots members in the UK and Tanzania during the documentary, but the full scope of its activities aren’t apparent.

Roots and Shoots also plays a practical role: Goodall says the programs have planted as many as 4.5 million trees each year, which more than offsets the carbon emissions of her heavy travel schedule. We see a bit of that travel during The Hope and get a few incidental tips from Goodall on how to manage traveling light. She keeps it up because she feels a personal appeal can work for both general audiences and the business and political leaders that she wants as allies in her conservation efforts. When asked about the importance of reaching these different audiences, she told Ars, “I think we need to take every avenue we can,” and “We’re in such a mess with the climate crisis that I think [appealing to] both are important.”

“Why do they love me… ?”

The fact that she can make effective appeals to both leaders and the public in so many countries is astonishing, given the cultural differences in humanity’s approach to conservation. Goodall herself seems perplexed by it, saying, “I sometimes ask myself that—why do they love me in China, Malaysia, America, and the UAE?” The possible answers she shared during the interview—”The message about the chimpanzees appeals to everyone” and “I think people respect that I’m honest”—seem reasonable but fall short of explaining the thunderous applause she receives after some of her public talks.

Her family also makes some appearances in the documentary: a shared family home in the UK, and grandchildren in Africa. But, at least as edited into the film, her family members seem to view her with the same sort of respect that her collaborators do. If you go into the film hoping to learn more about her personal relationships, you’re not going to come away with much.

So, what are we to make of this series of partial glimpses into the life of one of the globe’s foremost primatologists and conservationists? The Hope isn’t very good at explaining how all of the structure that’s built around Goodall and enables her to have an impact came to be or presently operates. Neither does it explore any of her relationships in the sort of depth that would help us better understand what makes her tick—in many of ways, I felt I got more out of my 20-minute interview with her.

Among the things that jumped out at me during that interview: “I just go on being me and doing the best I can.” Being her, for Goodall, means that when she sees an issue that she cares about, she tries to solve it, and is genuinely hopeful that it can be solved. In her words, “Hope is probably the best way to combat what’s happening.”

When asked how she maintains that hope with a pandemic sweeping the world, she deferred to others: “If the doctors and nurse who are struggling to treat patients—if they didn’t believe their efforts would produce results, they wouldn’t bother to be there, would they?”

If you’re ready to share some of your social distancing time with someone who shares that belief, Jane Goodall: the Hope will be on the National Geographic Channel and streaming on Disney Plus.

Continue Reading


Patent detects in-game “collusion” by tracking “external connections”



Enlarge / Call it a hunch, but something tells me these two players are working together…

Do you ever feel like your opponents in a free-for-all online game are trying to get you, specifically? It might not just be paranoia; it might be collusion among your opponents. And in a newly published patent, Electronic Arts details some potential tools and data points—both inside and outside the game—that it could use to detect and root out this unfair practice.

EA’s simply titled “Detecting Collusion in Online Games” patent, published earlier this month, defines collusion as when two or more players/groups that are “intended to be opponents” instead “contribute to a common cause” to “gain an unfair advantage” over others. In battle royale shooter, for instance, a small group of players communicating outside the game could stay together and gain a decided firepower advantage against their single opponents.

Many of the patent’s potential methods for discovering this kind of collusion use simple and obvious in-game data. If two or more ostensibly opposed players or teams show abnormal amounts of “time spent in proximity… without engagement,” for instance, there’s a good chance they’re working together. Even if those players show some cursory opposition at points, metrics like damage per second can be compared with the average to see if this is just opposition “for appearance sake.”

Dropping items that another team or player consistently picks up is another potential sign of collusion, as is the same player or players showing up on opposing teams consistently in match after match. Colluding players may also tend to finish in similar ranked positions during their matches, especially “once the unfair advantage provided by colluding is nullified” as some of the colluding players are eliminated.

Big Brother is watching (for collusion)

Beyond easy-to-detect in-game data, though, EA’s patent details other signs of collusion that can be gleaned from things like “social relationships and communications” and “third-party system connections and interactions” outside the game. That kind of data ranges from simple relationships like a “friends list” provided by the gaming platform to completely external relationships like “social media connection data.”

The patent mentions “a cross team shared community metric” that counts “the number of group or community memberships… where players from both teams are members.” Things like “the number of posts by a player in a particular community” shared with another player could also signify potential collusion.

Just some of the internal and external factors that EAs patented method could use to detect collusion among players.
Enlarge / Just some of the internal and external factors that EAs patented method could use to detect collusion among players.

Even “the content of extra-game communication” could be fed into the algorithm, according to the patent, such as “messages to a forum which players from both teams are participating.” A “machine learning algorithm” could be used to glean any collusion-related context from this kind of out-of-game communication, or a simple keyword search could be used, according to the patent.

To be clear, the patent is upfront in saying that any player data used in any of these detection algorithms “would be in compliance with privacy policies that respect players’ privacy, and in accordance with player privacy settings or preferences.” That said, there’s something a little Big Brother-y about the prospect of a publisher like EA scanning your Twitter posts and Reddit community memberships to see if you’re trying to coordinate cheating in their online game.

Then again, in a world where players will go to extreme lengths to hide their cheating using external devices, maybe this kind of external social graph analysis is needed to root out some of the worst colluders (or at least some of the least-careful ones).
In any case, having a patented design doesn’t mean EA is (or ever will) use this kind of system in the wild. For now, it’s just an interesting look at how one company is thinking about potential ways to detect the human side of online cheating as well as the technical side.

Continue Reading


Report: FTC “likely” to file suit to block Microsoft/Activision merger



Enlarge / Just a few of the Activision franchises that will become Microsoft properties if and when the acquisition is finalized.

Microsoft / Activision

The Federal Trade Commission will “likely” move to file an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft and Activision Blizzard to block the companies’ planned $69 billion merger deal. That’s according to a new Politico report citing “three [unnamed] people with knowledge of the matter.”

While Politico writes that a lawsuit is still “not guaranteed,” it adds that FTC staffers “are skeptical of the companies’ arguments” that the deal will not be anticompetitive. The sources also confirmed that “much of the heavy lifting is complete” in the commission’s investigation, and that a suit could be filed as early as next month.

Sony, the main opponent of Microsoft’s proposed purchase, has argued publicly that an existing contractual three-year guarantee to keep Activision’s best-selling Call of Duty franchise on PlayStation is “inadequate on many levels.” In response, Microsoft Head of Xbox Phil Spencer has publicly promised to continue shipping Call of Duty games on PlayStation “as long as there’s a PlayStation out there to ship to.” It’s not clear if the companies have memorialized that offer as a legal agreement, though; The New York Times reported this week that Microsoft had offered a “10-year deal to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation.”

Numerous statements from Microsoft executives, including Spencer, have suggested the company is less interested in bolstering its position in the “console wars” and more interested in boosting its mobile, cloud gaming, and Game Pass subscription offerings. Beyond Call of Duty, Politico reports that the FTC is concerned over how Microsoft “could leverage future, unannounced titles to boost its gaming business.”

Microsoft “is prepared to address the concerns of regulators, including the FTC, and Sony to ensure the deal closes with confidence,” spokesperson David Cuddy told Politico. “We’ll still trail Sony and Tencent in the market after the deal closes, and together Activision and Xbox will benefit gamers and developers and make the industry more competitive.”

Plenty of speed bumps remain

The reports of a potential FTC lawsuit add to a growing list of troubling signals about the proposed purchase from various international governments. Earlier this month, the European Commission said it was moving on to an “in-depth investigation” of the deal. In the UK, a similar “Phase 2” investigation by the country’s Competition and Markets Authority has scheduled hearing for next month.

Those international investigations are expected to wrap up in March, ensuring the proposed deal won’t close before then and giving the FTC some time before it would have to file suit. Any such lawsuit would need to be approved by a majority of the four current FTC commissioners and would likely start in the FTC’s administrative court. And whatever the outcome, legal maneuvering in the case could easily delay the planned merger past a July 2023 contractual deadline, at which point both companies would have to renegotiate or abandon the deal.

An FTC lawsuit in this matter would also be a the strongest sign yet of a robust antitrust enforcement regime under FTC chair Lina Kahn, a big tech skeptic who was named to the post in June. Back in July, Kahn announced an antitrust lawsuit against Meta (formerly Facebook) and its proposed $400 million purchase of Within, makers of VR fitness app Supernatural.

Three months after Microsoft’s proposed purchase was announced in January, a group of four US Senators wrote an open letter strongly urging the FTC to take a close look at the deal. Last month, merger news site Dealreporter said FTC staff had expressed “significant concerns” about the deal. And this week, the New York Times cited “two people” in reporting that the FTC had reached out to other companies for sworn statements laying out their concerns about the deal, a possible sign of lawsuit preparations.

Continue Reading


Crypto and NFTs aren’t welcome in Grand Theft Auto Online



Enlarge / Cold hard (virtual) cash only in GTA Online, please.

Cryptocurrencies and NFTs have been formally disallowed from Grand Theft Auto Online‘s popular role-playing (RP) servers. That’s according to a new set of guidelines posted on Rockstar’s support site last Friday.

In the note, the game’s publisher says its new RP server rules are aligned with Rockstar’s existing rules for single-player mods. Both sets of rules prohibit content that uses third-party intellectual property, interferes with official multiplayer services, or makes new “games, stories, missions or maps” for the game. This means RP servers based on re-creating Super Mario Kart in the Grand Theft Auto world, for instance, could face “priority in enforcement actions” from Rockstar.

But the new RP guidelines surpass the existing single-player mod guidelines in barring “commercial exploitation.” That’s a wide-ranging term that Rockstar says specifically includes selling loot boxes, virtual currencies, corporate sponsorships, or any integrations of cryptocurrencies of “crypto assets (e.g. ‘NFTs’).”

It’s all been done before

The new guidelines seem to directly respond to “The Trenches,” a role-playing community launched in September by OTF Gaming and rapper Lil Durk. That server advertised integration with both “endemic and non-endemics brands in the gaming space” and a “Trenches Pass” NFT drop to access specific on-server content.

“We’ve been asked to cease all operations of Trenches,” OTF Gaming said in a statement on social media. “We have no choice but to comply with their demands, as we intend to do right by Take-Two and Rockstar. We will be working with them to find an amicable solution to this matter.”

If this situation sounds familiar, it might be because developer Mojang similarly barred NFT integration from its online servers in July. At the time, Minecraft-based crypto project NFT Worlds said it was hoping to work with Mojang to “find an alternative outcome that’s beneficial to the Minecraft player base.”

Days later, though, NFT Worlds said it gave up on that and began work on a new game that will be “based on many of the core mechanics of Minecraft” but which will be “completely untethered from the policy enforcement Microsoft and Mojang have over Minecraft.”

In Minecraft‘s case, Mojang said that the “scarcity and exclusion” inherent to NFTs “does not align with Minecraft values of creative inclusion and playing together.” That reasoning applies less to GTA Online, though, a game that rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars annually by selling in-game currency and exclusive items for use by players.

If anything, things like NFTs and loot boxes could be seen as competition for GTA Online‘s official monetization efforts. With that competition cut off, though, Rockstar sounds eager to allow RP servers to continue to operate within reason.

“Rockstar Games has always believed in reasonable fan creativity and wants creators to showcase their passion for our games,” the company writes. “Third-party ‘Roleplay’ servers are an extension of the rich array of community-created experiences within Grand Theft Auto that we hope will continue to thrive in a safe and friendly way for many years to come.”

Continue Reading