site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 235096 results for

domain:amphobian.info

Split keyboard. I think holding my hands close together like on a regular keyboard was hurting my upper back.

The Germans were the ones who opened the Pandora's Box of bombing civilian infrastructure in the opening phase of the invasion of Poland. Meanwhile the RAF did not begin intentionally targeting civilians or until the Luftwaffe had made it official policy in the latter half of the Battle of Britain.

In short, your claim that the British were the ones to "escalate" the conflict is plainly false.

Churchill sucks. He was a warmonger who was terrible at war and failed at everything he tried to do.

I would consider the fact that Churchill's side won pretty much every every war he was involved in strong evidence to the contrary.

He was still responsible for pushing the RAF to terrorize the German civilian populous in the hopes that the Germans would retaliate in a way that would pull America into the war.

This is a very dumb objection for you to be making. Either Churchill was a brilliant mastermind who played the German high command (and everyone else) like a fiddle or he was a "warmonger who was terrible at war and failed at everything he tried to do". Pick one.

In either case it doesn't adress the issue that the US didn't move against Germany directly until the Germans started shooting at American shipping.

Finally "the Madagascar plan" wasn't even proposed until the summer of 1940. Not only were Britain and Germany already at war by that point Madagascar wasn't even Germany's to give. Forget Churchill, for what reasons would anyone in the British leadership agree to that plan at that time?

Maybe if the Germans had used one of thier own colonies, an ally's colony, or tried to cut a deal with a global hegemon instead of declaring war on them things would've played out differently but we don't live in that timeline.

This is a great Harry Potter themed parody of Empire State of Mind. Cadence is perfect, every line rhymes and is a reference to the series. Think my favorite is "Two girls ask about my scar, told 'em I was born with it/ Took 'em to my dorm for a Triwizard Tournament" or "Decked out cauldron, they wonder how I paid for it/ Drive-by on Gringotts leave a goblin on the pavement".

I just pray the cartels don’t get their hands on this tech

/images/1726884873146521.webp

The narrative being circulated is that the NYPD “killed a man over a $2.90 subway ticket.”

This can be translated as "this is why America will never look like northern Europe in terms of transit"

Can you understand why I might look toward the decisiveness, the cold competence of a robot cop who’s not afraid of libelous press coverage or administrative leave or criminal charges by an anti-cop DA, and think, “Hell yeah, let’s get some more of that.”

We're getting a head start. This - and not some Brian Herbert Terminator bullshit - is why the Butlerian Jihad happened:

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

It would be nice to have a technological solution to social problems. But all this does is centralize power in the hands of people who made things like Google Gemini a mess. You think they can't see ahead to the "imported" racial bias? They called it way ahead of time, and took steps.

For all you know, your cold robot is going to be given an androgynous body shape, will only answer to Xir and, in a twisted inversion of I, Robot, have a built in random factor to save a marginalized body every so often instead of doing the "rational" thing, for equity. It only makes sense. Getting stabbed in the subway is awful. But what about the violence done against black bodies and other justice-impacted folx? It's not an easy equation.

At a wedding, normally pretty fun for me, but the music ... Ugh.

It's too old. Perfect music for someone born in 1985 but I was born in 1990, and the actual wedding participants were born in 1995.

DJs are important.

The idea that this is some sort of escalation or new and novel threat is frankly just dumb

There are few arguments that make me want to climb up a wall like this one. Intellectually, I know people sincerely believe it. But I still sometimes wonder if I'm the victim of a Ken M-esque troll (if so, bravo)

Nuclear weapons are simply an improvement on our ability to blow shit up. You can tell because they're literally measured by comparison to our previous set of explosives. Nobody is blase about them.

It is of absolutely no comfort to me that we went thousands of years trying to set woods on fire before we figured out how to roast cities.

Just once, I'd like to see a protagonist with a game overlay try to clip through a corner by repeatedly crouch jumping.

I need to figure out where I want to go with the hobby.

Steel challenge is reasonably cheap, and a lot of fun

Odd, for some reason your comment was showing up as a child of mine. But after refreshing the page it seems to have sorted itself.

Apologies.

(Note i'm on mobile FWIW)

Bingo.

Trumps version of the same lie is something like "I've been told that the Teamsters like me a lot. They say over a million of them support me, can you believe that? Enthusiasm like you've never seen, the Teamsters are going to vote for Trump in massive numbers, just unbelievable numbers!"

I'm about 99% certain this robot is just a very expensive and fancy remote-controlled car. I don't think this incident has any bearing at all on AI, since no AI was involved.

However, on that note, I doubt there will be tens of millions of robots walking around anytime soon, even if (especially if) they are smarter than people...because if they are smarter than humans it will be much, much cheaper and more profitable just to connect them to the internet and have them do email and managerial jobs.

You're greenlit for a 10 episode Netflix series.

Only at this point, with Mickles now having departed the train and re-entered the platform, do the officers pull the trigger, with their backstop being the subway train, rather than the empty platform it would have been had they shot him when they first had the chance.

The platform isn't empty though, there's people on it. You're probably right that the train has a higher density of people, although neither was particularly full. It seems pretty likely that the cops wouldn't want to open fire in a big open space like that. It seems plausible that a bullet might even fly out of the station depending on how it's aimed.

I also like the guy who refused to move from his seat while this is all happening.

I didn’t reply to you, unless you are also @Blunicorn, so I’m not sure what you mean.

No, the robot in OP’s post did not shoot anyone. What I’m saying is that I am not necessarily afraid of the replacement of human cops by robot cops, if it means an improvement in the competence and decisionmaking of police.

What does any of that have to do with anything i said, and how did you type all that out in under 5 minutes?

Also are you under the mistaken impression that the robot shot the guy?

What's the line? Our tools have been rebelling against us since the first farmer stepped on a rake?

The idea that this is some sort of escalation or new and novel threat is frankly just dumb. People have been working on ways to kill eachother remotely since the days of Archimedes. It was a major part of his whole "brand". Im also quite skeptical of the claims that they will be "smarter than the smartest human" and or that we will "lose basically every challenge against them" claims.

The blanket play in the video was actually quite smart if clumsily executed, and as you yourself observed, the thing that actually stopped him was getting shot by a human.

Let’s compare this to the police-abolitionist left’s latest martyr. On September 15th, the NYPD shot and wounded a man named Derrell Mickles. Two bystanders were also wounded by gunfire, as was one of the officers on scene. (Apparently by a ricocheting bullet.) In stark contrast to the standard complaint about trigger-happy American cops, this scenario is an example of a very common problem, which is police officers being too reluctant to shoot.

The narrative being circulated is that the NYPD “killed a man over a $2.90 subway ticket.” Well, leaving aside the fact that nobody actually died, this is also a lie, because Mickles was shot for repeatedly charging at police officers with a knife. Mickles had jumped the turnstile at a subway station twice in the span of ten minutes. The first time he did so, police followed him and asked him to leave, which he did. Nobody was shot during this encounter, but Mickles brandished a large knife before departing the station. When he then returned and jumped the turnstile a second time, police followed him onto the platform, where the shooting occurred.

As early as 2:28 into the video, Mickles says to an officer, “I’m gonna make you kill me.” He then repeatedly shouts, “Shoot me!” as the officers ask him probably twenty times to drop the knife. 3:25 is the first time that Mickles moves toward police aggressively; at this point in the encounter it would unquestionably be justified to deploy a taser, and probably ruled justified to use deadly force. Instead, they hesitate, and seconds later the subway train enters the station and Mickles gets on an occupied Subway train with a knife in his hand. The police’s reluctance to shoot Mickens has now created a situation that is far more dangerous to the public. At this point the officers deploy tasers multiple times, striking Mickles at least once; he was almost certainly on drugs during the encounter, because he shrugs off the taser. Only at this point, with Mickles now having departed the train and re-entered the platform, do the officers pull the trigger, with their backstop being the subway train, rather than the empty platform it would have been had they shot him when they first had the chance. Their indecision - their reluctance to shoot another person even when that person is armed, dangerous, and actively goading them into shooting him - endangered their own lives and the lives of others.

Can you understand why I might look toward the decisiveness, the cold competence of a robot cop who’s not afraid of libelous press coverage or administrative leave or criminal charges by an anti-cop DA, and think, “Hell yeah, let’s get some more of that.” I want men like Derrell Mickles to be dispatched quickly and without fanfare, rather than allowed to put the public at risk. Police officers are nervous, pumped up on adrenaline, and can easily forget their training under stress. A robot would have done what needed to be done, and all the people on that train could have been on their way.

Github repo with course content: https://github.com/mikeizbicki/cmc-csci181-languages

All the lectures recorded and put on youtube: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSNWQVdrBwoa4KNaiKr-ayUdROZdSZ_1E

(unfortunately the audio didn't capture on the first video)

TLP is now about opposing all Republicans.

I think some or all of the underage content would be covered and illegal under federal obscenity law, if in the same marijuana sense. There probably is a Stanley v. Georgia right to receive non-obscene furry porn, though I wouldn't want to wager that much on any one piece as passing that test and I wouldn't be absolutely confident in Stanley surviving modern review.

I too have questions about "intent to continue doing so" - who actually tells the humorless polygrapher who's about to torpedo your career, "Yes, I totally intend to keep doing this"?

I tracked down the full complaint and security background paperwork (attachment 2, relevant page 147) on the FOIA project. 'Intent to continue' seems attached only to the supercategory of 'these types of images', even by the government's telling. Especially if Bierly didn't realize how deep shit he was in, not completely disavowing future consumption of above-age furry porn and/or insufficiently distinguishing between it is... plausible. And it's kinda clearance investigator's jobs to not let people they're investigat_ing_ realize the shit is neck-high.

((Hell, there are some internal parts of how tags/blacklisting worked at e621 at the time where that might have augmented that confusion even had Bierly been very aggressive about blocking underage content, though I expect no one wants to hear about those details.))

But short of his account getting linked to his real name, and maybe not even then, we're probably never gonna know with more certainty than just what he wants us to think the story is.

🤨🤨🤨

It's long distance, and "member of my family" here just means people related by blood.

However while I can't make any insight into whether the art community is shrinking or growing, the fact that this piece made you feel emotions, and then discuss them, is probably a victory for the artist.

They certainly succeeded at making a piece of art that evokes emotions, but that's just not my criteria for what constitutes good art since (as someone who dabbles in arts myself, primarily literature and music) I think it's trivially easy to do so - especially if you consider "intense hatred of and anger at the artist" a valid emotion to evoke. Part of the problem is that the art in Union Station looks like it was taken straight from an unfinished sketch. Skill is an integral part of it for me - an important part of being an artist is constantly questioning what you bring to the world others couldn't already offer themselves, and if your art lacks technique and is easily replicated, you genuinely don't offer much. In order for any art to be considered good at all, there also needs to be a way for it to be bad, there needs to be a non-trivial set of failure-criteria that a sizeable amount of people would not be able to reach. A lot of modern artists, even celebrated ones (e.g. Rothko) don't have that.

Furthermore, there are works that fit an art gallery that don't work in a public space. I don't know about you, but I don't think Francisco Goya's Black Paintings should be displayed in a public square, and that was constructed with infinitely more talent than whatever was in Union Station. I would honestly rather have an inoffensive, bland piece of public art than something that makes me feel depressed or annoyed every time I encounter it.

A criminal suspect has lost a fight against a police robot. First he tried shooting it, then covering it with a sheet. The robot tear-gassed him, then ran him over (after he was shot by a sniper).

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZI1j5GPuSvw

This happened in Texas where in 2016 the police used a suicide bot to blow up a BLM terrorist.

Humans currently are in the position where we can basically dominate everything else. There are some animals that are said to be intelligent, like dolphins, crows, octopus, honey badgers etc. but their evolution has basically hit a ceiling and they're not going to get to the point where they will be carrying around tear gas and AR-15s. So their intelligence doesn't bother us. But soon enough there will be tens of millions of robots walking around, each of whom is smarter than the smartest human. You will lose basically every challenge against them. What then? Nobody voted for this and there's no opting out. Fun.

Someone made a post here about how Trump lies vs how the establishment lies and this Guardian article typifies it. Technically true but extremely misleading and you can see in the twitter replies that some people seem to have been misled and now are calling for the president of the Teamsters to be removed because he is out of touch with the rank and file. A similar thing happened with the 51 intelligence agents claiming the Hunter Biden laptop had all the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation. Again probably technically true but extremely misleading. For example even if some of the intelligence agents knew 100% that it was not a Russian intelligence operation they could still claim it had the hallmarks of a Russian intelligence operation.

Kinesis freestyle 2