Oh my friend, you can replace open source with AI. You can do it, especially if you don’t care about the consequences…

Look, the story is full of deceit. If crimes were committed, they would have called the cops, right? Or posted pictures and video. Of course they would have … unless the perpetrators were rich Japanese folk. This is common sense.

No, they got it wrong. It was me! I am the leader! Don’t believe the feds, those lying pigs.

Most? Well that’s a nice claim. I wonder if it’s true. Kinda think not. Kinda think passiveness was more common.

Oh there you go again. Keep blaming the people for not voting for a candidate with weak values. It’s their fault, not hers, and definitely not the DNC’s. Will you blame them again in 2028, just like you did in 2016 and 2024? Or will you go get a decent candidate?

No. It is not clear. I read books and train myself from them, and then teach others for money. That’s legal… Obviously computers are not humans, but the parallel is there. So it’s not clear what the law is or ought to be.

That’s true but don’t fool yourself. There are younger dirty politicians waiting to replace them if we aren’t careful, and probably in some places even if we are.

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!

The way to do that now is to send them abroad to disappear or die. That’s the deflection. Otherwise there are dead bodies in the US and state murder charges with no statute of limitations.

Not true, though. We already have videos of people threatening to use 2A if ICE breaks in, and then of ICE leaving… In other words, you can scare them off. Do you think the average ICE agent wants to risk their own life to fuck someone up? No, of course not. They want to risk another ICE agent’s life, not their own.

And how many people know or care what C does for them, anyway. It’s cool, though.

She was working for them, knowing they were evil, and happily getting a paycheck. But she knew that the judge would eventually regulate things, starting with her. You can get only stonewall for so long, before you either quit or start lying.

Shit, we don’t know, but did she already lie and was worried that it would be uncovered? Wouldn’t surprise me.

You can call them that if you’re painting a positive picture of the future, like encouraging them because soon enough they’ll be voting. That’s a reasonable time to do so.

If you do so here, when the whole point is there were massive horrible crimes on kids committed, you’re covering up the badness.

To be clear, we do not have one single system. Branches of math are built on axioms, and different branches include different axioms. Some branches are simple enough that we can prove consistency. But what if you find an inconsistent one? Then you remove one of the axioms that helped demonstrate inconsistency, and then you move on.

If she stays on and the federal court holds her in contempt and punishes her, maybe Donald will pardon her, so she still gets her money. So no, it’s not moral.

What could she do? She could say what exactly the feds are doing wrong, for example, with federal officers’ names and dates and details. Create the record. She could refuse to file motions supporting the feds. Then the people would win those uncontested cases. Those would be relatively moral. But she made it about herself, and that’s hogwash.

Basically you don’t understand. Investors sell when they think the companies will fuck shit up. That could be because they think the product is obsolete, or it could be that they think manglement is going to do dumb shit. Take your pick. Remember, it’s gambling about the future, not about what’s right or reasonable.

What you’re positing here is a view of life that Margaret Thatcher loved. The idea is, “There is no society. There are no laws. There is no oversight. Everything, all responsibility, all of it is 1000% individual.”

Of course in reality that’s nonsense. We live in a world with laws that are sometimes enforced, where governments sometimes protect us, because we want them to, because that’s good for us all.

But even if you believe in Thatcher’s view, then you have the problem of corporations. You can’t seriously argue that we should be responsible for everything ourselves, as individuals, and also that corporations should exist, because they are anti-individual.

Of course we shouldn’t trust anything blindly, but we also need to use common sense. Have we seen proof that what’s claimed to be true is in fact true? No. But it might be true, and it’s consistent with what Meta would do. So if your cautious minded, you should assume it’s true for now while you go through the next few years of your life waiting for discovery.

If companies are lying in their advertising to the general public, then that is something the companies are responsible for. You can blame the victims, but that’s kind of stupid because there are so many people in the world who are not technically savvy. They don’t have the resources, background, knowledge, and skills to evaluate whether what the company is telling them is true. That’s why there are laws designed to protect consumers from lying companies.

Would it be great if everyone was an expert in everything? Yes. Are they? No. They never will be. That’s why we have laws.

To be accurate, there’s plenty of evidence. Look on Wikipedia and it’s all listed there. Do you think that evidence is reliable or meaningful? That’s your choice, and maybe you have a good reason for your stance, but the existence of said evidence is not in doubt.

I think shrugging is the right response. He’s a known cheater, he got caught, and it damaged his reputation a bit. Meh, good, that’s normal. If you wanna be universally praised, probably better to play the game by the rules.