NevermindNoMind @ NevermindNoMind @lemmy.world

Posts

19

Comments

309

Joined

2 yr. ago

Here's the fun part, they don't need to listen to you. You are far more predictable than you realize. They already know everything about you, what you search, what apps you use, what kinds of exercise you do and when, what you eat, what articles you read, movies and podcasts you consume, music you listen to, what you buy, where you go, who you hang out with, and everything about the people you hang out with. Every minute of your life is meticulously tracked and analyzed and compared to the hundred thousand people who are just like you in terms of interests and patterns. They can predict to a scary degree what your thinking before you might even realize it yourself. They know you better than you know yourself. Why waste the resources sifting through hours of recordings when they already know everything going on in your head from the million data points you voluntarily transmit to them everyday?

The other part of this to keep in mind is that you are bombarded with ads all day most of which you ignore. It's just that those few times where they manage to hit a straight bullseye, showing you an add for something you were just talking about or even just thinking about, those are the ones that will stick in your memory.

At times, however, Grusch was less forthcoming under oath than he had been in media interviews.

In the interview with NewsNation in June, Grusch claimed the government had “very large, like a football-field kind of size” alien craft, while he told Le Parisien, a French newspaper, that the US had possession of a “bell-like craft” which Benito Mussolini’s government had recovered in northern Italy in 1933.

On Wednesday, Grusch seemed unwilling to go into details on those claims, citing issues of security. Grusch told the hearing he was prepared to elaborate in private, but his reticence prompted speculation from doubters.

Garrett Graff, a journalist and historian who is writing a book on the government’s hunt for UFOs, tweeted: “Very interesting to me that Dave Grusch is unwilling to state and repeat under oath at the #UFOHearings the most explosive (and outlandish) of his claims from his NewsNation interview. He seems to be very carefully dancing around repeating them.”

Not to mention most of his testimony is second hand, things he was told not things he saw. And did he produce any documentary evidence? On its face I'm having a hard time differentiating this hearing from Project Camelot.

“The story aligns with a lot of similar stories that have played out, going back to the 1980s and 1970s, that together allege that the US government has kept an incredible secret, the literal most extraordinary secret that mankind could have, for not just weeks or months, but years and decades, with no meaningful leak or documentary evidence to ever come forward,” Graff previously told the Guardian.

“I think when you look at the government’s ability to keep secret other really important secrets, there’s a lot of reason to doubt the capability of the government to do that.”

That's it for me. If aliens have visited Earth, and I'm not completely skeptical about that, but if they did I highly doubt the government would have the ability to hide it, let alone a decades long reverse engineering program.

Interesting. I'm always suspicious of new laws meant to protect minors because it seems like children are always used as an excuse to promote bigotry. Not always of course, but that has been the recent trend. It seems this bill passed the Senate unanimously and was killed in an assembly committee. Newsom personally backed it and got it back on track. That probably says more about the political and optics of voting down a "tough on crime" trafficking bill than it does the actual policy.

Isa Borgeson, a manager for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, an advocacy organization opposed to SB 14, said the measure “does nothing to prevent the trafficking of minors or provide them with the healing that they need and deserve.”

“The people most vulnerable to being charged with trafficking are the victims of trafficking themselves. Charges are used to leverage their cooperation in prosecution and their survivor status is erased with many currently incarcerated in both youth and adult prisons,” Assembymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), a close Rivas ally, wrote on Twitter. Bryan is a member of the Public Safety Committee, and abstained from voting on SB 14 both on Tuesday and Thursday.

“Nobody supports the trafficking of children or any people. That’s why existing laws carry the potential for life in prison. We can and must do more to affirm, protect, and support survivors with all of our civic resources — including those beyond the criminal legal system,” he wrote.

It sounds to me like the concern is victims of trafficking getting forced into helping with recruiting. I don't know much about this stuff, but I remember that was one of the ways Epstein worked - victimize one girl, then coerce her to bring a friend next time. Sick shit, but the concern is do we treat that first victim the same as we would treat Epstein? Do we allow prosecutors to use the threat of a life in prison to coerce victims to testify if they otherwise wouldn't want to?

So, is this a case of a Republican legislator successfully backing Democrats into a corner optically, such that if they vote no Democrats get labeled as supporting child trafficking, while at the same time the law would work to turn victims of trafficking into criminals, to the potential detriment of victims? Or are some Democrats overly worried about edge cases? I don't know, this shit is complicated, and this is why policy shouldn't be reduced to headlines and talking points.

I don't know if it works, but I found this post where someone claims to have made a keyword filter. https://sh.itjust.works/post/1715366 I don't think you'll be able to filter out "X" though

Congratulations on being one of today's lucky ten thousand! https://xkcd.com/1053

When does place end?

Its true based on his FCC filings. They want a fascist in office, yes. But that fascist has to actually win the election, and DeSantis has been blowing through money and his poll numbers have been sinking since he entered the race. The more republican primary voters learn about and are exposed to him, the less they like him. The donor class is smart enough not to give into the sunk cost fallacy and are realizing DeSantis is a loser, which means they're looking for a different fascist that can actually win a primary and election.

Two things on this:

1. This undermines DeSantis' central argument around electability. His pitch to Republican voters is he is Trump (culture war fighter, grievance based politics, etc), but smarter and more professional. He has the same goals as Trump, but he is drama free and a savvy operator who will actually get things done, unlike Trump who couldn't focus or stay out of scandal long enough to accomplish things. DeSantis doing massive campaign staff layoffs and an overall "reset" (2? 3? months since officially launching) demonstrates that he is not as savvy as he'd have you believe. How can he run the government and "stop woke" or whatever, if he can't even run a campaign? How can he manage the county's budget, if he can't manage his own?
2. DeSantis is broke. The quarterly FCC filings show that he has spent basically all the money he has raised since starting his campaign. He's got basically no cash on hand, and has been relying more and more on his outside PAC to do the basic campaign type things, like organizing events. More importantly, over a third of the money he raised was from donors who maxed out their contributions, meaning they cannot give him any more cash during the primary. The people who can give more money are questioning whether they should given his sinking poll numbers and are actively looking for other horses to back. Basically, DeSantis has got no money and few people left to raise more money from. And there is only so much he can rely on his PAC for given laws about coordination and so forth.

My prediction is if DeSantis doesn't put on a big show at the debate next month, really get some viral zingers in there, he's going to continue to deflate until his campaign enters zombie mode and he ends up in fourth place in Iowa.

Another article I read theorized that Threads launching might have increased the awareness of ActivityPub and softened peoples resistance to the "Mastodon is too hard, not worth trying to figure out" messaging in the media. Who knows though, and there's probably not a single answer anyway.

Does this mean my wife will stop sending me videos where is just text and a guy giving the camera side eye for 30 seconds? If so, thank fuck.

Twitter's legal name is already X. It was changed months ago with official announcement. Someone tried to sue Twitter, which is how we found out.

Investors care about the potential for future growth and thus future increased profits. They don't give a shit about what a company is doing today, except to the extent it is predictive of the future. Investors look at this and see lots of activity of users who actively hate the company, that's not future growth.

To take an unfortunate example, imagine if Bud Light had a bump in sales because a bunch of right wing lunatics were buying extra just so they could make videos of them throwing away, shooting, blowing up, or otherwise destroying the beer while vowing never to drink it again. Does an investor look at that bump in sales and say "oh neat, look how well Bud Light is doing, I should invest!" or do they say "A lot of Bud Light's core consumer base is pissed as hell and probably not going to be buying this product in the future, there is limited potential for future growth, I'm out"?

“At one point, we didn’t even know who the mayor was,” Ballard recalls. “If you knew somebody and you was white, and your grandfather was in office when he died or got sick, he passed it on down to the grandson or son, and it’s been that way throughout the history of Newbern.”

Yeah that's a monarchy. And those folks probably call themselves "patriots". And they probably claim systematic racism doesn't exist either while being the dictionary definition of it.

I'll give you an example that comes to mind. I had a question about the political leanings of a school district and so I asked the bots if the district had any recent controversies, like a conservative takeover of the school board, bans on crt, actions against transgender students, banning books, or defying COVID vaccine or mask requirements in the state, things like that. Bing Chat and ChatGPT (with internet access at the time) both said they couldn't find anything like that, I think Bing found some small potatoes local controversy from the previous year, and both bots went on to say that the voting record for the Congressional district the school district was in was lean Dem in the last election. When I asked Bard the same question it confidentiality told me that this same school district recently was overrun by conservatives in a recall and went on to do all kinds of horrible things. It was a long and detailed response. I was surprised and asked for sources since my searching didn't turn any of that up, and at that point Bard admitted it lied.

I don't know, my experience with Bard is it's been way worse than just evasive lying. I routinely ask all three (and now anthropic since they opened that up) the same copy and paste questions to see the differences, and whenever I paste my question into Bard I think "wonder what kind of bullshit it's going to come up with now". I don't use it that much because I don't trust it, and it seems like your more familiar with Bard, so maybe your experience is different.

That's really fascinating. In my experience, of all the LLM chatbots I've tried, Bard will immediately no hesitation lie to me no matter the question. It is by far the least trustworthy AI I've used.

Ah there was a time when Prime Day was kind of fun, a Christmas in July kind of feeling. But now Amazon is just so loaded with knock off junk that doesn't work, spam postings, review manipulation, etc I absolutely dread shopping on Amazon for anything other than something I need right away, can't get in a local store, and don't care if it breaks in 2 months. I've never given less of a shit about Prime Day than I do today, and that's even without factoring in the price manipulation noted by OP.

Fair, but with this housing market higher than average number of millennials are still renting.

Lol fair enough! I've never been at a place that allowed dogs, only 1 cat (with extra deposit). I've seen some places that allow dogs under 30-40lbs, but I'm not interested in those kinds of "dogs".

Very interesting observation. Alternative theory: cat vs dog prevalence corresponds with users who live in rentals vs owned homes (homeowners or people living with their parents, etc). Cats are often the only animals allowed in rentals. It's often not until you buy your own home are you "allowed" to have dogs.

But I think this still follows from what you suggest. People living in rentals are often younger (and more attentive to tech and culture generally, so more likely to be early adopters) and/or often live in big cities which obviously have higher percentages of tech workers than rural areas. When you say reddit went mainstream, that could mean more older people joined (more likely to be homeowners) as well as their kids (living at home with the family dog).

In my very scientific survey of me, I rented for a long time and had cats, and loved cat posts. One day I got old and bought a house and a year later got a dog. Now I like dog posts more.

I'll go now, I've given this far too much thought.