Not related to c/Conspiracies
Nice article. My answer to whether it can be stopped is "Yes, but it won't be easy". That is the goal of c/StopTech
This is just a common video glitch which can be seen in many other videos of objects that move relative to the camera. Hence why nobody at the time saw it and it goes away each time the shot changes.
I believe it happens because the video encoding saves space by only recording changes between frames rather than recording each frame separately. That's why only moving objects are affected. Also I believe the encoding records when a group of pixels move across the screen without substantial changes in color rather than treating each pixel separately, which would explain why the glitches move along with the object they are on.
Why post this in c/Conspiracies?
I don't see why you chose to fixate on the word "great" when I was only referring to a common saying.
What does a giant stack of conclusions add up to if it is acknowledged that it adds up to nothing?
A conclusion is something, so I don't understand what you mean? If I use philosophy to conclude that abortion is murder and therefore wrong and hence decide not to abort my child, that is most definitely "something" other than "mental masturbation".
I doubt you liked hearing [my thoughts] or got the slightest enlightenment out of them
You're right I didn't get the slightest enlightenment out of them but perhaps I misunderstood and they just need to be explained better.
People are the problem, and they're also the solution. For sure people's discomfort can drive them to do something useful. But it can also drive them to do nothing if they think there's no hope. So I tell them that the situation is really bleak but there is still hope if they and others like them act. You're welcome to join me over at c/StopTech.
Read Luke 2:
And when the time of purification according to the Law of Moses was complete, His parents brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord...And when the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for Him what was customary under the Law...When Jesus’ parents had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee...[leaving out a lot more references here]...When His parents saw Him, they were astonished. “Child, why have You done this to us?” His mother asked. “Your father and I have been anxiously searching for You.”
Also Luke 4:22
All spoke well of Him and marveled at the gracious words that came from His lips. “Isn’t this the son of Joseph?” they asked.
You seem lost. This is c/Conspiracies, not c/AIfrogposting
Philosophers do come to conclusions, it's just that other philosophers don't agree with those conclusions. That's because great minds don't think alike - they think independently. This is the same reason there are lots of Christian denominations, especially within Protestantism and other categories of Christianity where people are encouraged to think for themselves more rather than accept tradition without much criticism. The fact Roman Catholicism has less schisms can be explained by their beliefs about tradition and their hierarchical structure which gatekeeps positions of teaching and doctrinal authority. So agreement is not necessarily an indicator of truth.
Scientists also disagree with each other all the time over fairly recent theories, and science in fact came out of philosophy - theories about the world which were then tested empirically. But you'll find a lot more agreement between scientists than philosophers. Is that because their beliefs can be tested empirically, or is it due to a conspiracy controlling the direction of science, or non-conspiratorial financial incentives or reasons similar to why Roman Catholics are in agreement?
There is a famous quote by Physicist Max Planck:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
A study in 2019 found some evidence this may be true: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/science-really-does-advance-one-funeral-at-a-time-study-suggests/3010961.article . Philosophers of science also had a debate about how science progresses, with Popper arguing it happens by theories being disproved by new evidence but Kuhn countering that it's by new paradigms which gradually gain more support than the old ones. Kuhn's view is potentially consistent with Planck's quote.
To the person who thinks scientists find agreement because they use empirical tests to find the truth, they would need to explain why scientists have also agreed on things which weren't backed by the evidence of the time, like phrenology or COVID vaccine safety. To the person who thinks scientists find agreement through non-evidentiary means, they would need to explain how science has been able to build on itself and develop technologies that work and also why other fields like philosophy don't find agreement through similar non-evidentiary means.
Looks like they're going to use graphene for a wide variety of biological sensors both invasive and wearable: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6580932/
Adding to the surveillance problem, graphene-based nanomaterials are known to be cytotoxic. Nanoparticles are often genotoxic as well.
As GO can be easily transported by air and water from hazardous waste the possible negative aspect of a GO pollution of all living creatures is unknown and cannot be excluded. Enhancing effects of GO on the endocrine-disruptive capacities of Bisphenol A have been observed in adult male zebrafish. Sharp edges of GO that can penetrate cell membranes might facilitate the penetration of microplastics and other unknown substances into organisms.
But perhaps worst of all they think graphene will be "of enormous value for implementing Artificial Intelligence", accelerating the headlong rush to human extinction.
OK I didn't know that's what you meant. I imagined the use of electricity to terrorize people like you're Thor :P