thin_carapace

I believe that I have witnessed at least 3 videos of americans being forcibly removed from town halls for speaking out against data centers. you are correct that search engines are not showing anything at all when searching for data centre forced removal. it took me ten minutes to find the most recent example from my memory[0]. something strange is happening, and when I see you act ostensibly in support of the side that is seemingly scrubbing search engine results, this is why I react poorly to your pro AI and pro system stance - the system does not need our good faith, the system already controls the narrative.

[0] https://www.lowellsun.com/2026/07/21/body-camera-footage-sho...

language models are trained to maximise engagement and maximally convey meaning. binary contrast happens to achieve these goals by optimally translating the manifold. if I come across further research it would be interesting to continue our language related discussion.

I don't know how to respond to your comment with decorum so I'm going to say goodbye, and pray that you mentor your juniors better than the way you treated me today mr senor dev

umm have you considered that you can go to youtube and verify my claim whereas the other interlocutor explicitly refers to unverifiable personal anecdotes? and did you want to verify that I explicitly accused someone of propaganda?

believing in the inherent good of humanity does somewhat justify your perspective, may life allow you to continue believing this way and may your pursuits be productive. I would recommend not to marginalize yourself, this action is tantamount to painting targets on your back for bad actors to aim at. corporations and governments are currently acting violently against the populace, a correspondingly heavy handed response is required if the populace does not wish to become soylent green. note that I have not explicitly advocated violent behaviour - rather I suggest that if our intelligence is not used against this tide, it may as well be part of the wave. thanks for your thoughtful response

I have noted the employment of a language technique that as per the wikipedia article "signs of AI writing" is commonly used by AI, you can attack facts all you like and that will indeed stop me from talking!

are you looking for a fight? I love fighting but I never said any of that. so I can't really defend the position, it isn't mine.

based

I've seen plenty videos of locals being violently removed from town halls due to displaying of anti AI sentiment. I wouldnt consider it fair to use these examples to tar the entirety of the pro AI camp. the way objectivity and subjectivity are intertwined in your comment is spectacular, ever considered a career in propaganda?

we are monkeys following logic that was determined by other monkeys. our experience of reality is equivalent to that of a brain in a jar. blind belief is blind belief whether placed in science or religion. breaching the gap of blindness necessarily involves a leap to test ideas with personal faith. such a notion is not necessarily compatible with an atheistic perspective insisting reality is solely that which may be verbally quantified by monkeys. a dog knows to sit on command but has no idea about the concept of sitting, does that make the concept of sitting unreal?

isn't that exactly what a class terrified of the guillotine would want underclasses to believe?

thats absolutely true regarding wysiwyg projects like a small website. aside from temporary cost savings, systematically ignoring institutional knowledge in favor of mass output is not gonna do humanity any favors ..

don't know where you sourced your perspective but yea based on the reports ive heard from automotive engineers, coding in autosar is the direct opposite of wild

if the giga rich pushing this latest ai wave manage to convince a single safety critical industry to deregulate, we are all boned

I truly hate the selfishness of humanity in its maximal form which is structural dominance, if you prefer to spend time hating smaller expressions of selfishness like not reading the fine print then yeah cool, take care

companies worth billions are capable of exacting abuse on a scale that no one man can resist, for example by hiding the fact you confidently claim everyone is so aware of, and forcing customers onto the cloud by default. if you want to blame the victims of a scam engineered by thousands of very smart people and lots of money, that's your prerogative. personally I spend a lot of time unfucking the PCs of my friends/family and teaching them how to teach others, instead of pointing the finger at them on internet forums

probably because society does not provide a manual on behaviour and ethics but religion does? and more people nowadays are getting sick of how the 2 default human values of pleasure/pain are systematically used against them? and once you join a community its nice to add new members? regardless as to any of those answers it's been acceptable to openly proselytize atheism on the internet forever, bit hypocritical not to allow other religions to do the same.

I consider it appropriate to stand up for those who haven't had the fortune to be educated as to the extent of slavery agreed to by clicking that little check box during sign up. i find it amusing, you calling me spineless for standing up for the uneducated. are you really that callous or was this simply an opportunity for a drive by? you do know the average person is forced into this flow by windows sign up right?

microsoft "permanently suspended (his) account ... (to) ensure (his) data remains protected". but microsoft cannot give him his data. therefore microsoft stole his personal property and are protecting it for their own use. this is legal because he agreed to it. everybody has to use windows, and microsoft account creation is now forced by windows - therefore I call this slavery coercion

the other day i tried forcing my point into a topic and got flamed for it, i saw the point as relevant but nobody else did, thanks for providing an example of how i must have looked like. i dont know how anything you said relates to publicly funding medicine over vanity, so i say goodbye and exit the conversation

I admit error and must have conflated cancer from tobacco pouches with cancer from nicotine pouches

coming from a big supporter of smoking, downplaying the addictive nature of nicotine is insidious of you; most people have no idea what sort of a demon it can become. its also insidious of you to state that pouches 'get rid of the cancer risk' considering that any nicotine product very much does have a cancer risk.

not sure if you have enabled dead comments or not, somebodys comment was killed for calling you pedantic. anyway nose jobs and skin grafts are both done by a plastic surgeon; one of these procedures saves lives and the other doesn't. the argument is that the taxpayer should prioritize life saving over vanity projects. accusations of jealousy make it seem as though you have missed the point entirely, whether intentionally (which would make the muted person correct) or not

the grandparent commentor provided examples to illustrate 1 idea. you took one of those examples and showed how it could be used to illustrate another idea. thats fair enough. in your second comment you continued drilling this point without expounding upon it and without referring to the original topic. hence it seems you aren't interested in the overall conversation, rather whatever point you are trying to make. im not trying to be pejorative here, it is legitimately my perspective that the only thing you added to the conversation was collateral damage itself, by annoying someone enough for them to get muted.

singapore is an authoritarian state (ie. trust is forced) that presents a homogenous population, where after 2 generations of immigration, over three quarters of singapores populace are still ethnic chinese. let us now examine london's population and how it changed within 1 generation. london consisted of 90% ethnic english in the 1990s, nowadays this figure sits around 50%. concurrently, london's trust level and prosperity have become a shadow of their former selves. perhaps this occurred because england was not authoritarian enough?

i was verbally introduced to somebody (that i have 1 mutual friend with) for a grand total of 30 seconds, facebook knew about it an hour later. nobody involved used their phones much during that hour. based on this occurence, facebook's intrusiveness is clearly deep enough. i appreciate the advice not to commit suicide - another responder was correct that i would be digitally resurrected as a pure profit vehicle anyway

my phone cant run facebook. by choosing this phone i am opting not to have facebook track me on a constant basis. however, based on whatever signals are available to everyone elses phones, facebook still tracks me. and facebook is doing the same to everybody including you - not sure if youre aware of the concept of shadow profiles?

i think your advice would apply in a standard human situation where optimal communication requires decoration, in this scenario i reciprocated the communication format which indicates acceptance

i have an account from when i was a teenager that i sometimes use to talk to family. why do you ask? based on my anecdote we are all tracked by facebook, whether or not we are on facebook.

i rarely use ai, however i must constantly sift through ai blog posts like this one to find actual communication. should i leave the internet to win the game against ai? well i did the next best thing and got a nokia brick phone, yet facebook still knows how to recommend those i meet in real life!! i tried not playing but im still in the game. does that mean the only way i can win is to kill myself?