fauxgnaws 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ironically it could be his rage at the idiot woman that kept him alive. He was still 'in battle' keeping his blood pressure from crashing too low.

fauxgnaws 20 points ago +20 / -0

Assange never swore an oath to do his civic duty as an intelligence officer to keep things secret.

Manning decided he knew better than 300 million other Americans after swearing to keep secrets. It's not like the secrets were Soylent Green level that has to be known they just damaged American interests for nothing.

fauxgnaws 7 points ago +7 / -0

Not really. mRNA gets in your blood and it attacks the first cell it comes in contact with. Wikipedia says 20% of your blood flow is through the kidneys so they're a prime target for mRNA.

Probably not reported much because people have two and don't notice when one gets damaged by the vax.

fauxgnaws 8 points ago +8 / -0

I disagree. On the stuff that matters to the elites, both parties agree.

This is why America is failing right now, the uniparty, and it's probably because of blackmail or the need to raise lots of money.

The adversarial system only works when they are adversaries not best buds.

fauxgnaws 9 points ago +9 / -0

When there is something truly bad, you don't have half the country defending it because it was their party. That proportion exists, but it's far smaller.

Why do you feel this is good, or better than 50/50 2-party?

With America's system, you only have to convince a tiny amount of people to flip the outcome from one 50 to the other, but if you have like 80/20 and the 80 is wrong then there's no prayer of finding and convincing 30% of the population to switch. That's impossible, but finding 1% that will listen to reason is totally possible.

Put another way, Hitler took over with about 1/3 of parliament. Mussolini with only 7%! Democrats in USA can barely get their way even with allegedly >50% of the vote.

American winner-take-all works because most people are idiots and they're kept busy yelling at each other on the twitters instead of ruling.

fauxgnaws 4 points ago +4 / -0

It understands the structure of making an argument, just like how Dall-E can seamlessly replace a bird's head with Darwin's head because it understands what a person and animal's head is, making a Darwin-headed raven (blog).

That's also how LaMDA creates its arguments. They read like actual English, but the content makes about as much sense as a Darwin-headed raven.

What it's actually really good at is projection. It can pick up on what you want it to say, and then you say wow it's really smart because it thinks just like me -- just like this clown did.

fauxgnaws 15 points ago +15 / -0

Probably because guys with autism have a much harder time getting married and having kids than women with autism do.

They say the autism genes aren't on the X chromosome, but doesn't mean it's not sex-linked. Women's brains are basically half one X and half the other X and it's possible that this has a moderating effect regardless of what genes are present.

fauxgnaws 3 points ago +3 / -0

If you're principaled and think social cohesion and harmony is important, you don't become them. You'll keep trying.

No, you don't keep trying to negotiate and make common ground with a schizophrenic. Because their brain is broken. Same thing with liberals who believe patently crazy things like pregnant men and who encourage mental illness and self-harm, they can't be reasoned with because their brain is broken.

What you do keep trying to do is get them to take their clozapine, or in this case their red pill, so they return to normal functional human beings just with different views from you.

Or in other words, the problem isn't the sick liberals it's what's making them sick; hollywood, reddit, google/facebook, NPR/NYT, public school, and so on. Your civic duty to "promote social cohesion and harmony" is to always keep trying to expose, harass, and ridicule the sick people working at these disease factories.

fauxgnaws 5 points ago +5 / -0

Medical needs two different systems.

There's the emergencies where you don't have the time or wherewithal to choose for yourself and you want licensed doctors that went to medical school, passed the tests, and did the time learning the trade. On the other hand there are slowly developing problems where you have plenty of time and should be able to make informed choices and get potentially deadly medicine from that self-taught guy who hung out a shingle.

There's random things that happen like an asteroid ripping off your arm or defective genes that you shouldn't have to pay for because you had no choice in the matter. There's other problems like from getting fat, not exercising, not brushing teeth that were preventable and you should pay for.

So there's not a single solution because there's two conflicting problems. If the state pays for everything then there's no financial incentive for people not to eat themselves to 500 lbs. If state pays for nothing then people go bankrupt or die from bad luck.

fauxgnaws 3 points ago +3 / -0

To actually answer your question, if you don't have insurance you're going bankrupt if you have anything significant go wrong at all even if it's a one-time problem. Only exception is if you are in a car wreck in which case your or their insurance will cover the bills OR it's still not enough and you go bankrupt, maybe they go bankrupt too if they were at fault.

If you have Obamacare insurance it's actual insurance, like for disasters. You get a few free checkups and some free preventive tests, but mostly that you'll pay ~10k out of pocket to be treated by residents and the worst physicians because everybody else doesn't take your plan. There are places who could have their billing done for free by the parent company, but choose not to so they can exclude the riff-raff. In a real emergency you'll probably go out of network against your will and pay an extra $14k on top of that.

If you're on a company plan then most big companies you'll pay nothing more than a co-pay of $100 to see a specialist or something like that. You'll be able to see a good doctor and don't have to worry about going bankrupt from an emergency.

...in other words Obamacare created a lower caste that has pretend healthcare. They're like living cadavers for the medical industry to practice on. Since you're in the US and are subject to this, my advice is get a professional type job with insurance, if you're young get a cheap plan and roll the dice, or if you're older pay through the nose for a good plan while you are looking for a professional job as soon as possible. If you're older and lose your job pay COBRA to stay on the plan for a year even though it'll cost a billion dollars because you're not going to get a good plan by yourself for less money.

fauxgnaws 10 points ago +10 / -0

This is only bypassing a protection that no other consumer processors have anyway.

Basically each pointer has magic number in order to work and so an exploit only has a 1/16k chance of working and this protection is what's bypassed. You still need an exploit and access to use it just like on any other computer.

So M1 is just the same safe as an Intel/AMD not extra safe.

edit: if you want an example of a real boneheaded mistake Google created SPDY aka HTTP/2 and put it in their browser with it compressing private and public header data at the same time, which means any javascript could read all the cookies you had from any site. Afaik the ones behind it were not diversity hires but certainly were white knight fedora wearing idiots; they were so eager to destroy privacy with SPDY/HTTP 2 that they accidentally destroyed it too much and had egg on their face looking like freshman comp sci.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ha ha so I called it then. Your replies here confirm you have a narrow, black and white morality due to not being able to empathize with others to even understand their plight.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's okay to believe it's immoral to do harm even to lessen overall harm, for example not diverting the train to hit one person instead of five. But you don't seem to understand that there even is a larger context where the raped mother and society are harmed in ways lessened by aborting the rape baby. This is why you don't understand anything I've said.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

Except that wasn't the question I asked. Maybe I think you're provincial because you have trouble reading and can't back up your philosophy with any other than "lol you're dumb dumb".

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well regardless I have a suggestion for you: go rewatch Wrath of Khan and try to imagine yourself as Spock and really understand his motivation.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

That it's moral to harm some innocents to make the greater whole less harmed. It's "stupid" because it makes your views look provincial.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

OP closed up shop, but I thought this was too funny not to share...

In episode 5 Spock becomes a woman and gets in touch with his feelings. Ha ha.

fauxgnaws 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's got rapist DNA. What, you think people are blank slates? We're all products of our parentage.

But I was only saying that even if to you the rape baby is innocent, in the broader picture as a result of crime and sin it's not, which is why I said you must have a narrow morality.

I take it you feel the people who made bank off Madoff should have been able to keep the money. Is that not so?

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

Money isn't a person?

You read this comment and you thought it was saying money is a baby? Come on, you're not that dumb.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +3 / -2

If you believe the concept of life begins at conception how it happened isn't pertinent

Only if your morality is narrowly applied and black and white. A rape baby is a product of sin and crime and is morally tainted by it. Whether you feel that makes it okay to abort is a different moral question from aborting a consensual baby and I think it's mostly religious and moral hardliners that want a woman to carry a baby from a "rape rape" as Whoopi would say.

To give you an abstract example of this, many of the people who profited from Bernie Madoff had to give back their profits. Why? The money didn't commit any crime. It's not a crime to take profits. It's because when you look at the larger situation it's not moral to have some lucky or crafty people get a windfall at the expense of others involved in the same scam.

You may believe people who guessed Madoff was a scammer and pulled out just in time deserve that money, but most people don't.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pure projection. You're watching The Message and call me xir lol.

Go back through this thread, read all your stupid insults, and realize you're talking about yourself.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +1 / -0

truncated my quotes to make it sound worse

Well at least we agree those points were bad, just not the degree of which.

fauxgnaws 1 point ago +2 / -1

Old Trek diehards like to pretend every episode was a masterpiece

You keep strawmanning that BnW is good because older treks were bad sometimes. Heck of a way to sell people on your fan show.

Pike coming to terms with his mortality ...
La'an dealing with the trauma ...
U'na (Number One) dealing with the racism ...
A pointless war and the striving for peace.

So, finally, the things you like about it are soap opera. That's fine, I'm half way through Personal Taste (2010) and liking it so far.

view more: Next ›