pandapoo @ pandapoo @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

273

Joined

2 yr. ago

I haven't read the law, but yes, a post like that could probably be considered propaganda.

That is assuming this law is similar to the other recent laws they've passed in the same vein, such as with criticizing the war, homosexuality, etc.

The article cited multiple Supreme Court cases that establish precedent, so it just might be how it works.

Propaganda is just information published with the intent to influence.

So to answer your question: posting.

Posting will (continue) to be considered an act of subversive propaganda, they've just added another banned topic to the existing list.

Of course this applies to any traditional medium as well, but I'm assuming this is mostly intended to curb social media posts and online discussions on the subject.

Oh my god, someone please tell me about understanding of the following facts are wrong:

They did all of that, compromised a SEC employee and the official SEC Twitter account, to move the price of Bitcoin only around 2.2%.

They could have just put sell orders in, and waited a month.

Here's the hourly BTC high and low prices for the day in question, Jan. 9th., 2024

All that risk, just to bump the price up $1,000, when it was already trading between $45-47k.

That is so dumb, so painfully dumb, that I almost feel bad about laughing my ass off about this. JFC.

Just over a month later, it was back trading around 50k....

Sort of, maybe. Intel will launch new hardware demonstrators as product lines for consumers, with the goal of pushing their OEM customers to create similar product lines i.e. USFF PCs.

They do this with laptops, and a bunch of other stuff. They'd rather not be in the retail hardware business, but they also realize that PC OEMs operate on slim margins, and as such are not the most creative risk takers.

So it's in Intel's interest to periodically launch new consumer lines to (hopefully) prove there's a market to be had, with whatever new product type of they're launching. Powered by Intel of course.

At least, that's my understanding of the issue.

That would be extra funny, considering at least some motivation behind his initially bidding on Twitter, was to cash out his absurdly overvalued Tesla stock, without causing it to crash.

Clearly he signed that initial Delaware contract while he was still riding high on mania, but still, his desire to convert his overpriced Tesla stock played no small part. The remaining rationale was mostly drug-induced psychosis, but I digress.

So, calculating fines based on his overpriced assets, forcing him to sell off a bunch of those shitty assets, and risking their price falling closer to their true worth, would be hilarious.

It's also why I am skeptical that they'll do it, or at least I'm skeptical they'll do it in a way that would trigger a domino effect, or market contagion.

And I can pull out a dozen other US military and CIA officials, current and present, who would say differently.

Would their status as current, or former, as cogs in the wheels of the US military and intelligence branches, make them credible as well?

This post is already too credible, so what the fuck, I might as well continue to dishonor it's noncredibility even further.

You can't really compare a modern major Arab army, to a western army. They serve different functions.

Major Arab armies, at least contemporary ones, are designed to primarily preserve the internal social order and hierarchy. They're internal security forces, with war planes and tanks.

Which presents another problem, coup d'etats. You can't risk your command staff aligning against your ruling class, or monarch, so they should not trained, or inclined, to cooperate too much. So you put rivals in charge a different branches, and make sure to purge anyone you cannot trust to preserve the status quo, above all else.

This also means small unit leadership and tactics are antithetical to the purpose of their military.

To be clear, I'm not talking about Arab militant groups or militias, and this is definitely not a function of race. It's function of the types of political systems you currently find in much of, but certainly not all, of the Arab world.

You might have missed my point at the end, but I'm not sure at this point if semantics do matter.

If this was a singular event, or one of several events, they obviously would.

But after a year of daily war crimes and terrorism by the IDF, I genuinely don't know if it actually matters whether or not this one event should be categorized as terrorism, or just a war crime.

Agree with everything else you said, but I wanted to lead with that part first since I crammed in at the bottom of my last comment.

I don't understand how anything I said inferred credibility unto Russian sources, much less Russian MOD claims on Ukrainian losses.

Can you reread my original comment, and then explain to me how anything I said, is directly related to anything you just said?

I can't speak to that users motivations. I can only say that initial reporting out of any warzone should be viewed skeptically. I've already provided my rationale as to why, but ultimately, it's a personal choice.

I'd rather file away first reports as unconfirmed rumors, or incomplete assessments, until I've seen additional reporting from other sources I trust.

Maybe that user really is what you said they are, or maybe they just suck at articulating the point that I was making. I don't know.

My first account was on Lemmy.ml, because that was the main one recommended or showing up, during the first Reddit exodus.

I've encountered enough reasonable and well intentioned Lemmy.ml users to not assume the worst, even if I get where you're coming from.

The same cannot be said for hexabear.

I don't know if this can considered terrorism, the same way I don't consider car bombs driven into coalition FOBs in Iraq or Afghanistan, or roadside IEDs and VBIDs that killed soldier on patrol, as terrorism.

If you're targeting military personnel, it's not terrorism. But, if you're doing it in a way that unnecessarily causes collateral damage, too much collateral damage, etc., that's a war crime. Which I believe this was.

I can understand the argument that considers this terrorism, and I'm not putting down this flag saying that my understanding of it is right and yours is wrong. Just explaining my current view of the situation.

But at this point, I'm not sure it makes any difference. Israeli troops, and settlers, are regularly committing unquestionable acts of terrorism and war crimes on a daily basis, so what difference does it make classifying this one incident as terrorism, or just another war crime.

No, they're pointing out the obvious. Newsweek isn't what it used to be, and the claims are all sourced from Ukraine, with no external on the record confirmations, yet.

Ukrainian media has a moral obligation to service the propaganda needs of the war. That's neither good, nor bad, that's just a part of being in an existential war for survival. I don't blame them for it, and I'm certainly not bashing them for, I'm just pointing out reality.

I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but I have no trouble understanding why North Korea would send thousands of support personnel to Ukraine as the logistical tail to support their weapons platforms. Western nations have been doing the same thing inside Ukraine.

Maybe the story is true, it's possible. But I'm going to need to see better sources provided then a Kyiv Post article citing unnamed Western officials or Newsweek using Ukrainian articles as their source information.

That's it. If anything, it's more unreasonable to not be skeptical of early reports coming from any war zone, whether you want to believe them, or not.

Be skeptical of a lot of the news that purports to be coming out North Korea, a lot of it is from groups like the Moonies, and other ideologically and politically motivated propaganda.

I'm not saying this to imply that the DPRK is actually a worker's paradise, there's no starvation, no potemkin villages, or that yes, Kim Jong-il did play a round of golf and hit all holes in one.

My point is that for a country known as The Hermit Kingdom, and is extremely insular, secretive, and closed off, there's a lot fewer credible sources who can actually report accurately on the specific events or acute conditions inside, then the many publications and their articles would have you believe.

3,000 could easily consist entirely of technical trainers, service, support, communications, and logistics personnel, all dealing with North Korean weapons platforms being deployed in theater.

None of that changes the fact that they are a separate state, engaging in active warfare in Ukraine, alongside Russia. But I'm skeptical that this is a cannon fodder battalion. It's possible, I just haven't read any credible reports that have convinced me of that, yet.

One of the reasons I'm more skeptical, is because that would open the door for more overt and direct actions from countries like Poland. There's already additional countries helping Ukraine on the ground in similar capacities, weapons trainers, support staff, intelligence, etc, and this seems to somewhat mirror that.

There's also not many sources I trust less in these types of pieces then, "anonymous Western official".

Of course, all of my assumptions could be wrong, but I'm going to need more confirmed evidence than what I've seen so far in regards to these being cannon for a meat grinder, versus trying technical staff, rear echelon support for DPRK weapons platforms, and NK officers looking for knowledge and experience to bring back home to better develop their own military.

AI used to mean sentience, or close enough to truly mimic it, until marketing departments felt that machine learning was good enough.

I'm sorry, a computer using matrices to determine hot dog, or not hot dog, because it's model has a million hot dog photos in it, is not AI.

LLMs don't reason. There is no intelligence, artificial or otherwise.

It's doing a lot of calculations in cool new ways, sometimes. But that's what computers do, and no matter how many copilot buttons Microsoft sells, there's no AI coming out of those laptops.

This is why I hate everything being called AI, because nothing is AI. It's all advanced machine learning algorithms, and each serve different purposes. It's why I'll say LLM, facial recognition, deepfake, etc.

Because I have no doubt that there are a lot of machine learning tools and algorithms that could greatly assist humans in archival work, Google Gemini and ChatGPT aren't the ones that come to mind.

I imagine there will be limits set, through precedent.

For example, if a customer is chatting with an AI bot regarding a refund for a pair of $89 sneakers, and the bot tells the customer to report to the nearest office to collect 1 million dollars, I can see the courts ruling the plaintiff is not owed $1 million dollars.

Although, if the plaintiff ended up flying a few States over to try and collect, maybe travel costs and lost wages? Who knows.

If a company marketing fee for service legal advice, their might be a higher standard. Say a client was given objectively bad legal advice, the kind that attorneys get sanctioned or reprimanded for, and subsequently acts upon that advice. I think it's likely the courts would take a different approach and determine the company has a good bit of liability for damages.

Those are both just hypothetical generic companies and scenarios I made up to highlight how I can see the question of liability being determined by the courts. Unless some superceding laws and regulations enacted.

Or fuck it, maybe all AI companies have to do is put an arbitration clause in their T&C's, and then contract out to an AI arbitration firm. And wouldn't you know it, the arbitration AI model was only trained on cases hand picked by Federalist Society interns.