AI
I was mostly referring to machine learning. The semantics of what constitutes "AI" isn't in the scope of this discussion.
4G can't handle constant surveillance streams
Well, it depends what kind of surveillance we're talking about. It absolutely could handle compressed audio from a mic in every room of every household with room to spare. Audio, especially when compressed, takes so little bandwidth, and is still immensely effective for surveillance.
It is not intended for wide constant processing, it will be stored in archives for some time.
How will it be stored? Where will it be stored? That is an astronomical amount of data. We do not have that much storage. Either it's heavily compressed and audio only and we have enough storage space for it (and already have enough bandwidth for it) or it's big enough to require 5G to facilitate, and we don't have enough storage space for it.
RF lesson
Yep, I agree. The RF isn't dangerous to us.
So, just so I'm clear, your concern with 5G is that it has enough bandwidth to support more surveillance? As in, you don't really have problems with 5G, but you have problems with surveillance and think 5G will better facilitate that?
I don't really agree with this argument. As you said, we're still not using 4G fully, so, if they wanted to do surveillance, why wouldn't they have maxed this out yet?
Moreover, there is diminishing returns on surveillance. Even with AI, trying to process it all in any meaningful way is futile if you have so damn much data.
It uses same bands and same power.
Not really true, but your conclusion that it doesn't affect humans any differently than 4G or 3G is true, so I have no reason to correct you.
The only problem with 5G is continuing access to the internet.
If you're against 5G, without being against the internet (and its resulting globalism), then you're missing the point.
5G is not giving you cancer. 5G is not mind control devices (well, it is, but that's because the internet itself is. 5G is just a more efficient way of accessing the internet).
It amazes me what you could "get away" with saying on Reddit just a few short years ago. It used to be libertarian minded. Sure, some subreddits would ban you for anything and everything, but site-wide bans were incredibly rare.
You used to be able to say "nigger" without issue as much as you want.
Why would anyone follow a politician's Twitter account whose tweets are just various vetted bits published by a PR firm that works for that politician?
I can see following politicians, even those who you disagree with, who actually tweet. I want to hear what they have to say directly; that's the whole point of that shit platform.
They're desperate to pump their number of "real users" up, so they're really going to punish lurkers.
Speaking of punishing lurkers, do you know what pisses me off more than anything? Reddit has a perfectly functional mobile app. It works great. But they artificially limit it extensively to force you to download their app. That's such fucking bullshit. I'm willing to see ads and what not for a "free" service; but the only reason to get me to download an app is for nefarious reasons like spamming my notifications, getting me more "hooked" by making me "commit" storage space, tracking me, etc.
The funniest thing about the "Russian election interference" story is that, even if true (it is true, it's just a matter of what degree it's true), all it was is Russians putting out "propaganda" literally in the forms of memes. It's not like they are accused of doing anything illegal.
And it's propaganda that particularly resonates with people and gets them to share it. Propaganda the people would have created by themselves if left alone. All the Russians did, as accused, was help by making funny memes. This differs from the more traditional type of propaganda where you put something in the public's faces so relentlessly that they start to accept it.
And it's crazy to me that stopping this is even viewed as acceptable. Freedom of speech is an unalienable right granted to every man by his Creator, and merely guaranteed by the US constitution. As such, it applies to every man, regardless of citizenship. The US Government has no right to stop a person's speech just because he's Russian and he's talking about a US election.
Lending out more than you have was started by the Jews.
You can't lend out more than the overall supply
LMAO. You need to read up on Judaism.
There is nothing stopping Coinbase from printing more IOUs than they have in BTC. There's nothing stopping them from printing more IOUs than there are Bitcoin that exist.
This is the power that banks and CEXs wield. By printing out more IOUs, they are essentially creating new BTC even though that is not possible. These IOUs serve as BTC in and of themselves, and therefore affect the supply in the context of valuing the crypto currency on the free market.
This becomes a problem if too many people try to exchange their IOUs for the real thing at once (a bank run). Or if people find out you're doing this.
This is all completely irrespective of the actual cryptocurrency. You can do this with literally anything, but is especially doable with currency where people don't actually want the thing physically, they just want it in their name.
What happened to the old "the right doesn't care about a baby's life after it leaves the womb"? Shouldn't the right not be caring about the baby formula shortage, then?
It's almost like that argument was just retarded.
See, this is the whole rub with crypto. It is complicated. I'm a technical person, and I go to great lengths to understand the concepts. But I've noticed that even seasoned crypto investors will have major misconceptions or gaps in their knowledge about crypto. Things that actually matter to them, too, not just semantics.
And the only way for it to see mass adoption is by "middlemen" making it easier to use. This is what CEXs are. But the existence of CEXs destroy the decentralization of it all, even for people who don't use the CEX.
Everyone who has bitcoin on Coinbase really just has an IOU for bitcoin that Coinbase owns. What do you think happens when/if Coinbase starts giving out more IOUs than they own in Bitcoin? This is essentially printing Bitcoins.
With traditional banks, there are laws that regulate this. There cannot be such laws in crypto.
I'm just gonna live my life. lmao. maybe go kayaking later, lol.
This is a great way to destroy a brand. The people in charge of this, are not looking at the numbers to see if this type of ad does well for a brand. They're not playing 4D chess and just trying to get their name in the news for controversy. Instead, these people with online marketing degrees are diversity hires and are doing this kind of thing because they want to push it. They might have some non-sense data to get it through higher ups, but the reality is that the higher-ups feel like they cannot say "no."
Nobody actually likes this. Nobody actually thinks this is attractive. Even the diversity hire who created this does not think it's attractive. It's all virtue signalling. And, sure, some people may buy Calvin Klein as a virtue signal after seeing this, but "voting with your dollar" does not bring in anywhere near the same amount of money as attractive people in ads that people want to look like.
Speaking of this phenomenon, have you ever been a fly-on-the-wall in a conversation between two leftists, each with their own collection of mental illnesses? They don't like each other. It's hilarious. You can tell that each of them are constantly walking on eggshells to avoid saying the wrong thing, and each person is constantly correcting the other's speech. Neither of them like it, but they both feel compelled to do it because, once one is corrected, the other feels the need to also be nitpicky to make them feel better.
Sometimes you'll find two leftists like this who actually have a good relationship. Probably stemming from making their connection before the mental illnesses set in. If you ever listen to them talk, you'll see that the mask often comes completely off. They'll make racial jokes when they think of them, call each other what they feel like calling each other, etc.
It's amazing.
My official stance: It didn't happen, but I wish it did.
I think it's less people maxing out their credit cards, and more people using the same amount of actual credit (by value), but their credit is worth less due to the ridiculous inflation.
That is: you need to go in greater debt to buy a gallon of milk now than you used to.
I unironically agree. And it just happens to be the same final solution as last time.
This is the type of offense that should skip "judicial remedies."
Something so clearly and apparently unconstitutional is an act of treason. Point blank.
This is about a whole lot more than abortion
I actually agree. The original Roe v. Wade decision interpreted the constitution so incredibly broadly, as to say that rights not explicitly laid out in the constitution, were still guaranteed by the constitution. I support this type of broad interpretation of the constitution.
The problem is that those same justices refused to ever apply this broad interpretation to anything else besides killing babies, even to rights that are explicitly written, like the second amendment. It's clear that the Roe v. Wade decision was an attempt to legislate from the bench, rather than applying a consistent interpretation of the constitution.
My personal interpretation of the constitution is that "freedom of religion" should apply to damn near everything. I believe that "religion" shouldn't just be viewed as spirituality in this context, but rather the entire way you live your life, which, historically, was guided entirely by spirituality.
The courts, at times, seem to agree with my interpretation, but they never allow it to be applied. They'll say that freedom of religion does not only apply to organized religions and that deeply held individual beliefs are protected, but then they'll throw in a line like "unless there is a compelling governmental interest" (literally verbatim, btw, that's not just me making shit up, there is a lot of rulings that say that exactly), that essentially makes the whole amendment null and void.
I believe that the first amendment should prevent the government from forcing you to do anything. The government should only have the authority to prevent you from doing certain things which impact others directly. That is, even if you argue that me not wearing a mask will hurt you, you cannot force me to live against my natural state by donning one. But if you argue that me coughing on you will hurt you, then a law preventing that action that could be fair game.
If you had these hacking tools and insider information, you'd make far more money (and with less risk) by utilizing them yourself than trying to "sell" them.
This shit is always fake.
I don't think you need to be "anti-"whatever just because whatever injured you. You should be informed of the risks and benefits. That's what is lacking. People should be able to make informed decisions, but they cannot when the efficacy of the vaccine is inflated and the risks are downplayed.
If you're not keeping chickens to produce your own eggs, I don't think you can be saved. It's literally easier than gardening.
A lot of people don't understand how this will be all that impactful, so let me explain:
Go find and watch some random "on-the-street" style interview about a controversial topic. Like one where the interviewer asks random people if they support masks. You'll bound to see a lot of people answering like "I don't know, I don't really mind them, if they save lives, I guess I support them."
These people hold these loose views because it is all they are exposed to. These are your typical lefties, these are people that are largely apolitical. They want to fit in and don't want to rock the boat. They lurk Twitter, but they don't engage much, so you don't see them.
When they see nothing but extreme leftism on Twitter, it's all they know. We need to be able to show them that having vaguely leftist views is rocking the boat. We need to show them that there is another side and it's not just "extremists."
Tf are you talking about? This is readily explained by users leaving and arriving. I know a shit ton of liberals who left Twitter after Musk's acquisition, and thus would automatically "unfollow" the liberal heads they were following. And I know even more conservatives who joined Twitter after Musk's acquisition, and followed various conservative heads.
There's no evidence they changed algorithms or bots or whatever. This is easily explained by what we can all see happening.
It's not so much a gray area that needs solved as it is something that needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's something so nuanced that it takes a jury to decide. Many laws are like this.
The litmus test should be this (for libel, as an example): if a reasonable, sensible person can have a greater impression of truth by that statement being on your website versus being published directly on the author's own website, then you should share part of the blame.
That is: in early Facebook, no sensible person would believe that a statement, just by being on Facebook, is more likely to be true. But, in modern Facebook, if a sensible person sees something a bit "spicier" posted on Facebook and widely shared, something that would normally be quickly "fact checked" or outright removed, and it is not fact checked, it could be reasonable to believe that the statement is so true that even Facebook wasn't able to find something fallacious about it. You could easily find yourself in a situation where you believe something is true because it's uncensored on Facebook that you wouldn't otherwise believe.
This would be dead easy. And if there is as much incentive to do this as to facilitate rolling out a whole new, borderline intrusive system, there is no reason this wouldn't be done. This would be a far easier option than rolling out 5G, and raise far fewer eyebrows, as it would be completely hidden.
Still not enough data. What you're speculating requires so much data that we could not possibly have with anything close to the current tech.