BillyClark

Most billionaires get their money by exploiting loopholes in the government. For example, they pay no taxes, yet the government will still prosecute people who kill them.

Data was the original air gapped data.

I like solving puzzles, so I think it’s more likely related to that.

When I read a nonsense word, occasionally, especially if it’s easy, I unconsciously read it backwards.

So, I initially read this as “KEEP CALM and BUY BUN”.

I don’t know why I read it as “buy bun” instead of “bun buy”… maybe because it reads like it makes more sense? It wasn’t a conscious decision.

I actually think if a person is completely normal, they’re sort of boring and sad. So, I think of weird as a compliment.

But if they want to keep being offended by being called weird, I’m all for it. It’s the sort of thing I guess a bootlicking sycophant would be offended by. They’ve given up their individuality and their ability to think for themselves to try to fit in and receive praise from their dear leader, so it makes sense that they’d be offended to be called weird.

I’ve never had reason to think Vance was any smarter than the average person.

But I just want to point out that smart people also get fooled by scumbags and confidence tricksters. People are almost always smarter in some areas compared to others, and so even if you’re smart in science or politics, that doesn’t mean you’re going to see every con from a mile away.

This maybe flew over my head. Is Orange man Epstein class?

I am guessing they’re orange to hint that they’re MAGA.

And now, then, I think this may shock you, but there is a fourth consumer class, and they’re a bigger class than you might think. They don’t think about whether a product makes them feel good. They don’t think about whether a specific product is at a low price. Even if they’re poor, they don’t think about budgets, and they tend to be heavily in credit card debt. These people’s defining characteristic is that they don’t think much about anything. They simply choose some authority figure to tell them how to live and then they do whatever they’re told to do. They may occasionally spout out a bit of propaganda out of nowhere, but importantly, they have never once deeply thought about it themselves. They lack even the basic mental tools to think about it.

When challenged, they’ll just say some other bit of propaganda, or they’ll get angry, but they’ll obstinately refuse to think even the tiniest bit for themselves. They have what is called an authoritarian personality, “characterized by a disposition to treat the voice of authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect.” If you look at the Wikipedia article, you’ll see there is a high correlation between having an authoritarian personality and being poorly educated or being religious (especially being an Evangelical Protestant).

Now, then back to the question about the comic. It is impossible to tell whether the orange man is Epstein class or whether he’s simply a mindless MAGA drone with an authoritarian personality, because they say the exact same things. One says it because they’re evil, and one says it because they refuse to question anything that the evil people say.

but you’ll still be ass-imilated

A cat will naturally like a carrier if you only use it like a cardboard box. The problem is all the other stuff you do with the carrier, and especially if that’s the only time you use the carrier.

A dog is a responsibility, so if you didn’t have any responsibilities, you also wouldn’t have any dogs.

That’s surprising. Based on his previous behavior, I thought his most likely course of action would be to guarantee that gas prices would go down, and then to declare that gas prices had gone down, even though anyone could easily see that they went up.

One of the scenes that bothers me the most is where Anakin states that from his perspective, the Jedi are evil, and then gives zero reasons. But it would be trivial to explain himself.

The Jedi are a religious organization that wields great authoritarian political power, often unilaterally, including later as we observed, political assassinations. They’re obsessed with finding people who are chosen at birth and have a policy of rejecting anyone who is too old to be fully indoctrinated.

They’re basically fascists. If you ever eliminated the sith, the next thing you’d want to eliminate are the Jedi.

How much more interesting would it be if they actually presented the Jedi, including their inherent flaws?

I know you’re not saying it to disagree with me, but I would like to clarify that I didn’t think he was factually completely right. I honestly don’t even think his argument is necessarily sound. The thing I do like is that he was arguing from good fundamentals.

My reason for making the first comment is that I have a strong belief that we should argue against things that people actually say and do, like you’re doing bringing up Elon’s actions. Yours is a great example of an honest argument.

And I dislike all of these straw men that fly around all the time.

Few will click through, so I’ll copy the part where he actually talked about child pornography below. First of all, both times the term “gatekeeping” was used in that link were specifically connected to “censoring political opponents”. He was not talking about pornography. He was talking about censorship.

Bringing up pornography is always the bludgeon of anti-free-speech people. If I say, “People should have the freedom to express themselves,” some idiot will inevitably say, “This evil person said that everybody should be allowed to make child porn!” This sort of rhetoric is the death of thinking.

Asked if he realised “what [he was] defending” - which is essentially Grok being used to generate non-consensual pornographic or sexually explicit images of women and girls and child sexual abuse material (CSAM) - Sweeney said: “I defend open platforms, free speech, and consistent application of the rule of law. The bad stuff people do with AI, I do not defend, but I staunchly oppose the wrongdoing of a few from being used as a pretense to undermine the freedoms of all”

When challenged and given examples of Grok generating “CSAM content and doxxing people’s IP address”, he replied: "1) That is bad. 2) Every significant AI has instances of this. 3) Every significant AI company makes their best efforts to stop it. 4) All are imperfect.

What is this format? I can’t tell who is responding to whom.

The white region in the middle looks like it was put there as a screen shot by the person who wrote the bounty hunter part, but then it looks like it is also supposed to be responding to that part, but there are no details on the bottom part about which accounts are talking or when.

I guess it’s all just one person’s joke presented as if it’s a conversation. But why not put in minimal effort to make it look the tiniest bit real?

It is central to most major religions the need to control the sex lives of their followers.

The Bible doesn’t say that masturbation is a sin, but since Christianity is a religion, they cannot permit their followers to control their own sex lives.

As a result, most sexual expression is considered a sin, and they will use any excuses or lies possible to make sure it stays that way.

You know, it’s kind of refreshing to think that somebody tried to think of the most horrific sexual perversion imaginable, and could only come up with Waluigi hentai.

At this point, the most Melania can claim is plausible deniability, very light on the plausible. If she wants her words to mean something, there is a way. All she has to do is testify under oath to the congressional committees investigating the Epstein files.

It’s strange that she’s so desperate to put this to bed that she’s willing to randomly call a press conference, and in her press conference, she extolled how necessary it is for all of Epstein’s victims to have their testimony recorded for congress, but she’s not willing to testify herself.

Surely Melania’s testimony would be more relevant than Hillary’s testimony, considering that Hillary truly seemed to have nothing to do with Epstein and said she never even met him.

Here was your description of the video:

“How could a game of tic-tac-toe reach this end state?”

I think most people would interpret to mean, “When you look at the board, you’ll initially think it’s nonsense, but this link will explain how it makes sense in a real game.” (Because nobody would wonder about reaching the end state unless they already suspected it was nonsense.)

You could have alternatively explicitly introduced the video by saying something like, “This tic-tac-toe game makes no sense. Here is a video explaining why.”

My comment was intended to give context so that others wouldn’t watch the video with the wrong idea about what was in it. It’s one thing to click on a link to a normal web page and be disappointed about its contents, but a video actually takes time to watch.

How does a Slovenian model meet an American billionaire?

If you listen to the stories of the Epstein victims, it’s the same thing over and over again. Young model gets modeling offer. She ends up being pressured into sexual situations with wealthy men.

Trump was best friends with Epstein. It’s natural to think he met Melania when she was trafficked. If she wants to actually clear this up, she should go testify under oath to the committees that are investigating the Epstein files.