Savant wrote:
Best case scenario, this bankrupts all frontier AI companies and causes a slowdown.
Isn't that what we are going for in this thread? You don't think AI can be eliminated do you?
Savant wrote:
Best case scenario, this bankrupts all frontier AI companies and causes a slowdown.
Isn't that what we are going for in this thread? You don't think AI can be eliminated do you?
Shoresy wrote:
Think of this as a blessing. You can still tune in and hear your favorite personality talk about your president while also sparing you the misery of seeing his face up close.
Oh yeah, good point, dictators never want you to see thier face, especially Mr. Modesty, Donald Trump
.
I think it's one of those can of worms that once you open it, it's open, it doesn't fit back in the can when you want to close it again.
AI is a race to the finish line of fabulous wealth and power, self-regulated, government regulated, I don't think it matters, how do you monitor and restrict programming that happens behind closed doors, especially considering the regulators can't understand the programming.
I think we are asking them to please slowdown in your race to wealth and power, it won't hurt your business because, well, because we trust that your competitors will slow down too. You billionaires need to be on an honor system to make money slower. oh yeah, honor among billionaires, I don't see it happening.
Here's an idea, as always, follow the money. What if congress passes laws that make the AI company fiscally responsible for any resultant damage caused by their products. I don't think it's realistic to expect them to put the public's interest before their own financial interest, but if they will be held accountable when their product isn't controlled, then they will make sure they can control it. Considering the amount of damage thier product can do, making sure it doesn't happen is a matter of survival. Unfortunately, I don't think humanity's survival is motivating enough, but make it about the AI company's survival, and you get their attention.
It could cost lives! "Meh."
It could cost you all your wealth! "OK, ok, we must control this beast."
Shoresy wrote:
This is a red herring.
I agree that using "people's house" rhetoric doesn't grant constitutional access to the president's home.
It's not rhetoric, it's a fact, it's not the "President's home", it doesn't belong to him, it belongs to the people, we only let him live there.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what does.
The Constitution does and the Presidential oath of office does.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Shoresy wrote:
What are you expecting a judge to rule? That every person in the country has access to your president's house at any time?
Sherrill v. Knight (D.C. Circuit, 1977) is the closest case I pulled up, the judge never ordered access, and Sherrill never got access after the case was won.
Oh c'mon, you can come up with plenty of precedents that are more relevant, here's a few:
Adolf Hitler: Suppressed the Free Press in Germany from 1933 to 1945.imposing total state control over all newspapers, radio, and publishing to entirely eradicate independent journalism which he labeled “Lügenpresse” (The Lying Press).
Joseph Stalin: Suppressed the Free Press in the Soviet Union from the mid-1920s until 1953 by executing journalists and enforcing strict ideological conformity through censorship bodies like Glavlit and centralized propaganda media organizations like Pravda.
Benito Mussolini: Suppressed the Free Press in Italy from 1922 to 1943 systematically suppressing freedom of the press through a series of increasingly restrictive laws, direct censorship, and the forced alignment of journalists with the Fascist regime. After silencing independent press, he built a personal state propaganda network.
Francisco Franco (Spain): Imposed absolute censorship on publications, cultural events, and the media from the Spanish Civil War until his death in 1975.
Vladimir Putin (Russia): Imprisoned political rivals, banned independent broadcasting networks, and criminalized independent reporting deemed to be against the regime.
Viktor Orbán (Hungary): Methodically placed a stranglehold on independent journalism to build a dominant state-aligned media universe.
Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines): Shut down independent media outlets upon declaring martial law in 1972, seizing broadcast networks and placing them under the control of his family and political cronies.
Kim Jong Un / Kim family (North Korea): Maintains complete state ownership and strict censorship of all television, radio, and print media, ranking near the absolute bottom of the World Press Freedom Index.
Bashar al-Assad (Syria): Controls state media and systematically targets, detains, or kills independent journalists reporting negatively on regime activities.
"If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started, they get started by suppressing free press." John McCain - US Senator
Debby wrote:
Why is Remy a virgin interested in planned parenthood. Has he found a sperm donor?
As always, it's confusing, but I think his argument is if he rapes a woman and she gets pregnant, he wants her to keep the baby....do you think he wants to have a baby?
Personally, I don't think he's ready to be a father.
RemyBrown wrote:
PS I literally think the GOP would rather be alone with a bear than have Remy be their spokesperson.
Who do you think is the GOP's favorite spokesperson? Trump? DeSantis? Vance? Left wingers have low IQs; the GOP doesn't want AOC as their spokeperson.
I have no idea, but I know who the Democrat's favorite spokesperson is, Donald Trump, he raises more money for Democrats than anybody, he also converts voters to the Democratic Party, and gets the Democratic vote out.
I think second place goes to Remy Brown, he makes the GOP look stupid and he embarrasses the hell out of them. Exposure to Remy transforms decent people into Democrats.
He doesn't just make DebateCraft look bad, nope, he's bringing shame on a much greater scale than just DebateCraft, his negative impact is widespread.
RemyBrown wrote:
Also, side 52 Side walker is committing defamation by accusing my of having severed heads in the freezer.
What I said was "I literally think it is highly unlikely that a bear has severed heads in the freezer."
I didn't mention you, I mentioned a bear.
Maybe you are confused because you fantasize being a bear so a woman might choose you.
Kohai wrote:
Thank you for your feedback. One thing I'm considering is building a customizable setting where people can customize the text color, size, brightenss etc.
Cool, I'm sure all the old farts like me would appreciate that.
RemyBrown wrote:
Seeing as Sidewalker doesn't think women should literally choose the bear, I'm not sure there's anything for me to convince him of.
He's being literal; all political opinions should be interpreted as literal.
The bear or man question is political LOL, you crack me up.
OK, you are right, I literally think women should choose the bear over you.
I also literally think a woman should choose lethal injection over you.
I literally think it is highly unlikely that a bear has severed heads in the freezer.
There you go, some politics for you.
PS I literally think the GOP would rather be alone with a bear than have Remy be their spokesperson.
Gimme a high five...
Savant wrote:
In other words, let's see if you can give me a reason to take him seriously.
You're under no obligation to take him seriously, but I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm asking if you actually believe women should choose the bear or if you're just being hyperbolic to annoy Remy.
Hey, it's just a stupid internet question, it's not the real world, and I do in fact think it is reasonable for women to use it to express how they feel about men. Fact is, thousands more women are killed by men than are killed by bears so their fears are rational. It's not like somebody is holding a tied-up woman over a bear pit and making her choose (except maybe Remy), it's a questionaire inquiring about people's feelings, experiences, attitudes, and it's not like people don't use exaggeration and metaphore on line to express themselves and make a point. So yes, I actually believe women should choose the bear if that is a metaphorical way of expressing their feelings, fears, disgust, or whatever. The more Remy goes creepily ballistic over this nothing question, the more I understand what kind of concern women are expressing, I'm not the only one that wouldn't be surprised to find severed heads in his freezer.
I'm just not unhinged enough to take that stupid little internet question any more seriously than that, and the more creepy boy pushes it, the more I'm going to have fun with it.
It's not like we have the option of having a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with him
Perhaps, but I think I can have a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with you.
Thanks, I guess I do have my moments, but there isn't a lot presented here that merits rational discussion lately, and the trend tells me it's going further down inane street.
If the site isn't going to be interesting, then at least it can be fun while I wait for interesting to pop up..
Savant wrote:
Remy has challenged me to convince you that women should choose encountering a man they don't know over encountering a bear in the forest. If you actually believe women should choose the bear and aren't just trolling Remy, then I'm open to giving it my best shot.
I'd rather you explain how some stupid little internet questionnaire about women and bears can explode into such an all-consuming obsession, it's so incomprehensive weird, can you help me understand that part of the Remy freak show.
That, or explain this: Every single one of Remy's posts is an attempt at trolling somebody, usually an embarrassingly bad effort, but never the less, his intent is always to troll some group to upset people, Liberals, women, Jews, you name it, and when he gets the kind of response he is looking for, he cries like a teenage girl with a pimple on her nose prom night. Why does he try to make people mad and then cry like a little whiney baby when they get mad. I'm thinking it's because he wanted us to get mad at women, or Jews, or Democrats, and doesn't want them to be mad at him.
Does he just want attention, sympathy, victimhood, or what?
Is he just trying to satisfy his appetite for violence by trying to radicalize people into hatred, does he just want to try to contribute to the violence in the real world, or is he just unhinged.
It's not like we have the option of having a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with him, I'm better off have a reasonable, rational, logical discussion with my dog.
Be honest, if the on the news tonight you caw his home was raided and they found a dozen severed heads in his freezer and a suit made out of women's skin, would you be surprised? Or would you say, "I saw that coming".
In other words, let's see if you can give me a reason to take him seriously.
The Trumpers always give him a pass, no matter what, I'm curious to see how our Trumpers defend this.
Same as always, I'm sure, ignore, ignore, ignore.
RemyBrown wrote:
It has nothing to do with politics, it doesn't matter if they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent women, they still choose the bear over Remy.
You are nonpartisan creepy.
And yet you wanted to hug me. Like I said, you have no principles.
Left wingers are the first to deny something has to do with politics; the false sense of unity. Your party is the party of platitudes and sugary dishonesty.
I'd rather talk to a bear, they're smarter, more interesting, and more logical.
RemyBrown wrote:
->(1) say the line in a non-ragebait way, (2) anticipate common objections they might make, if you know how the convo would go, and (3) respond to those common objections.
2 is going to be hard to persuade someone on because capitas aren't motivated by logic (I would like to think they are, but they aren't).
For example, you've said that you're not a virgin. It is good to be a non virgin as it reduces your risk for pregnancy and STDs/STIs. This is objectively true. And while you may or may not agree, such information won't be enough to get you to stop having sex because at the end of the day, you have an emotional attachment to sex.
People in general have an emotional attachment to various things that I find bad. Logic doesn't work on them. Only emotional responses have a chance of working on them. This means I have no choice but to Rage Bait.
Emotional people don't care about logic; they don't care about hypocrisy even. They care about their own feelings; their own identity.
I'm pretty sure Savant would rather be alone with a bear than take advice about his sex life from Remy Brown.
RemyBrown wrote:
->Group Hug for Remy.
Try bugging a polar bear first, as you argue I'm more scary than a polar bear to women. Left wing men have no morals and no principles to begin with because their environment they were raised on easy mode. There needs to be a way for them to get the right wing benefits of living on hard more without doing the impossible; editing their childhoods.
It has nothing to do with politics, it doesn't matter if they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent women, they still choose the bear over Remy.
You are nonpartisan creepy.
Trump has banned CNN, Politico and MS NOW from White House, secret service has confiscating or deactivating their press passes, reporters from these three news outlets are barred from entry to the White House. Trump said it's because their reporting is unfair, inaccurate, and "purposely negative" about his administration.
Is Trump within his rights, is it legal, is he violating the 1st amendment?
What do you think about this?
I'm not sure they added much to the mystery, she admits the size, shape, holes, and knobs aren't understood, which happens to be all of it. The idea that Roman craftsmen went to great effort to precisely reproduce them without knowing what or why of the size, shape, knobs or holes is unexplained. i recognize the simalarity and that the device was borrowed from the adjacent cultures, but I don't believe it was without knowing why, or what it did.
I'm thinking the similarities are coincidental, and still lean towards it's a measuring or calculating device, used for surveying, if it was held up and looked through in use, that would explain the lack of wear, maybe they were buried with the surveyors that owned them, Nobody knows, but I think the video raises more questions than it answers.
I did like the hottie narrator with the sexy voice/accent though.
You guys really think you can teach Remy how to be normal? Good luck with that.
Instead, you should try something with at least some remote chance of success, maybe a more realistic goal, like teaching your dog how to play chess.
RemyBrown wrote:
Seeing if any of you respond. If I'm being honest, then I think many on the left hold grudges for fun and you ignore me to preserve your mental health because in order to preserve your mental health, it avoids hearing the truth.
People typically like to transform their internal conflicts into interpersonal ones, Remy argues because of some tortured internal conflict., and there's only one thing we can all do.
OK, bring it in: Group Hug for Remy.
.
Misterio wrote:
I just want to know if you are on the same page.
Trump doesn't want to make any deal with Canada, he simply wants Canada to fail because of the obscene level of wokeness they have reached.
To me, Canada has much more to lose in this dispute because the US is the best trade partner they could ask for and Trump is playing with it. Even the proposal to incorporate Canada into the European Union as an associate member won't be of any use.
So, Trump believes he can pressure Canadians into removing the current woke government and replacing it with a non-woke administration to get trade back to normal. I'm not an economic expert but if Canada doesn't accept Trump's terms, they are fked.
Am I wrong?
No doubt Trump can cause Canada some pain, that's about the only thing Trump is really good at, but they will recover, and when they do it will be as part of a new world order in terms of trade, alliances, and allegiances, will be very different. Trump is driving Canada and The EU closer to each other and to China, China can take up the slack for Canada with chump change, everybody knows the US can't be trusted, and China is offering to be their friend.
Fact is, we need the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs us, they will recover in the short term ,and in the long term, the US is the biggest loser in Trump's latest trade war. The US will suffer for decades after Trump is gone, and comparatively, the rest of the world will prosper.
II don't know if this possible or practical but I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an option to select the color of the text. It's an option in word, and I hoping it would be an option with whatever word processor the website uses,
My issue is this "no contrast" thing that has just gotten out of hand, I get why it's done, black text on a white background is supposed to be stressful on the eyes, but I think washed out gray against a while background is more stressful because it's so much harder to read. I've asked a lot of people how they have their Word set, everybody prefers black text on a while background, I don't think anybody given the choice prefers less contrast.
If it was selectable here, I bet almost everybody would select black, if you couldn't make it selectable and had a vote about font color, I bet everyone would vote for black (maybe not Fauxlaw, voting for black would probably be too "woke" for him lol),
It's even worse with packaging, every time I try to read directions that are microscopic white text in a yellow box, or dark blue against dark green, It's also bad on menu's in dimly lit restaurants, my wife won't let me wear a headlamp out to dinner (go figure),
Now I'm ranting, anyway, it's just a suggestion but if it's easy to do, I think it would probably be appreciated by most of the members if we could have the option to have some contrast so we can actually read it.