|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 13 2026 00:53 Vivax wrote:
It‘s odd to read about racially motivated riots in Ireland either way but I‘m not too familiar with their thinking.
Thought they‘d find something better to direct their anger at, probably. Was there a particular trigger ?
Overall I still like the idea of regulated immigration after seeing some examples of what it does unregulated. But is it such a big issue in Ireland ?
An asylum seeker on camera seemingly attempting to behead someone, quite the trigger.
Northern Ireland is an innately reactionary place, for reasons I’m happy to expand upon if people are interested in my thoughts on it. Which for once aren’t distant or abstract.
What’s both interesting, and simultaneously depressing is the Republic. Albeit it didn’t explode with this specific incident. You’re starting to see reactionary politics grab a hook there too, and this is quite a recent shift. I think there has been something of a complacency there, what with the history of colonialism and whatnot, that the ‘new Ireland’ was immune to such forces, a complacency I’ve warned my (Irish) partner about plenty of times.
What’s interesting about it in a way is the form it has seemingly taken especially in terms of immigration. It really doesn’t feel very organic at all, it feels almost identical to British internet discourse on the subject, which feels almost identical to American discourse on the same topic.
Which is silly, given how much it actually varies, but people seem still trapped into the same outrage sphere. To swing back to what I was saying earlier
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 13 2026 01:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 00:53 Vivax wrote:
It‘s odd to read about racially motivated riots in Ireland either way but I‘m not too familiar with their thinking.
Thought they‘d find something better to direct their anger at, probably. Was there a particular trigger ?
Overall I still like the idea of regulated immigration after seeing some examples of what it does unregulated. But is it such a big issue in Ireland ? The people rioting would stab you for suggesting this happened in Ireland.  But Sudanese man attacks white man with knife cutting him badly. Rioters start burning down the houses of people with non-white skin colour. From the very limited information at this point I'm willing to bet reasons for the attack had little to do with race or religion. Also obviously the immigration problem is not that big in this part of the UK. You don't go into a neighbourhood and burn down houses in a real problem area. I saw the kids doing this and if they tried it in Sweden, France or most other countries they would be dead. It has to be majority white places with a sprinkle of mostly nonviolent others. A majority arab area or asian area would figth back.
They had huge amounts to do with race, paramilitaries and rioters were ‘checking’ drivers in certain areas, quelle surprise who they stopped.
|
On June 13 2026 01:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 00:53 Vivax wrote:
It‘s odd to read about racially motivated riots in Ireland either way but I‘m not too familiar with their thinking.
Thought they‘d find something better to direct their anger at, probably. Was there a particular trigger ?
Overall I still like the idea of regulated immigration after seeing some examples of what it does unregulated. But is it such a big issue in Ireland ? An asylum seeker on camera seemingly attempting to behead someone, quite the trigger.
The radiologist he hated denied him the age he was claiming after x-raying his hand ? Seems likely after reading a bit about it.
|
On June 13 2026 01:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 00:53 Vivax wrote:
It‘s odd to read about racially motivated riots in Ireland either way but I‘m not too familiar with their thinking.
Thought they‘d find something better to direct their anger at, probably. Was there a particular trigger ?
Overall I still like the idea of regulated immigration after seeing some examples of what it does unregulated. But is it such a big issue in Ireland ? An asylum seeker on camera seemingly attempting to behead someone, quite the trigger. Northern Ireland is an innately reactionary place, for reasons I’m happy to expand upon if people are interested in my thoughts on it. Which for once aren’t distant or abstract. It’s good to remember that MAGA is a reactionary movement, and will glom on to similar movements distant from America, but there are other parts of the world vulnerable to their own reactionary brands.
|
On June 13 2026 03:04 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 01:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 13 2026 00:53 Vivax wrote:
It‘s odd to read about racially motivated riots in Ireland either way but I‘m not too familiar with their thinking.
Thought they‘d find something better to direct their anger at, probably. Was there a particular trigger ?
Overall I still like the idea of regulated immigration after seeing some examples of what it does unregulated. But is it such a big issue in Ireland ? The people rioting would stab you for suggesting this happened in Ireland. But Sudanese man attacks white man with knife cutting him badly. Rioters start burning down the houses of people with non-white skin colour. From the very limited information at this point I'm willing to bet reasons for the attack had little to do with race or religion. Also obviously the immigration problem is not that big in this part of the UK. You don't go into a neighbourhood and burn down houses in a real problem area. I saw the kids doing this and if they tried it in Sweden, France or most other countries they would be dead. It has to be majority white places with a sprinkle of mostly nonviolent others. A majority arab area or asian area would figth back. They had huge amounts to do with race, paramilitaries and rioters were ‘checking’ drivers in certain areas, quelle surprise who they stopped.
I meant the initial attack. The info might be completly wrong but from what I heard the victim had previously been drugged and set on fire by a drug gang (which he lived with in Scotland?) and had an other attack also from drug related people.
People getting attacked by junkies are statistically in those circles (NOT saying the victim was a junkie himself, it can be family or other relations).
It's not uncommon that attacks in those circles are weird and excessively violent (drugging someone and putting them on fire?).
Asylum seeker from Africa with no job would have an above average risk of being a junkie.
Police says there are no indication of it being a terrorist attack.
I think statistically it's more likely the initial attack was not a terrorist attack at all on and it had little to do with the race or religion of either attacker or victim.
|
On June 13 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 03:04 WombaT wrote:On June 13 2026 01:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 13 2026 00:53 Vivax wrote:
It‘s odd to read about racially motivated riots in Ireland either way but I‘m not too familiar with their thinking.
Thought they‘d find something better to direct their anger at, probably. Was there a particular trigger ?
Overall I still like the idea of regulated immigration after seeing some examples of what it does unregulated. But is it such a big issue in Ireland ? The people rioting would stab you for suggesting this happened in Ireland. But Sudanese man attacks white man with knife cutting him badly. Rioters start burning down the houses of people with non-white skin colour. From the very limited information at this point I'm willing to bet reasons for the attack had little to do with race or religion. Also obviously the immigration problem is not that big in this part of the UK. You don't go into a neighbourhood and burn down houses in a real problem area. I saw the kids doing this and if they tried it in Sweden, France or most other countries they would be dead. It has to be majority white places with a sprinkle of mostly nonviolent others. A majority arab area or asian area would figth back. They had huge amounts to do with race, paramilitaries and rioters were ‘checking’ drivers in certain areas, quelle surprise who they stopped. I meant the initial attack. The info might be completly wrong but from what I heard the victim had previously been drugged and set on fire by a drug gang (which he lived with in Scotland?) and had an other attack also from drug related people. People getting attacked by junkies are statistically in those circles (NOT saying the victim was a junkie himself, it can be family or other relations). It's not uncommon that attacks in those circles are weird and excessively violent (drugging someone and putting them on fire?).Asylum seeker from Africa with no job would have an above average risk of being a junkie. Police says there are no indication of it being a terrorist attack. I think statistically it's more likely the initial attack was not a terrorist attack at all on and it had little to do with the race or religion of either attacker or victim.
That's legal around here. Maybe in America too.
Their solution is pretending it was somebody else while trying to get rid of the original target.
It's interesting how people made so much progress only to go and try to summon the stone age again. Maybe the air's getting thin up there. The future points to the requirement of having to be very guarded against out of control governments.
I haven't tried feeding someone drugs and setting them on fire yet, but if I did I'd make sure I made a shield out of humans first.
Seems to be an American leadership quality to do that.
At what point is it self-defense to found a group of paramilitaries? Questions that were asked before world wars around here.
As a social experiment it seems viable to bomb an elementary school and decide whether to declare war on them later.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 13 2026 03:43 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 03:04 WombaT wrote:On June 13 2026 01:12 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On June 13 2026 00:53 Vivax wrote:
It‘s odd to read about racially motivated riots in Ireland either way but I‘m not too familiar with their thinking.
Thought they‘d find something better to direct their anger at, probably. Was there a particular trigger ?
Overall I still like the idea of regulated immigration after seeing some examples of what it does unregulated. But is it such a big issue in Ireland ? The people rioting would stab you for suggesting this happened in Ireland. But Sudanese man attacks white man with knife cutting him badly. Rioters start burning down the houses of people with non-white skin colour. From the very limited information at this point I'm willing to bet reasons for the attack had little to do with race or religion. Also obviously the immigration problem is not that big in this part of the UK. You don't go into a neighbourhood and burn down houses in a real problem area. I saw the kids doing this and if they tried it in Sweden, France or most other countries they would be dead. It has to be majority white places with a sprinkle of mostly nonviolent others. A majority arab area or asian area would figth back. They had huge amounts to do with race, paramilitaries and rioters were ‘checking’ drivers in certain areas, quelle surprise who they stopped. I meant the initial attack. The info might be completly wrong but from what I heard the victim had previously been drugged and set on fire by a drug gang (which he lived with in Scotland?) and had an other attack also from drug related people. People getting attacked by junkies are statistically in those circles (NOT saying the victim was a junkie himself, it can be family or other relations). It's not uncommon that attacks in those circles are weird and excessively violent (drugging someone and putting them on fire?). Asylum seeker from Africa with no job would have an above average risk of being a junkie. Police says there are no indication of it being a terrorist attack. I think statistically it's more likely the initial attack was not a terrorist attack at all on and it had little to do with the race or religion of either attacker or victim.
It doesn’t really matter. If people have actively attempted to cultivate a tinderbox, it just really takes one spark to ignite it.
We’ve already seen it more nationally with the riots after the Stockport murders. An event I must say the likes of Elon Musk disgraced themselves in further inflaming.
As far as I understand that wasn’t terrorism in some ideological sense anyway and a violent schizophrenic person doing what such types tend to do.
This stuff isn’t exactly unheard of, but it only tends to destructive rioting if it involves black foreigners
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 13 2026 03:20 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 01:59 WombaT wrote:On June 13 2026 00:53 Vivax wrote:
It‘s odd to read about racially motivated riots in Ireland either way but I‘m not too familiar with their thinking.
Thought they‘d find something better to direct their anger at, probably. Was there a particular trigger ?
Overall I still like the idea of regulated immigration after seeing some examples of what it does unregulated. But is it such a big issue in Ireland ? An asylum seeker on camera seemingly attempting to behead someone, quite the trigger. Northern Ireland is an innately reactionary place, for reasons I’m happy to expand upon if people are interested in my thoughts on it. Which for once aren’t distant or abstract. It’s good to remember that MAGA is a reactionary movement, and will glom on to similar movements distant from America, but there are other parts of the world vulnerable to their own reactionary brands.
Indeed, although with that said it’s very noticeable how much stuff is both exported and assimilated by the ‘MAGA sphere’ to elsewhere. I hear a hell of a lot of talking points that may, or may not be valid at source, but really, really don’t apply to this neck of the woods.
Of course this doesn’t just go on one side of the spectrum. BLM may be one such example, fine by all means to express solidarity but quite another to think our policing issues are comparable to American ones
|
This debate has cropped up around here. So thought I'd share this theconversation.com
Not super keen on the style, feels a bit pseudo intellectual to me, but it does contain some nice links to other studies. Basically, it is describing the problem of cognitive surrender to AI, in an educational context.
Bypassing learning
GenAI poses many problems for learning. When an AI hands us an answer, we risk bypassing the process through which learning happens. We’ve received a product that looks like knowledge from the outside but is hollow at its core, it’s a shadow that convinces us of something we haven’t actually understood.
GenAI doesn’t just help us think. It thinks instead of us. And there’s growing evidence it’s making us measurably worse at doing it ourselves.
+ Show Spoiler +scientific studies are catching up with what educators already sense. A landmark MIT Media Lab study tracked a group of students writing essays variously with ChatGPT, a search engine, or nothing at all.
Those using LLMs showed the weakest brain connectivity of all three groups, cognitive activity scaled down in direct relation to how much was outsourced. Most couldn’t recall what they’d just written and yet the task was completed. But fundamentally, the learning never happened.
Worse still, the cognitive habits don’t automatically reset. Once we hand the thinking over, our brains don’t automatically take it back. By the end of 2025, a RAND survey of 1200 students found two-thirds believed AI was harming their critical thinking. The students themselves can feel what’s happening to them.
Basically, those of us that start using AI for cognitive tasks tend to continue doing that and skip the learning.
Even the students don't think this is good for them:
By the end of 2025, a RAND survey of 1200 students found two-thirds believed AI was harming their critical thinking. The students themselves can feel what’s happening to them
For me, this part is the important bit:
The most important thing educators teach has never been content. It has always been periagoge, the reorientation of the whole person toward truth and the willingness to be wrong, to revise, to trace an idea back to its roots and ask whether it holds.
When we use AI, we are habituating ourselves to just accept what is given to us as truth.
And that's a problem.
|
On June 13 2026 14:20 EnDeR_ wrote:This debate has cropped up around here. So thought I'd share this theconversation.com Not super keen on the style, feels a bit pseudo intellectual to me, but it does contain some nice links to other studies. Basically, it is describing the problem of cognitive surrender to AI, in an educational context. Show nested quote +Bypassing learning
GenAI poses many problems for learning. When an AI hands us an answer, we risk bypassing the process through which learning happens. We’ve received a product that looks like knowledge from the outside but is hollow at its core, it’s a shadow that convinces us of something we haven’t actually understood.
GenAI doesn’t just help us think. It thinks instead of us. And there’s growing evidence it’s making us measurably worse at doing it ourselves. + Show Spoiler +scientific studies are catching up with what educators already sense. A landmark MIT Media Lab study tracked a group of students writing essays variously with ChatGPT, a search engine, or nothing at all.
Those using LLMs showed the weakest brain connectivity of all three groups, cognitive activity scaled down in direct relation to how much was outsourced. Most couldn’t recall what they’d just written and yet the task was completed. But fundamentally, the learning never happened.
Worse still, the cognitive habits don’t automatically reset. Once we hand the thinking over, our brains don’t automatically take it back. By the end of 2025, a RAND survey of 1200 students found two-thirds believed AI was harming their critical thinking. The students themselves can feel what’s happening to them. Basically, those of us that start using AI for cognitive tasks tend to continue doing that and skip the learning. Even the students don't think this is good for them: Show nested quote +By the end of 2025, a RAND survey of 1200 students found two-thirds believed AI was harming their critical thinking. The students themselves can feel what’s happening to them For me, this part is the important bit: Show nested quote +The most important thing educators teach has never been content. It has always been periagoge, the reorientation of the whole person toward truth and the willingness to be wrong, to revise, to trace an idea back to its roots and ask whether it holds. When we use AI, we are habituating ourselves to just accept what is given to us as truth. And that's a problem.
Yeah that would definitely be a problem, especially for children. It's one thing for adults to smartly use AI as a supplement for very specific tasks, but if kids start asking AI for answers to questions that they should be figuring out and experiencing organically, that removes a huge part of the learning process. It would be like a worse version of a teacher telling their student all the answers without the student ever needing to problem solve, critically think, or productively struggle through failures to better understand and appreciate the journey and process of learning.
|
On June 13 2026 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 14:20 EnDeR_ wrote:This debate has cropped up around here. So thought I'd share this theconversation.com Not super keen on the style, feels a bit pseudo intellectual to me, but it does contain some nice links to other studies. Basically, it is describing the problem of cognitive surrender to AI, in an educational context. Bypassing learning
GenAI poses many problems for learning. When an AI hands us an answer, we risk bypassing the process through which learning happens. We’ve received a product that looks like knowledge from the outside but is hollow at its core, it’s a shadow that convinces us of something we haven’t actually understood.
GenAI doesn’t just help us think. It thinks instead of us. And there’s growing evidence it’s making us measurably worse at doing it ourselves. + Show Spoiler +scientific studies are catching up with what educators already sense. A landmark MIT Media Lab study tracked a group of students writing essays variously with ChatGPT, a search engine, or nothing at all.
Those using LLMs showed the weakest brain connectivity of all three groups, cognitive activity scaled down in direct relation to how much was outsourced. Most couldn’t recall what they’d just written and yet the task was completed. But fundamentally, the learning never happened.
Worse still, the cognitive habits don’t automatically reset. Once we hand the thinking over, our brains don’t automatically take it back. By the end of 2025, a RAND survey of 1200 students found two-thirds believed AI was harming their critical thinking. The students themselves can feel what’s happening to them. Basically, those of us that start using AI for cognitive tasks tend to continue doing that and skip the learning. Even the students don't think this is good for them: By the end of 2025, a RAND survey of 1200 students found two-thirds believed AI was harming their critical thinking. The students themselves can feel what’s happening to them For me, this part is the important bit: The most important thing educators teach has never been content. It has always been periagoge, the reorientation of the whole person toward truth and the willingness to be wrong, to revise, to trace an idea back to its roots and ask whether it holds. When we use AI, we are habituating ourselves to just accept what is given to us as truth. And that's a problem. Yeah that would definitely be a problem, especially for children. It's one thing for adults to smartly use AI as a supplement for very specific tasks, but if kids start asking AI for answers to questions that they should be figuring out and experiencing organically, that removes a huge part of the learning process. It would be like a worse version of a teacher telling their student all the answers without the student ever needing to problem solve, critically think, or productively struggle through failures to better understand and appreciate the journey and process of learning.
If someone thinks social media algorithms (or the billion/Trillionaires that own them) are dangerous, manipulative, sources of misinformation, etc. just ask an AI about all this lol.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
I’ll be interested to give it a read, probably one of the ‘big’ topics for me these days. Although your summary of it basically already aligns with what I thought anyway :p
I’m not a prolific user, but I do dabble. I imagine I use it in a similar way than most would do here, to summarise and prevent information I’m too lazy/don’t find worth doing myself, or to generally expedite tasks I can do, but are laborious.
I guess the wider problem as it were is if a newer generation is skipping the whole learning part
|
Personally I think we already had the light version of this with google.
Students kept getting less and less interested in grinding in basic facts because "I can just google it".
It's more important to understand the big picture than the details.
Problem is that intuitively understanding things and taking good decisions requires your brain to have those details.
It works OK when they study but I find they have a hard time taking in new things post graduation because they don't have a foundation of basic biology and medicine to build on.
They need fully formed concepts to absorb as a whole without a deeper understanding.
AI takes this into overdrive. And since it can do tasks for you more comprehensive tests like essays are useless.
And what is worse figuring out that the AI answer is useless usually hinges on the kind of details that they didn't want to learn already.
|
On June 13 2026 22:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2026 21:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2026 14:20 EnDeR_ wrote:This debate has cropped up around here. So thought I'd share this theconversation.com Not super keen on the style, feels a bit pseudo intellectual to me, but it does contain some nice links to other studies. Basically, it is describing the problem of cognitive surrender to AI, in an educational context. Bypassing learning
GenAI poses many problems for learning. When an AI hands us an answer, we risk bypassing the process through which learning happens. We’ve received a product that looks like knowledge from the outside but is hollow at its core, it’s a shadow that convinces us of something we haven’t actually understood.
GenAI doesn’t just help us think. It thinks instead of us. And there’s growing evidence it’s making us measurably worse at doing it ourselves. + Show Spoiler +scientific studies are catching up with what educators already sense. A landmark MIT Media Lab study tracked a group of students writing essays variously with ChatGPT, a search engine, or nothing at all.
Those using LLMs showed the weakest brain connectivity of all three groups, cognitive activity scaled down in direct relation to how much was outsourced. Most couldn’t recall what they’d just written and yet the task was completed. But fundamentally, the learning never happened.
Worse still, the cognitive habits don’t automatically reset. Once we hand the thinking over, our brains don’t automatically take it back. By the end of 2025, a RAND survey of 1200 students found two-thirds believed AI was harming their critical thinking. The students themselves can feel what’s happening to them. Basically, those of us that start using AI for cognitive tasks tend to continue doing that and skip the learning. Even the students don't think this is good for them: By the end of 2025, a RAND survey of 1200 students found two-thirds believed AI was harming their critical thinking. The students themselves can feel what’s happening to them For me, this part is the important bit: The most important thing educators teach has never been content. It has always been periagoge, the reorientation of the whole person toward truth and the willingness to be wrong, to revise, to trace an idea back to its roots and ask whether it holds. When we use AI, we are habituating ourselves to just accept what is given to us as truth. And that's a problem. Yeah that would definitely be a problem, especially for children. It's one thing for adults to smartly use AI as a supplement for very specific tasks, but if kids start asking AI for answers to questions that they should be figuring out and experiencing organically, that removes a huge part of the learning process. It would be like a worse version of a teacher telling their student all the answers without the student ever needing to problem solve, critically think, or productively struggle through failures to better understand and appreciate the journey and process of learning. If someone thinks social media algorithms (or the billion/Trillionaires that own them) are dangerous, manipulative, sources of misinformation, etc. just ask an AI about all this lol.
It doesn't turn out how you seem to think it would.
Whether billionaires (and hypothetical trillionaires) are "bad for society" depends on what standard you're using: economic efficiency, fairness, democracy, innovation, or social stability.
Arguments that extreme wealth is harmful
Political influence
Extremely wealthy individuals can fund lobbying, media outlets, think tanks, campaigns, and advocacy groups at a scale ordinary citizens cannot.
Critics argue this gives them disproportionate influence over public policy and weakens democratic equality.
Economic inequality
When wealth becomes highly concentrated, a larger share of economic gains goes to a small group while wages and living standards for others may stagnate.
Some economists argue excessive inequality can reduce social mobility and increase social tensions.
Market power
Many billionaires derive their wealth from ownership stakes in very large companies. If markets become less competitive, dominant firms can suppress competition, innovation, or worker bargaining power.
Resource allocation
Critics question whether it is socially desirable for a single person to control resources worth tens or hundreds of billions while many people lack housing, healthcare, or basic necessities.
Arguments that extreme wealth can benefit society
Innovation and entrepreneurship
Many billionaires created companies that produced products and services used by millions or billions of people.
Supporters argue that large rewards encourage innovation, investment, and risk-taking.
Capital formation
Wealth invested in businesses can fund research, factories, infrastructure, and new technologies.
From this perspective, wealth is often ownership of productive assets rather than piles of cash.
Philanthropy
Some wealthy individuals donate large sums to medical research, education, disaster relief, and other causes.
Critics respond that philanthropy allows private individuals to make decisions that might otherwise be made democratically.
Not a zero-sum system
Defenders argue that in growing economies, wealth can be created rather than simply transferred. A billionaire becoming richer does not necessarily mean others became poorer.
What about trillionaires?
The concerns generally become stronger as wealth grows.
A trillion dollars is so large that it exceeds the annual GDP of many countries. A trillionaire could potentially wield influence comparable to governments in some areas. Even people who are comfortable with billionaires often question whether any private individual should control wealth on that scale.
|
On June 13 2026 22:54 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Personally I think we already had the light version of this with google.
Students kept getting less and less interested in grinding in basic facts because "I can just google it".
It's more important to understand the big picture than the details.
Problem is that intuitively understanding things and taking good decisions requires your brain to have those details.
It works OK when they study but I find they have a hard time taking in new things post graduation because they don't have a foundation of basic biology and medicine to build on.
They need fully formed concepts to absorb as a whole without a deeper understanding.
AI takes this into overdrive. And since it can do tasks for you more comprehensive tests like essays are useless.
And what is worse figuring out that the AI answer is useless usually hinges on the kind of details that they didn't want to learn already.
Some things you can't google, like why paradropping bloodthirsty madmen over Bavaria would make sense after finding out what they're up to or why it would be fun to play basketball with something in the shape of Jeff Bezos head.
You can learn a lot by absorbing seemingly random things and reflecting. Don't know if an AI can do that.
Like that supposed authority figures are more often than not total clowns nowadays.
|
United States44387 Posts
Vivax we both know there’s no such thing as a Bavaria.
|
On June 14 2026 01:02 KwarK wrote:
Vivax we both know there’s no such thing as a Bavaria.
It's a contested region run by crazed warlords. But historically we called it that.
Maybe Elonia is more fitting since the Reichscrystalmethnight.
Wouldn't want to be stuck in the German regions going forward with these geopolitics.
Maybe I should move to Argentina and buy a cement truck.
Or check the latest official language at magenta.
Everyone‘s in really deep shit atm no matter what they do or don‘t.
Not having to depend on infrastructure provided by monopolist sharks would be an improvement.
|
United States44387 Posts
The White House announced a deal would be signed on Sunday in Geneva by Vance. They seem to have a very high threshold for embarrassment.
|
On the need to shut down social media spreading medically dangerous falsehoods:
www.theguardian.com
NHS staff battling wave of food supplement disinformation
Exclusive: Cancer charity says dispelling falsehoods gleaned from social media is now routine task for clinicians
Some popular supplements can involve hidden risks, according to Kaye. “People assume that supplements are safe because you can buy them over the counter without a prescription. But if something works, then there is an active ingredient in it that may also cause problems.
“For example, liver injury related to turmeric supplements, St John’s wort interacting with other medications, people thinking they are taking magnesium for sleep but there are different types of magnesium, and some can cause diarrhoea and various supplements, and various supplements leading to itchy skin reactions.”
Social media misinformation about the use of dietary supplements such as turmeric, St John’s wort and magnesium is now so common that dispelling online claims has become a routine part of NHS clinicians work.
Two out of five frontline health workers say they encounter patients who raise inaccurate or misleading information about supplements at least once a week.
The WCRF says it fears that patients’ belief in unproven dietary regimes, vitamins and minerals is putting their health in danger and increasing their risk of getting cancer.
Some popular supplements can involve hidden risks, according to Kaye. “People assume that supplements are safe because you can buy them over the counter without a prescription. But if something works, then there is an active ingredient in it that may also cause problems.
“For example, liver injury related to turmeric supplements, St John’s wort interacting with other medications, people thinking they are taking magnesium for sleep but there are different types of magnesium, and some can cause diarrhoea and various supplements, and various supplements leading to itchy skin reactions.”
Is there anything inherently partisan about wanting to make the job of healthcare workers simpler and a healthier population? The answer is not difficult, and it's implementation definitely achievable in the modern social media ecosystem and AI.
|
On June 14 2026 11:18 KwarK wrote:
The White House announced a deal would be signed on Sunday in Geneva by Vance. They seem to have a very high threshold for embarrassment.
Based on the details of the alleged deal that outlets are reporting on, it's nothing short of a complete surrender to Iran. The US position must be unbelievably bad if Iran won't sign it because they think they can get an even better deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
