verisimi

They (developers) did what they did for money. Just like everyone else. And they would do it all again.

At a corporate level, no one cares about lots of freedoms, except if it is a selling point.

If 'keeping freedoms' is a selling point then the ideal position is to gain the kudos of appearing to support this whilst also getting the benefits of the loss of freedoms. Why not get both?

"Presumed". Awesome, dude.

You are putting words in my mouth. And not answering anything.

I made a statement, have defended it, asked your position, and in order to sign off with a bad faith message you put words in my mouth (that I admitted my logic has no basis in fact).

I'm presuming that is the case, because you are questioning my straightforward and obvious suggestion that funding by corporations can provide whatever statistics you like. Feel free to explain your actual position if you want.

You don't. How do you know your trust in corporates isn't an understandably conditioned response, given 13+ years of education?

Given that you can just throw money at the solution you want to engineer, and create the illusion of science, perhaps believing nothing is a better position to be in. At least you're not buying into what is essentially just another avenue of corporate or governance marketing.

And sorry for bringing information to your attention. Just wait till you hear about how corporates fund law.

But.... you can get statistics on anything you like, if you are prepared to fund (or defund) them. If you pay to see the relation between crime and how many cats there are in a neighbourhood, you can get that! Ie statistics themselves are part of the game.

So you're saying that the government engineers the situation (more crime) in order to justify the solution (more surveillance) that they already intended. Once the surveillance is in place, they would then clear the blockage (start prosecuting crime again) which will be a big win for their solution (more surveillance).

So the whole thing is actually about greater control of the law-abiding (not decreasing crime), and how to engineer the circumstances to get the public to accept the unacceptable.

People love the EU and its oh-so-lovely legislation to keep them safe/lose privacy.

"EU laws", the EU in general is plainly the excuse that will carry the day - people seem to believe this 'good cop' rendition.

Where's the 'Open Source Car'?

Where's the open source phone?

The open source washing machine?

Let's finish that thought too.

You're asking for new legislation written by governments that a/ want that data to spy on you too and b/ are lobbied by corporations to write the legislation corps want.

It's a closed loop of crap, that goes in one direction only.

Anyone can write anything, it doesn't make it true.

Eg, I can say: "ai wrote this comment".

Or I can say: "ai did not write this comment".

Looking at the comments alone does not tell you whether they were or were not written by ai. Same for videos.

What is going on is that you are trusting the disclosure is significant and real. So, when you see the disclosure you are concluding something on the basis of TRUST. Same for the video itself.

Seeing something on a screen does not make it a true representation of reality. You do not know reality; you only know that you saw a video. This applies to disclosure, video, comments - anything on a screen.

> in fact it was 100% AI

And you know that how?

And, how do you know news itself is not 100% ai? News corps may simply fail to disclose that it was ai, be taken in, remove watermarks, etc.

The fact is no one can say what one sees on a screen is a true representation of reality. People are acting on a consensus feeling.

... and anyway, maybe it was hungry? Or getting the sniffles?

> CNN misses one detail in a highly scientific story and they get accused of having an agenda

If it's as the earlier poster said that sinking is 8mm per year, versus 3.2mm and they point out the 3.2, don't you think this news organisation has missed the main detail?

You work for cnn?

OKR: Objectives and Key Results

Their watching is about control not care. It is covertly adversarial; "care" is a justification, not the reality.

> If you demand arbitrary whiteness for a film thats about people who were considered black until the 60s or so, when you arent also demanding greekness of the whites, you are just here to grind your culture war axe.

You think greeks were considered black in the 1960s?

Perhaps you have just received a very poor education. Perhaps the colours of people really have shifted a lot in your understanding.

> Its not gas lighting and you diminish the term by suggesting it is.

If the colours of different people have NOT shifted in your understanding, saying someone needs medical help for stating the obvious, common understanding is pretty close to the text book definition of gas lighting. It's just that you think it is for a good cause.

Yep. My aspirations about how the internet was going to enable a brighter, better future for people, were instantly transformed, and instead we saw the power of tech corporations acting in their own interests. How naive I was.

You care about the historical detail of the boats and armour, but don't care about the person (sex or colour)? And people who disagree with you need medical help?

Do you realise all the contradictions in your position? And then to suggest that the other person needs medical help for stating the obvious, indicates your malign intent. This is gas lighting, ie abusive behaviour. Your own conditioning is making you unable to see the obvious.

A black or white swan?

I think it was always about the left-leaning answers - while sharing right-leaning concerns, the consensus answer is always more legislation, closer administrative control.

No one is an omnipotent owner of anyone, not even the community, not even the government.

If you strip away conventions bound in law, governance the idea of community, and go to basics: if I see something going on that troubles me, I should take whatever action I think is appropriate. No 'community', no man made laws required.

Why? I certainly don't think as highly of my community as you seem to. But really, what is the value you personally get from opening up your life to your community?

The previous poster said:

> When these models fail, the community will often enforce the model and censor the opposing facts. I have encountered several such conflicts.

Censoring opposing fact to enforce the wrong model is religious dogma. Or maybe just dogma. Religious or scientific.

At any rate, it's the antithesis of what the scientific method is. The reality is that scientists in general pay lip service to the scientific method, without forgetting where their paychecks come from (government, military or corporations).

Is your child my child? Should I involve myself in how you choose to bring up the child, if you espouse ideas I disagree with?

> It is like a religious dogma.

It is religious dogma.

Which are the clean jobs? Is coding 'good'?

Pretty much the only honest ones I can think of are things plumber, carpenter.

Yes, left is right, up is down.