Pictures and Videos for R&P

[Blackhawk]

That I agree with. I just think we should be hunting the actual witches and not just everyone with a wart. We're starting to get a little Salemy.

[Kraken]

Again, it's negative space - many people (including me) see the black pattern, not the white. Even now, knowing it's there, I have to unfocus my eyes and squint to see it.

But you are not a paid editor. Let's ask Kraken.

Ha. I'm a word nerd, not graphics or layout; I didn't notice a swastika until you guys pointed it out.

[Max Peck]

Clearly the NYT editor responsible for swastika filtering was distracted by their need to decide whether or not Hanukkah was a sufficiently significant day that they needed to manipulate that day's Wordle to mark the event.

Which they did, by the way. The Wordle on Dec 18 was TAPER, which is a type of candle.

[LordMortis]

Ha. I'm a word nerd, not graphics or layout; I didn't notice a swastika until you guys pointed it out.

Well then. There we go.

[Unagi]

Or they didn't recognize the symbol. Again,

wait, let me fix that for you...

Or they didn't recognize the symbol again.

Maybe just have the editor ONLY look for just one single symbol. Literally make a swastika check, before it's signed off... 1) how hard is that, and 2) they seem to fall victim to this time and time again... so either it's worth looking for or they actually are fine with it.

[Blackhawk]

Or maybe treat rare random occurrences as rare random occurrences rather than trying to give them meaning. It's Jesus on the french toast, a pattern that just happened to show up the way patterns sometimes do. Monkeys, typewriters, etc.

[Unagi]

OK, but the creation of a crossword puzzle is comparably really quite deliberate - and it's not subject to the random nature of toast being browned but rather to the direct design of a couple of humans.

[Unagi]

The monkeys/typewriters story is a story about the approach to infinity, not about a daily crossword.

[noxiousdog]

Or maybe treat rare random occurrences as rare random occurrences rather than trying to give them meaning. It's Jesus on the french toast, a pattern that just happened to show up the way patterns sometimes do. Monkeys, typewriters, etc.

I'm almost always on today dude of the argument, but in a time where folks are sneaking in racism and anti-semitism in wherever they can, I can't accept that running an obvious swastika on the first day of Hanukkah is a coincidence. Further, the new York times was so tone deaf in their response, really makes me question the circle of folks involved.

[noxiousdog]

OK, but the creation of a crossword puzzle is comparably really quite deliberate - and it's not subject to the random nature of toast being browned but rather to the direct design of a couple of humans.

As of 2018 (perhaps it's changed) user submissions are used and evaluated by the new York times puzzle editing staff.

So, the most likely situation is some anti-Semite asked them to publish it on Hanukkah and sneaked it by the staff.

[Carpet_pissr]

OK, but the creation of a crossword puzzle is comparably really quite deliberate - and it's not subject to the random nature of toast being browned but rather to the direct design of a couple of humans.

As of 2018 (perhaps it's changed) user submissions are used and evaluated by the new York times puzzle editing staff.

So, the most likely situation is some anti-Semite asked them to publish it on Hanukkah and sneaked it by the staff.

That sounds reasonable, and more likely (to me) than a staff member or editor doing this intentionally.

[LawBeefaroni]

Or maybe treat rare random occurrences as rare random occurrences rather than trying to give them meaning. It's Jesus on the french toast, a pattern that just happened to show up the way patterns sometimes do. Monkeys, typewriters, etc.

The difference between the NYT crossword and a random pattern on toast or monkeys on typewriters is that the latter aren't published by the New York Times.

It's perfectly reasonable to criticize the NYT for missing this. Doesn't necessarily mean it was intentional or malicious but it was poor editorial control.

[Unagi]

OK, but the creation of a crossword puzzle is comparably really quite deliberate - and it's not subject to the random nature of toast being browned but rather to the direct design of a couple of humans.

As of 2018 (perhaps it's changed) user submissions are used and evaluated by the new York times puzzle editing staff.

So, the most likely situation is some anti-Semite asked them to publish it on Hanukkah and sneaked it by the staff.

Yeah, I can see that being the case for sure.

[Blackhawk]

I can't accept that running an obvious swastika on the first day of Hanukkah is a coincidence.

And that is, I think, where the argument lies. It isn't an obvious swastika. It is a pattern in which a portion sort of matches a swastika. Is it so impossible that in hundreds of symmetrical patterns that they publish every year that occasionally one is going to match a fairly simple geometric form? (Yes, simple - when you're talking radial symmetry, a swastika is just an 'L'.) Again, we're back at Jesus on french toast and reading tea leaves. People are finding patterns that are similar to something that they know and are insisting that it is both the thing that it matches and has meaning. Further, they're insisting that it must be deliberate because other, similar things have been deliberate. Here is the whole pattern they posted:



If that's an intentional swastika, it's a pretty awful one - that's only vaguely how a swastika is shaped, and even then only if you ignore most of the rest of the pattern. Or here, go look at more of the designer's themeless puzzles and tell me that he couldn't have designed that by accident. Here are a few:







And the offender:



It's consistent with the style and design of many of his others. It isn't so far from the possibility of it being coincidental that it's enough to demonize organizations/end careers over. Like I said, it's become a witch hunt.

[YellowKing]

Yeah I'm with Blackhawk on this one. I do a LOT of puzzles, I've been subscribed to Games magazine and other puzzle books since I was a teenager. Crosswords often utilize symmetery and diagonals. Maybe someone should have noticed it, but hindsight's 20/20. I wouldn't have noticed it.

[pr0ner]

I'm also with Blackhawk on this.

[Alefroth]

Since we seem to be taking sides, I'm not with Blackhawk on this. It was immediately obvious to me, but I'm not with noxiousdog either.

The fourth puzzle is clearly different from the first three, as in the first three don't contain swastikas.

[Blackhawk]

Since we seem to be taking sides, I'm not with Blackhawk on this. It was immediately obvious to me, but I'm not with noxiousdog either.

The fourth puzzle is clearly different from the first three, as in the first three don't contain swastikas.

And the first three cups of tea didn't have the image of a giant dog in the leaves. That doesn't mean that the image of the giant dog in the fourth meant something - unless you're Harry Potter.

Yes, the last puzzle looked somewhat like a swastika. A distorted, crooked one (a crooked crooked cross?) with shortened arms and extra parts sticking out the ends, but you can see it in there. That doesn't make it meaningful, nor does it make it obvious*, nor does it make it slipping past the editor's notice an evil act of Nazis. They designer took a pattern that was similar to any number of patterns he'd used before in crosswords (that he said reminded of him a swirl) and added a few lines to make that swirl larger. He didn't notice that the interior half could be interpreted differently, and now people are after his head for it (his name has been published repeatedly - and likely with the original - so I can only imagine the kind of blowback he's getting from this.)

*Some people see it immediately, some people do not, and that's after it's been pointed out that it's there. That's not any definition of objectively 'obvious.'

In the end, it comes down to this: When people are going to suffer as a result of your judgment, you make absolutely certain that your judgment is correct. Otherwise you're the one that's in the wrong, you're the one who's doing harm.

[Alefroth]

*Some people see it immediately, some people do not, and that's after it's been pointed out that it's there. That's not any definition of objectively 'obvious.'

That's why I said to me. And as I said, I don't think it was intentional and I don't think anyone should get in trouble for it. I do think it should have been caught, though.

Fwiw, I showed both the puzzle and the bare image to my wife, and she didn't see swastikas at first in either.

I wonder if the puzzle is printed in Germany and if it would run afoul of their Nazi symbol ban.

[YellowKing]

I've mentioned it here before in this forum, I'll mention it again. The best piece of advice I ever got from our health equity director (who literally teaches this stuff day in and day out) is "Always assume best intent." This is from someone whose entire job is to recognize inequality and inequity in professional environments, and even he does not throw the first stone when he recognizes something that could be construed as offensive.

For fun, I dug up an old 2019 interview with Ryan McCarty (the puzzle's creator). In the interview he stated that as a member of the LGBTQ community he liked to put in clues that reflected the interests of marginalized groups, and was always careful not to put in controversial/offensive terms. Sounds like a real Nazi.

[Alefroth]

I think the number of people who think Ryan McCarty is a Nazi is being inflated.

[Isgrimnur]

Won't someone think of the Nazis?

[Unagi]

I would say that regardless of the intent vs random nature of it - the NYT should perhaps have someone look for the pattern. Especially if it is so easily the result of a simple approach to making symmetry in the puzzle design.

I’m not sure any nazi was involved. I’m just thinking it’s an easy thing for the NYT to put a check on. Just the one symbol.

Personally, it stood out to my eye, so I’ll admit I would be biased toward thinking there was some ‘blind eye’ involved somewhere. But I wouldn’t insist.

[Max Peck]

I would say that regardless of the intent vs random nature of it - the NYT should perhaps have someone look for the pattern. Especially if it is so easily the result of a simple approach to making symmetry in the puzzle design.

I’m not sure any nazi was involved. I’m just thinking it’s an easy thing for the NYT to put a check on. Just the one symbol.

I'm inclined to agree with this take. This isn't the first time that the NYT has had to weather a backlash for this very thing. Corporations generally don't like bad PR, so it would have been reasonable for them to ensure that it didn't happen again. Publishing a visually swastikesque puzzle at all, let alone during Hanukkah, seems like a self-own when the outcome is entirely predictable.

I'll spare you a numerological analysis of 14 down, but rest assured I could make hay with it if I wanted to add fuel to the fire.

[Holman]

I'm sure this point has been made already, but the occasional swastika-adjacent suggestion isn't unlikely in a square, mostly open grid pattern that favors bilateral and quadrilateral symmetry. The symbol itself is pretty basic: four crossed right angles. You're going to get that every now and then if you're not careful.

Moreover, I find it really hard to believe that anyone involved in the NYT puzzle section is interested in promoting Nazi symbols. The puzzle barely reaches any audience beyond New Yorkers themselves, and most of the print-edition subscribers are unlikely to be enthralled by the sudden and hidden appearance of a feisty meme. (see: my 85-year-old mother-in-law)

I think they just stepped on a rake.

[Max Peck]

I just figure that it is, or should be, in their job descriptions to avoid stepping on rakes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Carpet_pissr]

I just figure that it is, or should be, in their job descriptions to avoid stepping on rakes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It might be. But even then, sometimes you still step on a rake.

[Max Peck]

I just figure that it is, or should be, in their job descriptions to avoid stepping on rakes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It might be. But even then, sometimes you still step on a rake.

If you do step on a rake, but your job description states Thou shall refrain from rake-stepping, then criticism of your job performance is fair game and perfectly reasonable. Well, perfectly reasonable by random internet commentary standards.

[stimpy]

As my publicist once said, "People will see what they want to see".

[Blackhawk]

The rakes are all camouflaged, and tossed into a pile shovels and push brooms. The best you could hope for in a job description is, "minimize rake-stepping." Abstract patterns that are open to interpretation means that sometimes, things are going to slip through. The gap of human error is just too big in this situation.

As I said earlier, the only really practical answer would be a pattern recognition algorithm. Just pass anything to be published past it and check anything that it flags.

[Max Peck]

For this sort of thing the best pattern matching algorithm is a discerning human eye, plugged into a brain that pays attention to the pertinent details. Seeing the alleged pattern isn't all that difficult for someone that has an aptitude for it even if it seems difficult for others who don't.

Maybe the NYT just needs to assign an editor who has a knack for looking at clouds and seeing dragons and dolphins and Imperial Star Destroyers.

[naednek]

so at page 250 can we get back to pictures and videos?

[LawBeefaroni]

NYT has received shit for this before and it is clearly not a good look for them. Unfair as that may be, it is in their interest to look out for things like this. It is a good business decision to avoid in the future. It is not a political or "woke" decision.

[LawBeefaroni]

so at page 250 can we get back to pictures and videos?

A community member at a rally opposing Iranian government human rights abuses in downtown Minneapolis, MN on December 17, 2022.

[Alefroth]

Too soon.

[Max Peck]

so at page 250 can we get back to pictures and videos?

Is there a separate thread where we discuss the pictures and videos posted in this thread? If not, should there be?

Obligatory picture:

[naednek]

so at page 250 can we get back to pictures and videos?

Is there a separate thread where we discuss the pictures and videos posted in this thread? If not, should there be?

Obligatory picture:

in the past when a discussion stems from a picture or video it tends to be created to a dedicated thread in the spirit of keeping this thread about pictures and video.

[Max Peck]

Fair enough. In this case, I really don't think anybody expected a discussion about phantom imagery in a crossword puzzle to be something that would have legs enough to warrant its own thread. It just sort of happened.

Anyway, onwards to page 250.

Obligatory image:

[naednek]

Fair enough. In this case, I really don't think anybody expected a discussion about phantom imagery in a crossword puzzle to be something that would have legs enough to warrant its own thread. It just sort of happened.

Anyway, onwards to page 250.

Obligatory image:

I was halfway joking. My scrolling finger wasn't

[Blackhawk]

For this sort of thing the best pattern matching algorithm is a discerning human eye, plugged into a brain that pays attention to the pertinent details. Seeing the alleged pattern isn't all that difficult for someone that has an aptitude for it even if it seems difficult for others who don't.

Maybe the NYT just needs to assign an editor who has a knack for looking at clouds and seeing dragons and dolphins and Imperial Star Destroyers.

That's the problem - if there's one cloud, one person sees a dragon, and another sees a star destroyer. And now we're back to finding someone with an aptitude - IE, a dedicated employee just to check crosswords for something that happens every three years. With a computer-based solution, they could also pass images, advertising, and so forth through it. If YouTube can automatically check every video uploaded against every copyrighted piece of music ever written, a NYT computer can check for swastikas (and valknuts, and whatever.)