18
CaptainTrouble 18 points ago +18 / -0

Yup, this is 100% what's going on, imo.

The Judeo-Government and Judeo-AI companies realized that if people can just run AI dedicated on their personal computer, then people won't have need for cloud AI services and that means 0 control.

They want to force everyone onto cloud computing services so the Juice maintains full control.

5
CaptainTrouble 5 points ago +5 / -0

Makes sense. The Judeo-AI companies joint with the Judeo-Government don't want people to have dedicated AI running outside of their control. They want to force everyone to have to use the cloud AI services they offer so they can fully control how people use AI.

1
CaptainTrouble 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, I tried both Grok thinking (I pay for Supergrok) and Gimini Pro Thinking (I have a free subscription to Gemini.

It made 0 difference yet her free ChatGPT solved it in 10 seconds. I plugged it into ChatGPT and no proper answer.

2
CaptainTrouble 2 points ago +2 / -0

So the way language models solve this is that they view the photo and assign columns and rows to the numbers then it creates a program to solve for the missing numbers based on the rule parameters. It should then spit out the correct answer and it did within 10 seconds for her but not for me.

3
CaptainTrouble 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ugh, the future... where humans are arguing amongst themselves but everyone just accuses the other person of being a bot then engages in arguments with the actual bots.

2
CaptainTrouble 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, she used ChatGPT, unpaid. I threw it into ChatGPT unpaid with the same prompt. It couldn't figure it out and I tried twice. I also tried Supergrok 4.1 Thinking and not, I tried Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude. All failed. I tried like 10 times with Grok and a couple with Gemini.

She literally asked once, got the right answer in 10 seconds (she solved it herself afterward to confirm).

There's no reasonable explanation. The probability of AI sucking so hard on math related stuff but then she just happened to get the AI on a good day when she asked while I asked like 20 different times and never got a right answer, is so unlikely.

We were standing right next to each other and live in the same area. Same versions. Of course, what's going on behind the scenes is clearly not what they're telling us.

5
CaptainTrouble 5 points ago +5 / -0

I know how AI works. Your response is ridiculous. AI is obviously curated already to only give answer the elites want. It's incredibly censored. That censorship can easily go further to change based on how you are ranked based on parameters that occur behind the scenes. Perhaps you don't understand how anything works.

3
CaptainTrouble 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is it okay to rape Piers Morgan's daughter?

As long as non-Whites are allowed to be in the UK then the answer is yes as far as I am concerned. The answer only becomes no when all non-Whites are deported from NA and Europe.

2
CaptainTrouble 2 points ago +2 / -0

Truth in your leftist-lens? Which makes it not truth at all? Why would I be triggered? You just sound like a piece of shit we should probably deport.

3
CaptainTrouble 3 points ago +3 / -0

Women are naturally immoral which is why men must control women. The government prevents men from controlling women which is why we see more immorality as society leans gynocratic.

5
CaptainTrouble 5 points ago +5 / -0

Absolutely not. What creates good morals is good genetics. Morality is downstream of genetics not government. A purely White society has no need for government to force its morality on everyone. The reason society has broken down is because we're a society full of non-Whites ruled by jews.

Most immorality in today's world was literally caused by government.

9
CaptainTrouble 9 points ago +9 / -0

Freedom means free from the government controlling your life. Free to feel the consequences of your actions. Free doesn't mean the ability to be immoral.

4
CaptainTrouble 4 points ago +4 / -0

Like with all drugs, the user's sober state of mind determines the drug high. What I mean by that is you don't become a narcissist on coke unless you already were one before. It's not a coke problem, it's a them problem to begin with. I've seen coke make people extremely empathetic and kind. If the guy turns into a raging god complex, it's because he already was.

This is why I hate people who overly focus on drugs though. You have a jewish guy in a position of authority but instead of thinking he's a bad person because he's jewish, they'll blame the drug. Oh, if only he didn't do cocaine then he'd have been a nice guy. Hell no. His morality was already baked into his genetics. His drug use was irrelevant. He was always going to be a bad person regardless of the cocaine.

Using drugs as a scapegoat for poor behavior leads to people missing the underlying truth. He's a bad guy because he's jewish. Because his genetics already laid out the framework for him to be a bad guy. The cocaine had little to do with it.

6
CaptainTrouble 6 points ago +6 / -0

I saw an edited one where there was a stack of white powder he was crashing into on the couch. It's so off-the-wall, I'm still not convinced this isn't AI.

39
CaptainTrouble 39 points ago +39 / -0

This isn't it. I have a boring life by comparison but I could create good art. The internet used to have great "art" before it all became censored.

A sterile culture that censors excellence leads to boring art. You cannot conform to this culture and produce quality art. If you do not conform to this culture you will never be given any opportunities to display your art and you will be censored if you do by the institutions of power in this culture.

11
CaptainTrouble 11 points ago +11 / -0

Pretty funny. Company is trolling everyone with that comment. It's almost like they're rubbing it in people's face that yeah, he's high on cocaine, so what?

In any event, what this incident has led to for me is thinking about why so many people care? So what if the CEO of Palantir is high on cocaine at some book opening? Everyone thinks someone running the surveillance state shouldn't be high on cocaine because that means he could be a bad person. He's a jew, wasn't that enough? But seriously, how many of the same people requesting purity have done coke themselves or other drugs? How many people do you know that don't do drugs but you still wouldn't want them anywhere near running a surveillance state?

I see it a lot from politicians like Zelenskyy, Ardern, Trudeau or Freeland where people see a pic that looks questionable regarding their use of cocaine and then immediately everyone is like: see, they're a bad person. First, I think this is lazy but also it's dangerous in the sense that as soon as a good politician shows up and he's caught doing cocaine, they'll have to digest that somehow and to be logically congruent they'll have to turn against the good guy over something trivial. Donald Trump doesn't drink but if you read his book you'd know it's because he feels he can more easily take advantage of people who do drink if he never drinks. That comes off as far worse to me than a guy who drinks. I'm sure it's not much different on the drug front. Every straight shooter I've met tends to have a holier-than-thou attitude I'd be more worried about in a leader than a guy on coke at a book opening that doesn't fucking matter.

Also, the thing I'm most concerned about here is the leg crossing on the other guy. Are his testicles okay?

3
CaptainTrouble 3 points ago +3 / -0

Low birth rate isn't the problem so I don't like the framing of "to maintain the same numbers we have currently, the average has to be 2.1 children per White woman, but the birth rate is like 1.3 children per White woman if I remember correctly, that ain’t good,".

In reality, the problem is simply the non-Whites and we have to deport them all. Then the 1.3 birth rate is irrelevant. The birth rate is only a hot topic because of immigration. Without immigration, no one would care that much. Warfare isn't even manpower intensive anymore so it's not even a defense issue like it used to be. A lower White population is actually a good thing because it would raise wages immensely leading to a wealth exchange from the non-working-class to the working-class which is why the overclass of non-working capitalists are so desperate to bring in non-Whites.

9
CaptainTrouble 9 points ago +9 / -0

I agree. "Hiding your power level" is a bad move because you'll just end up in a bunch of situations where you can't do anything beneficial or you'll reveal your power level.

You'll also be depressed most your life because it'll feel quite alone and isolated. Fuentes has the luxury of suggesting people hide their power level because he never did so he doesn't actually know what it's like. I did that for years when I first started working and it was miserable. The last job I started at I went out for the weekly CUNT drinking day with the boys and told them Hitler was right about the jews (literally) and then told them the holocaust was a hoax. They didn't agree but we got along anyway and I'm still working there. Wayyyy better for your psyche and you just might run into the right people when you're honest and open about who you really are rather than hiding your power level.

How many guys "hide their power level" and then end up becoming the very thing they started their journey hating? Probably a lot, actually.

2
CaptainTrouble 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, the grammar police are wrong on this. Invested interest makes more sense and is not wrong. Vested interest would be wrong since her interest isn't vested, it's invested.

To explain better.

A vested interest implies she owns the result of what her interest is hence vested. She has a vested interest in the company performing well (because she owns shares of the company).

However, in this instance, interest in the subject I had brought up was an investment because it was her BF who would benefit from her sympathies (implying it would be systemic if more people thought like her) of what I was discussing with her and she would potentially benefit but it wasn't a sure thing because she doesn't own her BF so her interest was invested. In the context, a vested interest to the subject would imply she owns the benefits of her BF benefiting from a less oppressive society but she isn't certain of any benefit nor is she the owner of said benefits so her interest is invested not vested.

If she was a White male, she would have a vested interest but since she's a non-White Asian woman who was dating a White male, she doesn't have a vested interest, she has an invested interest.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›