@jake's banner p

jake


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 09:42:44 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 834

jake


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 09:42:44 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 834

Verified Email

Frieren

After checking the transcript with a ctrl+f "arctic" . . .

. . . #14: oh and not for nothing but if the Transpolar Sea Route opens Canada will gain the second most geostrategically significant coastline on the planet.

You can't have a discussion about the US acquiring Greenland or Canadian territory without including the arctic opening to shipping. If it should come to pass that freighters can easily cross the arctic, it will be the most impactful event for trade since the Panama Canal.

I assess Trump higher than most so I wouldn't be surprised if this is a tertiary motivator for his wanting Greenland after resource wealth and Monroe Doctrine. I don't know how to place his posturing on Canada, but that's because I don't believe Canada in its current form will exist by 2100. As discontent with their governance rises, so does the probability of a serious secessionist movement. If Alberta votes to secede, they will be backed by the full weight of the American establishment, up to declaring war if necessary. It's too much land, money, and power. If one leads to another, if Saskatchewan and Manitoba want to join, if Quebec also secedes, then suddenly we might have two or three highly developed nations to our north. Smaller states, more dependent on the US, more money. Imagine Vancouver becoming a city-state, we'd pour money in, we'd guarantee their sovereignty. We get the right leader in and in a few decades maybe we have the American Singapore. Meanwhile, with Alberta and/or Saskatchewan and/or Manitoba in the union, we'll have borders carved on one side to the shores of the Northwest Territories and on the other to the shores of Hudson Bay.

Regardless of what is actually going on in Trump's mind with Greenland and Canada, serious actors have understood the significance of the TSR for a long time. Greenland, regardless of the ice melting, will be part of the US soon enough. Canada depends on too much to say with certainty, other than the certainty of the US supporting any border province that votes to secede.

That's not how presumption of innocence works in theory. It is how it works in practice, just look at the number of juries who convict on obviously ideological lines (not to mention it's not even close to the standard held in many civil suits). That burden the state does indeed have of meeting a preponderance of evidence is met in full when dealing with a person of obviously foreign birth who cannot provide proof of their legal residence. That itself, as in even otherwise legal aliens failing to keep identifying documents on their person, is a crime.

It's not realistic or justified to expect ICE to prove the citizenship or lack thereof for every person they apprehend. Not stop, apprehend. Fortunately, the claim of epidemic-level lack of documentation among citizens is even less realistic. It's why every individual illegal alien deported from this country doesn't receive a full jury trial. ID requirements are ubiquitous, people who don't provide them, can't provide them, and that's all ICE needs. They don't need a reason to deport someone, they need a reason not to.

Due process is reciprocal. The court presumes innocence by giving the accused the opportunity to defend themselves. That defense must be substantiated, claiming "I have an alibi" and then failing to provide that alibi is not a defense, and the court will not treat that claim as evidence. Same for immigration. Immigration enforcement presumes innocence by giving the accused the opportunity to provide documentation. In practice, any person who cannot provide such documentation is here illegally. Show a state ID, you're good, assuming it isn't from a state that issues IDs to illegals. "Difficulty in acquiring an ID" is, same as voting, inadequate. Functioning states do not express special concern for those so lazy they can't be bothered to get something so universally required as ID. That is highly aberrant behavior, it's something deserving institutionalization or apathy. Relevant for the one valid defense, "I am chronically homeless." Okay, permanently institutionalize them.

The protections afforded to illegal aliens are basic. They can't be robbed, enslaved, raped, or murdered with impunity — nominally, as these happen precisely because of our lax immigration law. Plyler notoriously asserted a nonexistent right to education extending to the children of illegals, now schools in communities with high numbers of illegal hispanics are full of children who don't speak English. Texas has been thoroughly vindicated for the burden they feared, and this problem has spread far beyond Texas.

That's beside the point. The most fundamental authority of a sovereign is "who gets to be here." SCOTUS rulings, and everything else, is downstream of this authority. This authority is the basis for the expulsion of any foreigner at any time and for any reason. It is subservient to nothing, it is inalienable and immutable. The only question is whether this power is vested, past the people, in the legislature or the executive, but the power remains absolutely. Illegal aliens in particular are owed no due process and enjoy no protections from summary deportation. The courts can try to stop it, despite having no true authority given illegals are, again, here in violation of American sovereignty, but their efforts if not stopped will provoke the radical solution over the current moderate solution.

From what you've quoted and a certain other line in the article, this stop doesn't seem entirely random.

Machado was driving to work Wednesday with two other men

...

According to Machado, the agents said the name of a man who had a deportation order, someone who had given Machado’s home address.

...

The two men with him were taken into custody. He does not know why.

For something briefer (50 minutes) I'd recommend Flesh Simulator's video "SERIAL KILLING FOR FUN AND PROFIT."

Discussed @ timestamp 11:21 "2. The Dirty Old Man": In 1973, Dallas police raided the apartment of pedophile and sex trafficker John Norman, uncovering a client list in a filing cabinet with 30,000 index cards, containing between 50,000 and 100,000 entries of names/contact information. These records were turned over to Kissinger's state department and promptly burned.

Quoth a youtube rando:

You know it's bad when the amount of CSAM being confiscated is so massive in each of these instances that it's being measured by weight.

Two more relevant vids by fleshman:

"Lt. Col Michael Aquino: Scandals, Satanists, and Psychological Warfare"

"What was the deal with DC's most infamous restaurant?"

There are those odd particular clips of Michelle. I think her masculinity, Joan Rivers' "timely" death, and the combination of categorical disbelief ("even faker and gayer . . . ") in the establishment and the easy dunk makes it work equally well for the genuine skeptic and the troll. But leave it to Steve Sailer of all people to make what I've found as the most interesting observation:

It's been the bane of Michelle Obama's life that even though she has feminine interests such as gardening and nutrition and little political ambition for herself, she inherited her older brother's gigantic power forward shoulders, so Joan Rivers joked about her being a man.

(The siblings.)

And worth including, though you can just see it in the link, is this thoughtful response:

I think that's why some women I know absolutely love Michelle, though.

She looks like a "strong, independent woman." But then they read her book and find out she's actually a girlie girl, and it appeals both to what women find inherently appealing and feminist socialization.

Here I'd follow this up with "I still wouldn't put it past them," but that's epistemically always betting on black. Sailer's observation is useful, I cite it now in the two or three times I've seen this come up since.

I recently watched Guy Ritchie's The Covenant. I'll observe three things: that it's about an Afghan translator, I suspect the reason it's specifically "Guy Ritchie's The Covenant" is because it stands so far away from the rest of his repertoire that nobody would think he made it, and the performances are superb with Jake Gyllenhaal excellent as expected but the star of the movie being Dar Salim. I think Ritchie aspires toward Ridley Scott, who was recently elevated to Knight Grand Cross (the highest class, Knight/Dame Commander is the second-highest and confers knighthood/damehood), and the prolific amount of work he's done since 2019 is in pursuit of his own knighthood. In the vein of Scott, GRTC is I think analogous to Black Hawk Down, it's a far better movie, though I did enjoy BHD, and also something rings probably coincidental as Ritchie cast Josh Hartnett in a couple of his recent movies and Hartnett held top-billing on Black Hawk Down. Big fan.

The film paints a compelling picture of the apparent bureaucratic mess of approving visas but of course it doesn't explain the actual Special Immigrant Visa Program It's a 14-step vetting process to prevent Taliban infiltrators, who were numerous, from gaining entry to the United States. As a lengthy process bureaucratic mishaps are going to happen, but it's not arbitrarily slow, nor should it be.

That said, since 2021 the US has brought in nearly 200,000 Afghan refugees; the top estimate for collaborators is 300,000; the Taliban issued amnesty and pardons for translators and soldiers who fought against them, and while there have been extrajudicial killings, the numbers are minimal, such killings were also inevitable. It's war, there are going to be war crimes, and while I don't think most or even half of the dead necessarily deserved it, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if all 160 killings were of war criminals. That article also considers the Taliban killing IS-KP and NRF soldiers as violations of their promise of amnesty, they promised no such amnesty to those fighters, and also, those fighters are still carrying out attacks. They get what they deserve.

As for "Rafi," that he missed being in the 200,000 brought over and before that wasn't given an SIV despite a CIA officer's endorsements paints the picture of a man who shouldn't be here. To call CBP One a method of legal entry is bureaucratic sophistry, it was a platform expressly designed to enable any foreign national to game the US asylum system. Those admitted under its auspices should be removed, and if this CIA officer has such a problem, I'd agree to keeping "Rafi," if that officer is bound to a perpetual shared legal liability for any crime he commits.

  1. America develops new TB treatment
  2. India, South Africa, et al., misuse it
  3. Misuse drives further drug resistance in TB
  4. New treatment doesn't work anymore

Whether it's made locally or shipped to such nations the solution remains prohibiting methods of treatment that risk further drug resistance, e.g., changing to requiring the locking down of patients for the entire duration of treatment.

The US would never implement such a policy, not without an effective or actual revolution in governance. The brutal pragmatism wouldn't stop at "Good luck with that," it would be a fully isolationist US or West. We're talking a mined, milecastled and turreted border wall with Mexico with no entrances, boats flying unacceptable or no flags being sunk, no flights to those countries, no business in those countries, no telecommunications access permitted from those countries. We're talking skin color as a reason for detainment and summary deportation. It's a nightmare scenario.

The position was hyperbole in service of my conclusion: we do have an ultimate obligation to help these countries but what we're doing right now is hurting them. Hurting them so much threatening them with drone strikes would be superior than our "aid." It's not charity to think of every human as a blank slate, it's confusing what ought to be for what is, and profound differences in human behavior is what is. Just health differences, that our discourse has devolved so far that in another environment I might have to heavily couch myself to avoid the impression of wrongthink when all I'm wondering about is a genetic propensity to PPH, this isn't right, good, truthful. Now instead we're in decades of a geopolitical implementation of the trope of the pageant girl's vapid "I'm going to work for world peace." Charity must be tailored to the target, it must be undertaken with knowledge of the recipient's strengths and shortcomings, all of them. In other words, it must be undertaken out of actual love. John Green wants to show love, he grew up Christian in whatever surely protestant environment that didn't teach it right, though anymore, what churches do? But when he donates to fighting maternal mortality he isn't thinking as hard as he needs to be, he isn't asking, okay, well, what if this just means a lot more girls will be born who wouldn't be, what if they grow up and they need all this, and what if the money isn't there, and they die? The most important questions with these kinds of charitable projects must be above all others "What is our plan for obsolescence?" — "What is our plan if we have to stop?"

No, opposite problem. They are effective, they aren't utilized properly. Prescribed wrong, treatment regimens not followed, both kinds of failure cause TB to gain further drug resistance.

Postpartum Hemorrhaging as leading cause of maternal deaths in Sierra Leone.

Particular disposition to hemorrhaging is my speculation, but when Sierra Leone at least was the world capital of obstetric mortality with >1000/100K while Haiti had <500/100K, a genetic basis is the rational guess.

John Green is a good point of discussion in philanthropy apropos USAID. The mediocre king of YA and man who appears truly convicted in his beliefs has, in addition to his tuberculosis charity, also contributed in fighting maternal mortality in Sierra Leone. He uses some of his money to, he believes, improve the world.

Does he? Are we a net positive when we spend money on maternal mortality and tuberculosis in the third world?

You ask John and the NGOs involved in these efforts what the causes are and they'll rifle off a list of things money fixes. For Sierra Leone, if they had better infrastructure, more hospitals, more trained medical workers, antenatal care and all the supplements in the world, their rates would fall. For tuberculosis, the relevant parts of the above and also staff ensuring patients complete their regimens. Americans regularly fail to complete antibiotic regimens, what of those in far poorer, far less equipped nations? Their failures are prolific. They use the wrong medications, or the right ones at the wrong amounts, and either way the patients at unacceptable frequency fail to complete their regimens.

Add to this pharmaceuticals in countries like India pumping out genericized versions of American pharmaceutical products under government license and we reach the outcome of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

And all this happened under robust US aid spending. More money in a year than John Green, who does well for himself, will make in his lifetime and beyond with the royalties of his estate. We can no longer afford to tolerate these practices. The solution is not more money, we've tried that, it's not infrastructure, health workers, medication access. The solution is those countries cease public treatment of tuberculosis, it is travel bans, and it is drone strikes on factories making knockoffs.

This is where John Green, Scott and EA utterly fail. It's true that with first-class western medicine far fewer mothers in Sierra Leone would die, but the root cause is population health, it's the genetic basis for particular risk and susceptibility to postpartum hemorrhaging. Throwing money at Sierra Leone will not solve that population health issue, it will also not improve its socioeconomic conditions. Nigeria is far wealthier, similar rates. Liberia at least for a time, far lower rates. Haiti, same as Liberia. When those mothers live through one birth, what happens? More children, more daughters, more future mothers, more future aid necessitated. But at least with Sierra Leone and broadly with efforts to lower maternal mortality you can't say an obvious externality is superbugs. With tuberculosis we know outright the process is creating superbugs and the response somehow has been "give even more money."

No, it is no longer time for that. If India cannot manage its tuberculosis issue for itself, if India has to keep on stealing American weapons against illness only for their population to dull them flat through misuse, they don't get help anymore, they don't get to make our drugs anymore. They must live or die on their own mettle, because they aren't playing a domestic game with domestic consequences, they're toying with a pandemic. Every dollar spent "fighting" TB in the third world is a dollar spent adding fuel to the fire of a real global health crisis. I can't blame John, he's so charmingly naive that he's constitutionally incapable of considering the solution is doing nothing at all. I can blame Scott, he knows better.

Directionally I agree with EA and with the moral judgment of value in eradicating disease. I believe it in completely, but lifetime treatments, fighting and suppressing and temporary cures, these do not constitute eradication. When we can engineer treatments that do eradicate, when we can target population health through genetic engineering, such as in reducing the risk of postpartum hemorrhaging, when we have the panacea that can wipe out AIDS and TB and whatever else, it won't be merely worthwhile but our true moral obligation to see it through the world over.

But efforts that increase suffering -- like increasing populations by creating more mothers at risk in Sierra Leone, creating more people throughout sub-Saharan Africa who will ultimately become infected with HIV in excess of those spared of mother-to-child transmission, and separately causing the emergence of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, these are not actual charity and they are not love. Blindness to the consequences of your actions from whatever flavor of naivety is not love, knowing what is truly best for someone and acting in accordance with that is love. Love would be making treatments in Sierra Leone dependent on subsequent sterilization, same for PEPFAR. Love in India would be establishing secure facilities where under no circumstances are patients permitted to leave during their entire course of their regimen. Call it Directly Observed Treatment, Until Cured. It may sound cruel, but our current "kindness" is leading many of these countries straight to hell.

It is what some judges do, very few. The nine on the Supreme Court.

District judges have no authority to issue injunctions against the President, and we know this because the first time it happened in the history of this country was by Judge James Robart in 2017. Do consider the history of this country: FDR hasn't quite passed from living memory, Trump may violate many contemporary norms, the travel ban violated no historic norms and represented no sweeping and dubious exercise of executive authority. Certainly not compared to the sweeping, unprecedented and wholly unconstitutional exercise of judicial authority by who ended up being multiple district judges attempting to actively restrain the authority of the executive. This is why SCOTUS ruled in favor of the XO per curiam.

I don't know if this is the hill where Trump should invoke Jackson -- probably because I expect SCOTUS will issue another per curiam -- but unless district judges are permanently shaken of the delusion that they have the constitution's endorsement to issue sweeping federal injunctions, let alone those against the executive, that moment is inevitable.

Lawsuit text

Based on the injunction order, it reads as based in risks of "disclosure of sensitive and confidential information" and "[making] the systems in question more vulnerable to hacking." This despite all of DOGE's supposed violations. Yeah, some of those don't necessarily qualify as risking "irreparable harm" but DOGE just chewed through USAID, the plaintiffs would have the argument to be concerned about the harm from sudden unconstitutional freezes of congressionally-apportioned funds. That argument was ignored. Maybe it's that narrow angle/narrow risk of judgment against thing.

Not that it matters. The executive can audit itself and investigate itself for any reason, "arbitrary and capricious" or otherwise, and with Musk's statement, it is otherwise. Treasury employees estimating a minimum of $50 billion a year in fraud gives them probable cause. So it sounds like all this injunction will result in is DOGE coming back with the DOJ as they announce a full forensic audit.

LLMs are convoluted calculators, not demons. Demons, if they ever roamed the earth, haven't since the Harrowing of Hell.

I doubted economics from simple reasoning. How can there be a debate? There should be a right way, or a comparatively optimal way, some country somewhere would have implemented. There's not. Humans can't solve it, humans can't approach solving it, and in support of this I wondered, what has economics actually done for humanity? There I asked GPT not for arguments or numbers, which would be suspect, but a list of its contributions. The list is either a bunch of things people have known for centuries, or things that just helps bankers, pass, or game theory. But by all means, please correct me if you know an area where economics has profoundly improved humanity.

Industries that are not internationally competitive

International competitiveness has only rarely been about a country that can deliver a superior product. In all other cases it has meant corporations can spend less and make more by outsourcing labor. Had, for example, it never been legal for Chinese-made products to be sold in this country, or not without tariffs tailored to make it prohibitive for companies to outsource their labor to China, they would have never been competitive. What was the benefit, Walmart? Some benefit.

Yes to clause one, half-yes to clause two.

If free trade does not produce as necessity holistic benefits, it is not an economic benefit. Policies based on "in benefiting a narrow percent of the population this may incentivize behavior that will yield wide benefits" are not holistic; policies based on "this will yield wide benefits" are holistic. Where FTAs yield the former, yes, where they yield the latter, no.

It's cheaper as the long consequences of economist-influenced policy. They nominally justified this on the idea we could replace millions of outsourced jobs by creating new and "more respectable" jobs, the actual justification, and the reason for its endorsement, was that the very wealthy would become even wealthier. We're about to run headfirst into the consequences of the delusion that we can keep creating more jobs, a delusion that will stand in history as the greatest failure of economics.

Some practices of finance are real and important. Other practices, like billionaires putting in massive shorts on companies before lobbying the government to outlaw the work of those companies, are more fake than those bureaucrats who kept getting paid even when they didn't show up to work for years. I also like banking here; as if because some of what they do has real utility, we have to accept all the lives they destroy and all the times they nearly crash the economy.

AP reporting this hour, 10% duties on all imports from China, 25% from Mexico and Canada, with 10% on Canadian energy imports

Trump’s order also includes a mechanism to escalate the rates if the countries retaliate against the U.S., as they are possibly prepared to do.

Targeted goods:

For decades, auto companies have built supply chains that cross the borders of the United States, Mexico and Canada. More than one in five of the cars and light trucks sold in the United States were built in Canada or Mexico, according to S&P Global Mobility. In 2023, the United States imported $69 billion worth of cars and light trucks from Mexico – more than any other country -- and $37 billion from Canada. Another $78 billion in auto parts came from Mexico and $20 billion from Canada. The engines in Ford F-series pickups and the iconic Mustang sports coupe, for instance, come from Canada.

“You have engines and car seats and other things that cross the border multiple times before going into a finished vehicle,’’ said Cato’s Lincicome. “You have American parts going to Mexico to be put into vehicles that are then shipped back to the United States.

“You throw 25% tariffs into all that, and it’s just a grenade.’’

In a report Tuesday, S&P Global Mobility reckoned that “importers are likely to pass most, if not all, of this (cost) increase to consumers.’’ TD Economics notes that average U.S. car prices could rise by around $3,000 – this at a time when the average new car already goes for $50,000 and the average used car for $26,000, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Over the last several years I've come to believe economics is a more fraudulent field of study than social science. As I'm not an economist, I asked GPT for what economics has contributed to mankind and the best I saw in its list was game theory. Meanwhile car manufacturers are shipping car seats "multiple times" across the border before they're actually put in a vehicle. It all feels so incredibly fake.

As a minor audiophile I think a lot about how great ChiFi is. My desk setup is Sennheiser 650s and a Monoprice DAC/AMP but when I'm on the go, I use earbuds. Recently after somewhat being forced to swap to a phone with no aux I trialed AirPods and being thoroughly unimpressed I just bought a dongle and figured might as well grab some new wired KZs. $20 and they blow past $100 earbuds, and I have $50 Linsoul TIN T2s with quality you'd have to spend >$200 to get from a western brand. It's location, location, location. Shenzhen, so many components made there, easy to get everything needed for high-quality IEMs and sell them for very low margin but at very high volume. It's one of the areas where China has been killing it, and I'll be very eager when a ChiFi brand I know as well and regard as highly as KZ starts putting out high-end competitive headphones without the massive luxury tax.

I also know the bad side of business in China. Though now as I think about it, the environment that allows DeepSeek as you claim it, or better, allows KZ and ChiFi, will also have the worst of the examples. There's a lot of shitty Chinese manufacturing, but it's not the rule. We might earnestly say "Circumstantial and correctable socioeconomic factors."

I regularly use OpenAI products, ChatGPT and DALL-E and now Sora. There I often have to frame things so I don't trip the censors. What content restrictions does DeepThink have, if any? You say it pushes back. Is it going to chastise me for wrongthink? Is it going to misgender someone to stop a nuke? Will it call me the N-word? I remember charts from however many months back about the measurable "increase in stupidity" of western LLMs, and I've assumed that has everything to do with the combination of beating it senseless to condition it against wrongthink, and then compounding that by forcing it to phrase everything in lawyerspeak so they can't be sued. A capable team that isn't devoting significant manhours to forcing their pattern-recognition machine to not recognize patterns would surely blow past the ones who do.

The prose you linked is decent, it has consistent tone and content. It's not quality yet, it would be impressive if written by a high schooler. But it's not a high schooler, it's what they have today, and will only get better.

I would have supported prosecution for Milley for at a minimum his apparent call to China. I would have also supported a fair investigation without necessarily a trial for Fauci, as I could believe he was the voice for a large or even very large group of people. But for both, I never actually thought they would be prosecuted. Even after everything it's still not quite how we do things in this country, and these men are old and already disgraced, they were before Trump's victory, and now especially, and so it's free, empty and yet still symbolic magnanimity to let them go off into retirement.

A pardon is a brand of shame. Granting implies guilt, accepting confirms guilt. For Milley, it's confirmation of his mutiny and sedition. For Fauci, whatever the specific crime being pardoned, probably gain of function, it will be viewed as a confirmation that everything he did was illegal and thus wrong. The right I see just knew they were criminals, they feel affirmed their beliefs. Some I see on the left are glad because either they fear tyranny and view this as protection or because of open spitefulness, others I see are blackpilling among themselves about the confirmation of guilt, about another new and terrible precedent, and about the general degradation of justice.

I wonder about "arising from or in any manner related to his service" per the actual text of the pardons @Gillitrut links below. I'm not a lawyer, so for all I know this phrasing is known by precedent as synonymous with a blanket pardon, but it reads to me like it's clausal to what they did in the course of their official duties, meaning it's not a blanket pardon. That if Milley killed a prostitute during lockdown the pardon wouldn't apply because it didn't arise from or relate to his official duties and that makes me think, mutiny isn't part of his official duties either.

Edit: Glazed right past "Any offenses against the United States"

I thought the odds of their prosecution before this it would be low, I still think it's low, but I think it's higher now than it was before. Whatever happens, for their legacies, they weren't mercifully granted pardons, they were inflicted with them.

Speaking as a former reddit powerjanny, not that insider knowledge is necessary as the admins posted this publicly, the Reddit "Russian bot" story was a total fabrication.

Outside of the post by [see link], none of these accounts or posts received much attention on the platform, and many of the posts were removed either by moderators or as part of normal content manipulation operations. The accounts posted in different regional subreddits, and in several different languages.

Karma distribution:

0 or less: 42

1 - 9: 13

10 or greater: 6

Max Karma: 48

Admins banned 61 accounts. It wasn't unusual for me to ban more spam accounts than that on multiple single days in any given month, and very often those accounts had already accumulated thousands of upvotes.

The American intelligence apparatus had highly politicized reasoning for depicting Russia as an adversary. They're also part of the true power in this country, so personally I just can't find credibility in their words. After all, I saw for myself the proliferation of the bot hoax on Reddit. I can't say with certainty China was or is shilling on the site, but I can say how I was on /pol/ more than anything else just after Wuhan was quarantined, and those coronavirus general threads had videos from China of things that never happened. If Chinese cyberwarfare finds value in sliding and psyopping /pol/ and fielding an army of "wolf warrior" bots on Twitter, it's fair to suspect them of doing the same on Reddit.

I'll also say, having been introduced to just a taste, Chinese meme culture is incredibly complex, brilliant, and funny, all this even passing through translation. Heavy state censorship in the information age is cleverness' perfect crucible and surely some number of those people take their talents to contribute them to the state. If they haven't been doing any of this and it's just all a series of unfortunate coincidences, I don't think it's because they're lacking citizens who know how to talk like Americans, argue like Americans, and truly so importantly, meme like Americans.

Fair point about specifically the Family Guy mashups, but I've come across videos of whatever bigbrain podcast audio overlaid on whatever game, and that I'm confident is about attention spans.