hagbard_c

> What makes you think AI is intelligent ?

What made you overlook the quotes around "AI"?

Having said this it would certainly be possible to use a model to plan a mobile mesh network.

> Certainly makes planning an attack more complicated

That's where "AI" comes in, making this available to the average troglodyte with an outside funding source.

Delicious bull-shit bingo dressing? A bit like Thousand Islands dressing but for code.

Here's an explanation of what it is supposed to be:

https://quantumsecuritydefence.com/quantum-news/hybrid-pqc-c...

I wondered when this reaction would appear. No, it doesn't run through 60 second s in about 58 seconds, waiting for the time sync pulse to start the next minute cycle because it doesn't need to since it has direct access to the accurate time. Adding this interval is just a single prompt away though, or - gasp - a few edits to the source.

Is it Developer mode those apps trip on or USB debugging? I've seen several examples of the latter but haven't come across the former yet. I run Google-free Android (14, 15, 16) devices which run the Swedish and Dutch banking and e-ID apps I use on, some of these only work when USB debugging is disabled while others don't care. Some of them complain about Google Play Services not being available but they run nevertheless, that warning is produced by some part of the SDK which gets imported at build time but it does not (yet...) disable anything.

The right spans such a huge range right now that not to be right is to be "far-left". A "democrat" opposing the OmniCause ("climate, migration and 'palestine'") is _extremely_ rare and usually gets excommunicated from the Party, e.g. Fetterman and Manchin (whom you for some reason listed as 'democrats' even though the Party does its best to label and shun them) while on the right you have people ranging from Massey to Trump, Vance to Rubio, Wiles to Collins.

So maybe it is in the eye of the beholder? I certainly see far more labelling coming from the "left" side of the spectrum than from the "right" side although they're certainly catching up lately now that the communist zombie has risen from its grave again. On the "right" the general idea of the "left" seems to be that they're 'stupid', 'naive' and 'uninformed' while on the "left" the general idea of the "right" seems to be that they're 'evil', 'narrow-minded', 'racist' and '*-phobe'. Neither of these general ideas are true but that doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Assuming you're American and assuming you ever cast a vote you'll have voted for the party which pushed slavery, from which the KKK was born and which pushed for segregation and the Jim Crow laws, i.e. the "democratic" party.

In the same vein there is no reason to bother with social networks owned by literal far left supporters, i.e. nearly all the others. Combined these two statements lead to the conclusion that hardly any social networks are worth bothering which is something I can get behind.

Yes, had the consequences been known that would have been a good idea. The same is true for the Bolshevik party in Russia, Mao's communist party in China, Chavez's party in Venezuela, Castro's in Cuba, Pol Pot's in Cambodia, Khomeini should never have been allowed back in Iran, Lenin should never have been allowed back into Russia, etcetera. Hindsight is always 20/20 but that does not help when deciding which parties are allowed to partake of the democratic process.

AfD is a right-wing nationalist party which - like many if not most right-wing parties - does have its cadre of people with more extreme views. There'll be right-wing extremists in CDU/CSU (Christian democrats and Christian social union) as well but far fewer than in AfD since that party is more right-wing than CDU and CSU.

The same is true for left-wing parties like the communist party which calls itself 'Die Linke' where you'll find a large host of extremists. It also happens to be the party which under another name was responsible for the Stalinist government of what was ironically called the 'German Democratic Republic', three words with only one - German - being truthful. The same goes for Die Grünen (the greens) which is a far-left party grown out of the environmentalist movement which has taken up the 'progressive omnicause' of climate, migration and "palestine" as their leitmotif. You'll find left-wing extremists in the SPD (social democrats) as well but far fewer than in Die Linke and Die Grünen since those parties are further to the left.

As to AfD as a party being "far-right", well... not really. Their program isn't extreme right-wing, it mixes centre-right with centre-left policies. Their leader, Alice Weidel isn't extreme right-wing - she'd have to banish herself for being a lesbian in a union with another lesbian which tends to not go over that well in far-right circles. What supposedly makes them "far-right" is the same as which supposedly makes other similar parties in other countries - PVV in the Netherlands, SD in Sweden, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, Reform in the UK, RN in France etc. - fit under that category: their stance on migration from mostly non-western, largely islamic countries. They oppose such migration because they consider the large influx of people who either do not want to assimilate or integrate or, even if they wanted to do so can not due to their sheer numbers as a threat to their cultures and societies. Many people agree with these positions which has given these parties a boost and often brought them into significant minority to actual majority positions. This is seen as a threat by those who consider immigration from those regions and cultures to be necessary for some reason - Protestant Christian idealism, import of new voters to replace the traditional workers who moved to AfD and similar parties, payment of some imagined debt of honour related to historical colonialism, import of conflicting cultures to destabilise society (i.e. 'deconstruction') to make it ready for revolution, etc. - giving rise to the application of labels like "far-right" - especially powerful in a country like Germany which has been ruled by extremists (left and right) before with disastrous results for both the country as well as the world - to dissuade people from voting for them. Since these groups tend to have control over most of the mass media they have used them to try to convince the populace that these parties need to be banished, forbidden, excluded and shunned.

What these "progressives" do not seem to have counted with is the strong rise of such parties every time they urged them to be excluded, disbanded or forbidden. Disbanding a party which only gets a few votes is doable given the control these groups have over the mass media. Doing the same to a party which gets 1/3 of the vote is a wholly different thing and raises the question who is the more "extreme", the "progressives" who want to use what are considered to be "Soviet-style" tactics to get rid of their opposition or the parties threatened with banishment? It gets even more fraught with error when those "progressives" call for the protection of "Our Democracy". Whose democracy is it, who is the "δῆμος" (dèmos, ancient Greek for "ordinary citizens" or "common people") they're talking about? If those ordinary citizens want to vote the opposition into power should they be allowed to do so? The answer is clearly "yes" for those who take the word Democracy seriously but just as clearly "no" for those who consider their own ideology more important than the will of the masses. These "progressives" often claim that once parties like AfD come into power they'll get rid of "Our Democracy" as a justification why they should not be allowed to participate in elections and, should they happen to have been able to do so and won a large number of votes their representatives should be excluded from any and all positions of power. Again, Quo Vadis, Democratia?

Even if the risk were real, should a democracy be allowed to vote itself out of existence by handing over power to one of the extremist groups whether those be far-right, far-left, islamic or otherwise? Is Popper's paradox of tolerance for the intolerant to be ignored?

> Hopefully this will send in place a party-shutdown procedure, because their voters don't care about already their apparent connections to Putin and Nazis

You are talking down to up to 40% of certain areas in Germany, convinced you know better and that hey are all either nazis or too dumb to recognise they're voting for them.

Quo Vadis, Democratia? Ask mentalgear...

The conversation is about rioters and those who confront them. Whether it is tear gas grenades, flashbangs, smoke grenades, stun grenades or any other non-lethal weapon is besides the point. It is about suffering the consequences when you pick up a live piece of ordnance.

And this: teach your children to be diligent in what dumb things they do. Picking up live grenades is not just dumb but out of the gene pool dumb.

Smokey Bear said don't play with matches, I hope Daddy Williamdclt will/did tell his children not to play with live grenades.

Are you still 14? When I was 14 there were situations where tear gas grenades were thrown in the city where I went to school (Amsterdam) in the context of squatter riots. I did my best to avoid these, never felt the need to play edge lord and join the mob, don a keffiyeh and shout inane phrases. I did do plenty of 'stupid' things but picking up live grenades was just too damn stupid. The Darwin Award was still decades away but had I known the term I'd have applied it to those who do such things whether they're 14 or 41. If you really need to get rid of the thing you at most kick it away - also risky - but best just to move away from it until it detonates. I knew that at 14 and I still know it. Didn't you? Don't you?

There is one though: when you're throwing it as part of an organisation which has the official monopoly on violence - the police - in the context of controlling others who are violating that monopoly. Police are allowed to use violent means to suppress riots and that includes the use of flashbangs, stun grenades, tear gas and other similarly dangerous items. The boy who picked up the flashbang/grenade (unclear which one it was) was part of a group of rioters and as such had put himself in a position where he could expect to be exposed to police violence. Had he not been rioting he'd still have his hand but alas, he was, he did pick it up and his hand is gone.

If you have children tell them not to participate in these riots - which seem to be either organised by or used by both Melenchon's communist party as well as several islamic groups to achieve their goals - and, if he ever gets embroiled in one, make his way out as quickly as he can. Tell them not to be like Lenin's useful idiots, henchmen for the revolution who are discarded as soon as the goal is achieved. To those who think this means they should just accept any and all governmental abuse and neglect, think again. There are many ways to act against such abuse and neglect without feeding the communist/islamofascist/${extremist} beasts.

Hey down-voters, how about reacting instead of playing the hide-the-dissent game? The way you're acting now is somehow fitting in the context of this discussion since political extremists tend to get rid of dissent by getting rid of dissenters. We're not there yet so let's hear it, what is it you don't agree with?

Remember, you're here to discuss, not to profess fealty to the movement.

They are the zeitgeist of the 'democratic' party. They are using it as a skin suit for their own purposes. Their potential presidential candidate might just get the nomination. The Bolshevik party was their name notwithstanding hardly mainstream yet they took over anyway.

There are no bread lines like the ones created by Socialist policies. America is the land of plenty, the land where the 'poor' are overweight due to the abundance of cheap and rather unhealthy foods. Ask an eastern European with more than a few decades on his name what bread lines look like, or a Cuban, a Venezuelan, a Cambodian, anyone who lived under the end game of the policies professed by the DSA.

While it probably feels quite safe and dry under that rock you call home you might want to have a look around every now and then to get attuned to the zeitgeist. If you do you'll notice a bunch of useful idiots calling themselves the 'Democatic Socialists of America', a group which has been successful in many races and seems to be poised to take over the 'democratic' party. They have a major in New York and one in Seattle, they have a potential presidential candidate and they seem to be growing like fungus. Their program leads right to the bread lines which always seem to be the unspoken goal of socialist movements everywhere. They are at least as far to the left in their rhetoric as e.g. the Swedish and German communist parties (which both call themselves 'the left').

The mainstream left in the USA used to be comparable to the centre-right in most western-European countries but this is no longer the case.

They even make songs about it, quite good ones at that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnC88xBPkkc

   The Trees
   Available on Hemispheres

   Music: Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson
   Lyrics: Neil Peart

   There is unrest in the Forest
   There is trouble with the trees
   For the Maples want more sunlight
   And the Oaks ignore their pleas.

   The trouble with the Maples
   (And they’re quite convinced they’re right)
   They say the Oaks are just too lofty
   And they grab up all the light
   But the Oaks can’t help their feelings
   If they like the way they’re made
   And they wonder why the Maples
   Can’t be happy in their shade?

   There is trouble in the Forest
   And the creatures all have fled
   As the Maples scream ‘Oppression!’
   And the Oaks, just shake their heads

   So the Maples formed a Union
   And demanded equal rights
   ‘The Oaks are just too greedy
   We will make them give us light’
   Now there’s no more Oak oppression
   For they passed a noble law
   And the trees are all kept equal
   By hatchet,
   Axe,
   And saw…

> It is highly unlikely, at least in the species I’m familiar with, that a tree will just fall over. > > Evolution tends to select against that kind of thing.

This is correct when the trees are bordered on all sides by more trees. On the forest edge - which is what this seems to be - things tend to be different though and the occasional tree does fall due to storm, rock slides, wildlife activities, water erosion and more. Especially when the forest edge is relatively new, i.e. the bordering land has been cleared somewhere within the last 40-50 years these edge effects can be sizeable. Eventually the forest edge thins out once the larger trees have all fallen to create a more gradual progression from open land to forest and there will be fewer large trees to fall on bordering land.

This somewhat silly statement reminds me of when a city person moved in to a house on a piece of land bordered on all sides by mine in rural Sweden. Come autumn the trees - of which we have many, living on the forest edge as we do - started shedding leaves which also ended up on the gravel path leading to his house. He came to me and asked me to remove those trees bordering the path because they drop leaves on it which he doesn't want there. I had to explain to him that he no longer lived in the city where the streets are swept, that instead he now more or less lived in the forest where trees are the dominant life form and that these happened to be mostly deciduous trees which shed their leaves every autumn and as such the solution to his conundrum is not to urbanise the forest but to accept the occasional cover of leaves and the occasional branch on the path, remove them when they're in the way and otherwise just leave them be. Not long after that he bought a garden tractor which he now uses in a futile attempt to recreate his urban park in the forest. The trees keep on winning though, they're many against his one tractor.

The fact that is was created by an outside actor to be used as a tool is the major factor. It is still used for that same purpose and only for that purpose, there is no real nation state as such other than in the imagination of those who use it as a tool. This "state" has not benefited its inhabitants in any way since their "rulers" have only used them as tools and human shields in their power plays.

> Given that all nation states are more or less "made up out of thin air"

Not really, they tend to be created through conquest and/or colonisation followed by stabilisation around a common culture. Britannica has an article on the subject worth reading:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/nation-state

Here's the key components of what make a nation state as listed in the article:

A nation-state is a sovereign political entity where a state governs in the name of a community identifying as a nation. Its legitimacy arises from the right to self-determination of a core national group, who view the state as their own and its territory as their homeland.

Key features include:

* Defined Territory A nation-state has a specific territory, over which it has exclusive jurisdiction.

* Sovereignty It possesses the power to govern its territory without external interference, recognized since the Peace of Westphalia (1648).

* National Identity A shared history, culture, and language often create a sense of national identity, though this isn't always the case.

* Compulsory Membership Citizenship within the state is compulsory.

* Monopoly of Force The state claims the sole right to use armed force within its borders.

In the case of "the Palestinian people" and "the Palestinian state" these were created in 1964 by the KGB which drafted the 'Palestinian National Charter' and staffed the 'Palestinian National Council' with 422 selected members. They provided training, intelligence, financing and directed operations all in a clearly successful attempt to portray the PLO as a legitimate national liberation movement. By manufacturing Palestinian nationalism and backing the PLO the KGB successfully promoted it on the international stage which helped the PLO gain observer status at the UN in 1974 and recognition from various states.

Is is quite amazing to see how effective the propaganda has been in pushing the anti-Israel standpoint. The KGB never succeeded here even though they tried quite hard - they even made up a nation state out of thin air to rally around - which shows the power of modern media and communications channels.

No, these specific attacks did not 'kill and maim far more bystanders than the targets themselves', where did you get that from? The beepers contained a few grams of explosives, enough to blow off a hand but not nearly enough to cause the imagined effect you describe. There is plenty of video material available which shows these things going off in pockets, hands and other locations. None of these show any collateral damage.

Why does Israel not have the right to exist?

--edit--

Don't bother answering, I had a quick look at your submissions which show you to be an anti-Israel troll. Get you back to your cave, troll. Maybe 'tunnel' would be a better destination?

1. Israel's "New" National Security Concept (inss.org.il) 5 points by newspaper1 2 days ago | flag | past | discuss

2. US charity plans to use AI to monitor its Gaza classrooms for 'hateful' speech (apnews.com) 24 points by newspaper1 6 days ago | flag | past | 1 comment

3. Green party votes to adopt policy that equates Zionism with racism (theguardian.com) 20 points by newspaper1 10 days ago | flag | past | 1 comment

4. Israel water authority dumped toxins into Mediterranean to kill algae bloom (twitter.com/matanhodorov) 7 points by newspaper1 41 days ago | past | 1 comment

5. Netanyahu says being on US television for 1k hours got the US to attack Iran (twitter.com/clashreport) 4 points by newspaper1 45 days ago | past | 3 comments

6. House Dems' pro-Israel wing gains power on key panel (axios.com) 5 points by newspaper1 50 days ago | past

7. Liquid Death runs ad campaign focused on mailing urine to data centers (twitter.com/drinkgaragebeer) 2 points by newspaper1 57 days ago | past

8. Israel's Rave Music Drowns Out the Sound of Its Victims (currentaffairs.org) 8 points by newspaper1 63 days ago | past | 2 comments

9. Invisible Invaders: How Israeli Surveillance Penetrated American Networks (libertarianinstitute.org) 4 points by newspaper1 66 days ago | past

10. Anti-Zionism gains protection by UK law (twitter.com/tracking_power) 5 points by newspaper1 72 days ago | past

11. Ghislaine Maxwell's Dad Sold Bugged Israeli Software to Two Nuclear Weapons Labs (alisav.substack.com) 20 points by newspaper1 3 months ago | past | 5 comments

12. [flagged] Apple removes Lebanese village names from Apple Maps as Israel attacks (twitter.com/ethanlevins2) 101 points by newspaper1 6 months ago | past | 16 comments

13. Sequoia's Shaun Maguire accused an innocent Palestinian of being Brown shooter (fastcompany.com) 18 points by newspaper1 9 months ago | past | 1 comment

> Israel literally killed people

They killed combatants in a war started by the same. Assuming you grant Israel the right to defend itself against those who attack them they could also have chosen to use less precisely targeted means to disable these combatants, leading to more 'collateral damage'. How would you have reacted had they done so?

> I have my own Claude subscription. I’m willing to pay for hand crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought products. “Vote with your wallet.”

Soon you'll be able to buy hand-crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought-derived prompts for your Claude subscription just like you used to buy hand-crafted, artisanal knowledge and thought-derived code for your computer.

Are prompts covered by copyright? Will we see "Prompt copying is killing the prompt industry - and it's illegal" on the prompt delivery service site?

How about articulated double-decker buses? The one does not need to exclude the other after all. It'd need a large harmonica to deal with hills and bumps or it could have separated top floors with sloping roofs.

Why were they banned? They're used in the Netherlands which is rife with small bendy streets so if that was the argument it seems to be somewhat spurious.

You may not need it but the fruit factory does need it, if only to sell more fruit machines.

In a penis the nerve endings are also mostly in the glans (head) so the difference isn't that big. Most of the parts of these two organs match somehow, just shifted around a bit.