@Silverdawn's banner p

Silverdawn

I wake up πŸ”„ There's another psyop

0 followers   follows 8 users  
joined 2023 May 18 09:50:19 UTC

35-year old male from Eastern Europe.


				

User ID: 2412

Silverdawn

I wake up πŸ”„ There's another psyop

0 followers   follows 8 users   joined 2023 May 18 09:50:19 UTC

					

35-year old male from Eastern Europe.


					

User ID: 2412

This is why SMS is not a recommended second authentication factor for high-security or high-profile accounts: this can and has been abused before, many times.

What do the recommendations for account security in 2024 look like?

if Europe had built up it's armories back then, Russia would have thought twice about attacking and might have been defeated in the early stages of the war.

My impression is that most NATO countries want a prolonged conflict between Russia and Ukraine and so are not sending much of anything.

Here's how many main battle tanks NATO has access to:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294391/nato-tank-strength-country/

Here's how many they've sent to Ukraine:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1364974/ukraine-military-aid-tanks/

More military investment doesn't make financial sense because there is no real enemy worth fearing. An actual war between NATO and Russia would be little more than a cleanup operation.

You would think so, but they don't. They pull the current non-conservatives along to the left with them.

European governments have steadily been moving towards the right the last few years.

I want to start logging my mood, then create a graphic similar to the ones on /r/dataisbeautiful but with a bunch of other stats like sleep quality, ability to focus, energy, etc. What is the best software to do this? Preferably free, open source and easy to use.

Should I be paying attention to /pol/? Serious question.

Somehow, it seems like most people like the slop that's produced?

I think it's less a case of 'this person likes this thing' and more a case of 'This person is used to this thing and not pissed off enough to switch yet'.
And the initial adoption window was because 'everyone is doing it'.

Friends I cannot stress this enough: have kids.

People talk about loss of meaning and loss of rigid rites of passage that take you from being a child to being a man.

It's kids. It's always been kids.

Having kids is really hard (I apparently phrased this poorly since people are responding to it as if I am saying the opposite. My point is that you will find that the following things are the things you end of loving, and you will find the idea that these should ever have prevented you from having kids to be childish): your house will constantly be a filthy mess. They will keep you from sleeping, they will make it impossible to go out to dinner or to go to parties, and they make travel really difficult. Any of the dreams of adventure that you had before you had kids will be pushed back by 10 years.

And NONE of that will matter once you have them. You'll find the idea that you ever cared about any of this stuff laughable.

I remember asking my parents why they had created me when I was about 12. They told me something to the effect of 'You'll get it when you're older and have your own children.'
22 years have passed since and absolutely nothing has changed about my perspective. I see a lot of negatives: less free time, less money, interruptions during sleep, horrible noises and messes to clean up. The potential that I might have to spend the rest of my life as the caretaker for a human with brain damage or some other deformity. And so on and on.

And what are the upsides? I might have some positive experiences at some point? Is that it? I've seen a lot of what I would hesitantly call 'pro-natalism' but I haven't seen any real reasoning or logic. Maybe it's just a hormonal thing and that part of me was damaged or never formed because I legitimately don't understand people who want to be parents.

As far as 'Just trust me, it'll be worth it'. My answer is, sorry but no. I have been guided towards bad decisions far too many times already and this one in particular seems especially horrible in terms of possible consequences.

Any lawyers care to comment on how true this is? I'm not very fluent in legalese but that official legal document seems to be saying ''companies should actively hurt 'problem people' for the good of diversity''?
I want to assume this is somehow out of context or I'm misunderstanding something because the alternative is pretty horrifying.

Could you summarize what she is saying? I'm just not big into watching political commentary.

The woman talks about the absurdity of modern politics - people pretend to care about something because they like the attention or because they want to 'virtue signal', not because they actually care about the thing. She gives many, many examples.

While reading a book, do you feel emotions similar to those felt by the characters in the book? If yes, how strongly?

I've actually had similar thoughts as well. I wish there was a way to post a "here's an interesting topic/piece of news" without spamming up the forum.

Some people seem to think Rashida Jones was used for the initial AI voice.

Personally, I think whatever happens, this is a win for OpenAI/Microsoft/Sam Altman.

The likely worst-case legal scenario is a lawsuit followed by settling out of court for a trivial amount.

As far as public opinion, there are essentially 3 groups of people:

Group 1 doesn't care about this silly drama

Group 2 are the neon-haired neo-feminists who will scream about evil misogynistic capitalists on social media

Group 3 are techbros and people at the top of companies whose reaction will be "Wait, Sam Altman has created a real-life version of Samantha from Her? When can I get a copy and how much???"

People will probably try to hurt Sam Altman as has happened to the likes of Elon Musk and Rowling but I don't see that going anywhere. The US government doesn't have a problem with him and the OpenAI board has already been "cleansed of disloyal elements", to put it bluntly.

As of right now, the official trailer has 266k upvotes and 597k downvotes. It seems quite a few people are pissed, to put it mildly. Keep in mind there's an extra barrier to downvoting these days in the form of a necessary extension so the actual numbers are certainly much worse than what we can see here.

Overall, I can't see this as anything other than a colossal misstep by Ubisoft. "No such thing as negative advertisement" doesn't apply in this case because Ghost of Tsushima launched for PC at almost the exact time the Shadows trailer released and everywhere I look, I see comments along the lines of "play this for the actual Japanese samurai experience".

Imagine how easy it would have been for them to make Yasuke a kind, intelligent side-character and contrast him with an evil, stupid, warmongering Oda Nobunaga. They would have gotten tons of DEI points and almost nobody would have said anything negative. Instead, they catapulted a direct competitor to success and alienated a huge chunk of what could have been their core audience.

Wow, the statistics about penis length just straight up destroyed me mentally. I had gone my whole life thinking "14-15cm is average, I'm a bit above average so I don't have to worry about this nonsense."
Seeing women expect 20-22cm though... Wow, that is just brutal.

Does this link work properly? It's a stream so it should be completely safe.

Is piracy an option? I checked a few of my goto trackers and they have it uploaded.

Why do humans have such a preference for mixed foods?

Mixing different foods ensures a more balanced diet, providing essential nutrients, vitamins, antioxidants, fiber and minerals. Certain food combinations can enhance the nutritional value or bioavailability of individual ingredients. For example, pairing vitamin C-rich foods with iron-rich foods can increase iron absorption.

Also, there's probably a connection between salty/sweet/spicy foods and the abilities of (pure) sugar, salt and capsaicin to slow food spoilage by inhibiting bacterial growth.

Yeah it seems to be aimed at women which is why it’s strange, because most women know all this.

I dunno how to tell you this without offending you but I think you're wrong and possibly living inside a bubble. There are a huge number of women around me who seem to legitimately have no idea what men actually want. I base this on their clothes, their makeup and their idea of what "fit/fat" means.
Their behaviour seems to be very much based on social/cultural cues rather than objective truth. And I've even had experiences where I very gently suggested something along the lines of "nono, you should do X instead" and got a very harsh lecture or hate-filled glare in return.

I feel like "be as obnoxious as possible and completely unapologetic" is the way to go. Any other course of action seems to eventually lead to a leftist takeover.
Edit: Leadership is also crucially important. I recently saw a normal forum full of reasonable people get completely taken over and censored by a certain group in the span of <a week. It only had one moderator and he was a little naive but trying to be a decent human being, tolerant, etc. 2-3 mods and the takeover never would have taken place imo.

So, the way methane works is: it lasts about 12 years in the atmosphere, during which it gets completely broken down. But you have a lot of cows (~1.5B) constantly producing methane so you can think of the situation as a submarine that is constantly losing oxygen because of a leak but is also constantly getting air because of an open air tank. The overall result amounts to about a 0.5Β° increase in the planet's heat because of these cows. In other words, if you had a magic wand and made all the cows disappear, global temperatures would drop by about half a degree over the course of the next decade.

So methane has a significant negative impact on the climate but it can largely be managed and ameliorated through good policies. Proper manure storage can cut emissions by 50%, for example. Which is still worth discussing and thinking about, of course. But my priors were "cows are objectively bad, we need to cull the vast majority of them if we want humans to continue existing on this planet" which is very far from "the ecological impact of cows is a solvable problem".

Cows don't "produce" CO2, they're part of the biological carbon cycle, like rotting leaves and compost piles. All the carbon a cow emits comes from vegetation that got it from the air only a few months before. It neither adds nor removes carbon from the cycle.

Intentionally conflating the exogenous release of geologically sequestered carbon through fossil fuels with the natural carbon cycle is unforgivably dishonest vegan propaganda that needs to be stomped out thoroughly.

Whoever told it to you is a malicious liar you should hunt down and punish for trying to fuck with your understanding of the world.

Hey I was asked to look at your comment by the volunteer quokka report thing and I assumed you were bullshitting but decided to look at the actual science just in case. To my shock, you are correct, despite all the things I've read online, the science suggests that cows largely maintain the current CO2 levels as opposed to adding on to them. So kudos for calling attention to a very important fact and I apologize for having been successfully brainwashed up to this point.

Wow, that is a very high-effort post!

I didn't realize it was unusual.

It is! I live in Europe and I've never seen anything like the multiple bus stops in the picture.

You should consider making a permanent spam-only email so you don't have to go to the trouble of making a new burner each time.

As far as the moral implications... uh, this is basically a hostage negotiation. You should think of the employee as a puppet rather than a real human. The corporation may hurt the cashier in some of these situations but they hold the responsibility for that suffering, not you.