0
BringTheCat789 0 points ago +1 / -1

Haha. You haven't working in a corporate environment, have you?

2
BringTheCat789 2 points ago +2 / -0

I know what's being said. Multiple people have linked me the same Andrew Tate video and I have watched it. In addition to browsing here.

My paraphrasing of what is being said is just me poking fun, not me not actually understanding.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why do you think the people "in power" have direct oversight over Balenciaga ad campaigns?

Do you really think they are constantly keeping tabs on that?

0
BringTheCat789 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm not ignoring the obvious pedophilia inherent in the ad. That's what makes it a viral marketing campaign.

I'm not arguing it's not evil. I'm only arguing it's likely not some weird retribution to Satan or whatever ya'll are saying.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +3 / -2

Never once did I say it was random. Someone clearly did it intentionally. The question is who that person was, who else knew about it, and, most importantly, why they did it.

0
BringTheCat789 0 points ago +2 / -2

That's a hilarious stretch. These people don't believe in any higher power than themselves.

2
BringTheCat789 2 points ago +2 / -0

All of those things have actual motive. Moreover, I believe there are two types of conspiracies:

  1. Where things are set in motion and loosely guided by those in power. But a crucial part of propaganda is the general public accepting it and spreading it in their own forms. Not everyone who spreads propaganda is "in on it." The vast majority aren't.

  2. Where something happens, and then those in power control the narrative around it. We see this a lot, for example, with shootings. I don't believe many shootings are explicitly staged. It's far easier to wait for a shootings to happen, then broadcast the ones that fit your narrative and suppress the ones that don't.

-1
BringTheCat789 -1 points ago +1 / -2

It seems like a viral marketing campaign to me.

It stands to reason that the gross, but obvious, shit was vetted. But the more subtle stuff could have been put in by one person and not directly approved.

Or it was directly approved... as a viral marketing campaign.

I'm not saying it's not evil and disgusting. I'm just saying it's probably not a global sex cabal deciding to come out of the closet to the world like you guys seem to believe.

0
BringTheCat789 0 points ago +2 / -2

Yes, I agree and accept that people are raping kids and murdering them.

The part that doesn't make sense is for the people raping and murdering kids to create an ad with a bunch of weird easter eggs exposing themselves.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +3 / -2

You don't EVER spend millions, let alone hundreds of thousands of dollars on a campaign

First of all, you wrote that backwards.

Secondly, yes you do. You must not understand how corporations work. There is often little oversight and, when there is, it's often a bunch of people who don't care. Middle managers are worthless and they are the "oversight."

A lot of these things are hidden. A court document, a address to a doctor's office with a hilarious name, etc. These things wouldn't be caught by any sort of "oversight." Even when there is oversight, it's not a pixel by pixel analysis. It's a quick look over and a rubberstamp.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't buy that shit. That's not real.

-5
BringTheCat789 -5 points ago +2 / -7

Whoever made this ad is a massive lone troll. Or this is an intentional viral marketing campaign.

I don't buy that the company put this in there in order to send a message to their fellow cult members or whatever you guys think.

by pkvi
1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +2 / -1

To be fair, the industrial revolution and its consequences were a disaster to the human race. Bring back manual farming.

I had no idea that Trudeau subscribed to Ted.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

Local hosting is critical

Yes, and it bothers me how few customers understand it. I believe that the FTC should be enforcing false advertising laws against devices that require a connection to the cloud. Consumers deserve to know before they purchase a product, that their device can be made into a paperweight if/when the company decides to not run the servers or, worse, deem your device too old and artificially stop support for it. It's not enough to just say "requires connection to the internet." This should be as "in your face" as surgeon general warnings are on cigarettes.

Outdoor lights turning on dusk and off at dawn

I can do this, too, with my setup very easily with everything how it is. In fact, this happens in my "vacation mode." But when I am home, I do not want the outside lights on all of the time at night. And I don't like motion sensors because sometimes I want to enjoy the darkness outside.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't think part of what you say is true, deer are known to destroy crops

For one, I wasn't talking exclusively about deer. There are a ton of animals, including fish.

For two, deer are very good at surviving, but if we allowed unlimited hunting, they would go extinct very quickly. Or at least be uncommon enough and not grow mature before being shot. They may destroy crops, but a deer genocide is not the answer.

The balance may be gone in your opinion. And, if you're right, then hunting limitations should be lessened, but not done away with entirely.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

home automation/IoT stuff

My home is very involved with IoT, but I implemented everything with strict rules for myself. 1) Everything has to be locally hosted and 2) Everything has to be able to be intuitively manually controlled. and 3) All of the "smart" components cannot be part of a disposable part (i.e. no smart light bulbs). and 4) The whole system is reasonably reliable and low maintenance

If someone who's never been to my house cannot figure out how to operate everything, then I have failed.

What I've found to work best is these little relays that fit behind the switches in the electrical box. These essentially use the output from the switch as an input to the relay along with information it gets from your smart controller (I use Home Assistant as it can be locally hosted and is open source). You can configure them a variety of ways.

I was originally worried about the "up is on, down is off" mantra being broken, but it really is not a big deal. 3-way switches (where you have one switch on one entrance to a room and a second on the other, both controlling the same light) have been a thing for a long time and they have this problem. So the concept isn't particularly foreign. It's completely intuitive to flip the switch in whichever direction it is not in currently.

You can configure them to turn on and off the light when it sees a state change on the switch (i.e. if you turn the switch on, then turn the light off from your phone, turning the switch "off" will turn the light back on) or you can configure them to always use the switch's actual position (i.e. if you turn the switch on, then turn the light off from your phone, you would have to turn the switch "off" then back "on" for the light to turn on.) This latter method sounds unintuitive to me, so I have never tried it.

The great thing about these relays is that I can use whatever switch I want. I have had dedicated smart switches in the past, too. These kind of suck because they are clicky like a computer mouse instead of definitive like a light switch. I also found them surprisingly unreliable, but that could just be the ones I had.

And the other great thing is they are easily installed in other things that you may want to control. The light above my stove that is integrated into the fan is a good example.

Personally, I have found all of this effort to be far more than a gimmick. Being able to turn off all of the lights in one go from the bed after laying down is very nice. In the past if I left on one light at the end of the house at the night after laying down, I'd just leave it on and deal with the faint light making its way through the house. Being able to set it to randomly turn on lights when I am on vacation provides some degree of peace of mind. I also have it set up to give me alerts if someone turns on a light while I am away (or unlocks a door from the inside, like if they break in through a window, but open the door to walk my stuff out). Not a substitute for a proper alarm system, but it's something.

Another huge benefit is being able to turn on all of my outdoor lights at once. I have it set up that if I double tap my front porch light switch, it turns on all of the outdoor lights, so I don't even need to take out my phone for this feature. Before, to turn on all of these lights, I'd have to go to the front door, the back door, and in the garage to get to all of the physical switches.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, consumer mesh networks have some work, but there is nothing inherent about the concept that makes it a difficulty. With the resources required to develop and implement 5G, developing better local mesh networks would be a cinch.

still will be noticeable by phone user.

Not really. The reason I say this is because phones nowadays suck. It is not uncommon for a phone to enter into a memory loop or some shit and drain the battery so fast the phone gets hot to the touch. A slight increase in idle consumption for a couple days wouldn't be something someone notices. Even if it lasts for weeks. The person would just think they need a new phone or battery.

Consumers nowadays are complicit in their phones sucking. A lot of times they think it's their fault ("I downloaded too many apps") when their phone sucks at doing something it absolutely should be able to do flawlessly.

cloud service

And since so many of these devices are wi-fi based, why bother with the 5G again? If you're relying on consumers buying smart devices with bluetooth in order to have the surveillance chip, then why not just rely on them buying the far more common devices with wi-fi and having them connect to their own network? And not having to worry about rolling a whole new network to spy on people who are already willing to have smart devices in their homes?

None of it makes any sense.

With that said, derailing the conversation a bit, smart devices that require a connection to a cloud service suck. But many smart devices can be connected to the internet, but hosted entirely locally. Personally, I use Home Assistant running on a local server to integrate with all sorts of smart devices, which are all blocked from seeing the internet by my router.

3
BringTheCat789 3 points ago +3 / -0

The nation will exhaust its clean water supply

I'm not buying this. Water is delivered in pipes. And whatever is needed to clean the water that is delivered by truck can surely be delivered by a smaller vehicle in smaller quantities.

Moreover, much of our supply is natural and comes from wells. I'm not sure how a truck is going to stop my well from working. And, even those without wells, can get some water from those who have them, delivered by private vehicles.

The same goes for the rest of this stuff. All the most important stuff will be transported in smaller vehicles and rationed.

This is really more of an infographic if roads were all blocked, not if commercial trucks stopped.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

You talk a lot like someone who knows a little, but wants it to seem like he knows a lot.

Mesh-type networks aren't all that uncommon. And the concept does not have unavoidable problems, there just isn't as much use for the technology as you'd think.

Off the top of my head, Z-Wave is a protocol for IoT devices that can form a mesh network to extend range. Also, electric meters often form a mesh network to communicate power readings back to the electric company.

Your variant lack a feature of real-time surveillance on selected person.

Nope, when you want that real-time surveillance, you just turn it on. Simple. And, per your comments, the real purpose of this isn't "real-time surveillance," it's the backlog to find incriminating shit when someone does something.

Negligible for an appliance

Yes, the average consumer wouldn't notice it. But there are enough consumers that use kill-a-watt style devices that they would notice appliances with a relatively large parasitic draw.

bluetooth

I'm not sure why I didn't call this out before... but why would a tea kettle or dishwasher, even a "smart" one have bluetooth? This shit's wi-fi.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't know of a reliable one that exists now.

Yes, and before 5G came out, was there reliable equipment for a 5G network? Nope. But what you're supposing is that 5G is being implemented for surveillance. That is a monumental task. Coming up with a mesh network is minor compared to that.

video streaming.

This isn't happening. Even your version of events only includes a microphone discreetly hidden inside consumer electronics so even they don't know.

battery for 24/7 audio streaming

It's not bad. You don't stream the audio 24/7, you record it 24/7 and transmit it in packets alongside other data. Nobody would notice.

If it takes a meaningful amount of power, it would be noticed pretty readily even in electronics plugged into the wall.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

Now, in your example of making the certified module complete with a microphone and communication to 5G/4G, literally what is complicated about also having a miniature network to communicate with nearby devices and negotiate which one will actually communicate with 4G/5G. LOL. It's not complicated at all if you're going to that length anyway.

And, let's be real, I thought the goal was to target more conscious people who aren't willing to buy smart home devices to begin with. Now you're relying on everyone being surveilled to willingly by a bluetooth compatible tea kettle? LOL

Especially when you consider that everyone already has a phone on their person all the damn time. The people who are conscious enough to remove the battery or leave their phone behind when discussing incriminating matters are also conscious enough to not buy smart god damn tea kettles.

3
BringTheCat789 3 points ago +3 / -0

I haven't the slightest desire to smoke Marijuana, or sell it. But I have a huge desire to grow it, just because I'm told I cannot.

As far as a license to fish or hunt, I hate that concept, but I also recognize it is a necessary evil, especially bag/tag limits. Without them, the local population of edible species goes to nothing, and what does remain never gets big.

1
BringTheCat789 1 point ago +1 / -0

it would get complicated

But no less complicated than implementing surveillance into every device.

view more: Next ›