vkou

You're right, we don't need AI for that, we need a searchable cookbook.

Unfortunately, one does not exist.

The Internet, however, is full of garbage cooking advice, and while AI is quite happy to parrot that garbage, it's not significantly worse than it's sources.

Indeed, our purpose is to pay rent to our betters.

The rich paying a quarter of the population to help them fuck over the other three quarters is a tale as old as time.

> Either make the law simple and absolute or don't make it a law.

The world isn't simple and absolute, and the law isn't a computer program.

No, it's problems are largely self-inflicted. But what I said is quite relevant to countries that have been.

It wasn't valid testimony or evidence, but it biases the jury.

When those countries were ruled by outsiders, the people who ran them weren't picking capable locals to have power, they were picking capable outsiders to have power. (And that's in the best case.)

The locals were only used for manual labour and filling out conscript armies (overseen by coloniser officers). This creates societies where, for generations, none of the natives have any experience with doing any of the jobs necessary to actually govern a country.

How much more do we need to talk about it?

For one thing, there isn't a major, bi-partisan, pro-Russian-war-crime lobby with a controlling interest currently sitting in government.

> This is not true. Don't make things up.

It is absolutely true.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/trump-saudi-arabia-russi...

> President Trump played a key role in the historic agreement between the world’s largest oil producers that trims global production by nearly 10 percent, according to Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Russia%E2%80%93Saudi_Arab...

(If you think Fox is biased against him, I'd be happy to link a leftie source.)

> On 2 April, U.S. President Donald Trump, after significant internal pressure, called Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, threatening to withdraw U.S. military support if OPEC and its allies did not cut oil production.[32] The following day, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered energy minister Alexander Novak to prepare an extraordinary OPEC meeting and stated that global production could be cut by 10 million barrels. In response to Putin's statement, oil prices jumped.[33] Even with a 10 million bpd cut, the International Energy Agency estimated that global oil stockpiles would still increase by 15 million bpd. IEA's director, Fatih Birol, stated that 50 million jobs related to oil refining and retail was at risk globally.[34] US oil prices increased by 25% on 2 April, the biggest one-day increase in history. Brent oil increased to $32 on 3 April.[35]

> On 9 April, Russia and Saudi Arabia agreed to oil production cuts. Reuters reported that "If Saudi Arabia failed to rein in output, US senators called on the White House to impose sanctions on Riyadh, pull out US troops from the kingdom and impose import tariffs on Saudi oil."[37]

It's his usual playbook. Cause a problem, blame someone else for it. The deal was for two years, and the relevant OPEC members adhered to it, and the price of oil skyrocketed.

Trump got all the oil producers together in a room and put together a deal to restrict oil production during COVID.

This, naturally, resulted in higher oil prices, which the Republican party blamed Biden for.

They truly have no shame.

One empire stretching its muscles causes its neighbours to do the same. The same thing happened in the other direction with Russia in the late 90s.

That is a ridiculous definition of 'made the other side illegal'. There's no shortage of vermin actively working to undermine and dismantle it, and none of them are going to prison.

> Which one to get?

The one that suits your use-case.

Don't have any way to charge it? Get a hybrid.

Don't go on long road trips, or when you do, you're OK with waiting a bit? Get an electric.

Want to spend a fortune on petrol? Get a gas one.

Otherwise, get a PIH.

> This is what AI was fucking promoted as being for!

Pretty sure all it's being promoted for is that it will make ~10 people richer than any human being in history.

The problem with space is that you need to radiate all that waste heat.

Most of the events I've listed cannot be described as 'one side wins and makes the other illegal'. Many of them ended with compromises, or partial success, or complete success, but the losers were not banished from public life. (They just held on to coalitions of waning influence. Some of them are resurging.)

> What is "the Civil Rights and universal suffrage movement in the US" if not a continuation of the leftist politics that Roosevelt started

The CRM was bottom-up, with personalities like Malcolm X and MLK both scaring the shit out of the government, due to their ability to mobilize millions of people.

Did they win and make the other side illegal? No.

Did the dipshits they fought win and make them illegal? I'd say no to that, as well.

> I wouldn’t chalk any of this up to malicious intent. I’m sure they are swamped with such requests.

Handling these requests at whatever scale they operate is their responsibility.

Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to take on all of their customers.

When you hold up a camera to record me, I can clearly tell that you are recording me.

It is socially and in many cases legally forbidden to use cameras in many spaces.

The fact that the use of a camera is obvious is what makes it possible to sanction their inappropriate uses. With this piece of shit, it's not possible to tell at a glance that it is not being used, so we have to always assume that it's recording feature is being used.

The default usecase for it is socially and legally transgressive. That's what makes someone with a smartphone a normal person, while someone with these glasses an asshole.

---

If I'm in a store or a coffee shop, and there's someone wearing these glasses in it, I'll do the exact same thing as I would to someone conspicuously filming me with a camera - I'll ask staff to make that person put them away, or throw them out. For the same reason, anyone with them is not welcome in my home, nor any other space I have control over, and any establishment that welcomes people wearing them will not get any business from me.

The politicians don't actively promise that what they are doing has a 10% chance of ending humanity, in fact, they claim the opposite.

> for the first time since the post-WWII order, they are threatened by a real regime change.

It's only new if you are blind to post-WWII history.

In the western world alone, there was no shortage of incredibly vicious fights with communist/socialist groups in in post-war Europe (Most prominently in Italy and Greece), to say nothing of the various domestic decolonisation movements (The British and French governments were scared shitless of them), secessionist movements in Quebec, Spain, that entire thing in North Ireland (the understatement of the century), the Civil Rights and universal suffrage movement in the US, collapse of prominent dictatorships in Portugal and Spain...

State-threatening social upheaval is nothing new, we just have a particularly shitty flavour of it right now, as fascism and fascist-adjacent movements are currently waxing.

The magic of democracy isn't that it promises good governance, the magic of it is that it provides a clear avenue for a peaceful transfer of power that is exercised every few years.

Most functioning democracies require more than 51% of a senate and six justices and a criminal head of state to completely unravel.

I'm sure you could think of a few reasons.

Meta and it's employees seem to have thought of a few.

If their activities materially increase the probability of human extinction, is there any reason that they should not be treated as invading aliens, or doomsday apocalypse-cult terrorists?

Like, why on Earth would anyone tolerate someone in the same train car playing with a grenade?

They are sane, they are just extracting as much value out of you as possible.

If you think there would be zero cost to shutting down the NYC subway and putting everyone riding it into cars...

Most of the value it creates is for the riders and the non-riders who don't have to deal with more congestion.

What is the amortized cost of all the cars, car infrastructure, driver monitoring and enforcement, parking easements and lots, gasoline, insurance, harm to people inflicted by uninsured drivers?

What would be the cost of turning all those transit trips into car trips? Would rush hour start at 5 am and end at 10 pm?

The middleman need to be doing incredible volume for it to be worth the margin and the risk, and finding and shutting them down is very easy, because:

- They are trivial to find, because they need a large, physical, business presence. This sort of trade doesn't happen under a highway overpass, or in an alley off 3rd.

- There are paper trails that point to them from any legitimate businesses upstream of them.

- Anyone lower in the criminal chain will happily flip on them.

Is argument over this an example of learned helplessness, a desire for society to do nothing and declare failure, or just arguing for the sake of contrarianism?

We have evidence of trying it with catalytic converters, and it worked. Catching every thief is hard. Catching one thief, and having them point to their fence is easy.

I'm not talking about training accidents.

More morbidly, military casualties in what the military insists isn't war.