It's excellent IF TRUE which has not yet been shown to be the case. If the purpose it to stir people up, or make fun of him, or confuse the black hats, that's fine. If the purpose a truth claim, then there should be hard evidence. Unfortunately, people tend to not care about truth as much as "their truth" and they ignore Forensic evidence if it contradicts the biased truth they have. This includes this community. Even if there was Forensic level evidence of biden being fake, many would ignore it. Just as, if on this community, there was Forensic evidence showing he is not fake, it would be down voted and ignored. It's saddening.
You seem to not understand. Here i will give a parable.
- A couple was walking down the road when a robber appears. The robber shoots the man in the leg for him to watch as the robber rapes the woman and then the robber steals their money.
- Later that week, the man's brother comes over for dinner and tells the couple, "The robber was someone I hired, He wasn't a real robber, but simply an actor. You see, the world is dangerous and I wanted to make sure you knew that since you go on walks outside without some form of armed protection."
- The brother went on to explain that simply telling them that they could get robbed wouldn't be enough, the only way to make sure they never forget to protect themselves was to hire someone to do the very thing he wants them protected from.
you think that the couple would think the brother was just?
Its not about a clean ending. No. What i mean is that if we have all the control, so much so that we have replaced all the bad guys already. so that means its no longer the bad guys doing bad things. its the good guys.
- video1 a static figure is not a mask.
- video2 a hair peice is not a mask.
- video3 making a fake person is fairly easy but still fake looking off camera. Making a person that is suppose to look like another real person is much harder.
- ai videos doesn't apply unless you think biden is never seen in public ever and no private citizen has ever filmed him.
-
- You can have a realistic face off camera
-
- You can have a flexible mask (no fine wrinkles)
-
- You can have a mask look like a known person
- you can only pick 2 of the above.
One day maybe we could get all three. It's not there yet. But even if we get all 3. it will never pass a forensics test. It will never test wrinkle mapping. they will never pass forensic audio testing. Both of these forensics tools can be used with any clear image or clear audio. If you want to prove he is an actor prove it woth forensics not with tictoc videos.
It's one thing that replaces a person to get info. It's quite another thing for the actor of a murderer to murder someone. This is what they are doing. Having a fake biden allow mass migration, many of which are murdering innocent people, having actors move arms, destroy crops, bomb civilians in other countries make the actor as bad as the one they portray and that also goes for those controlling the actor. The end does not justify the means
If this is all actors, and all the black hats have been caught.. then I don't wanna be a whitehat. Becuase that means all this fucked up life destroying, torture,genetically modified shit is all done to us in full control of the "good guys"
Its a little more complicated than that since sentience required not just consciousness but also emotion. It would be hard to know when a machine actually emotes vs just saying it does. But I do think we are close. Within 100 years.
Thats not ai, that's sentience. Ai is not sentient. One day they will make a sentient machine, likely with a lab grown human brain/chip but that's not AI. On your phone, you see how it guesses what your next word is? This is what chatGPT is, but to a larger scale. I'm not sure many understand this. Ai is literally an algorithm or series of algorithms that a human could have manually created but likely instead used machine learning to create the algorithm in a more "natural" methodology. Ai is not more complicated (generally much less complicated) than a Ps1 game.
You are correct heat loss happens over distances and time this is a law of thermodynamics. Once energy hits the initial particle of our atmosphere and hits our surface, thats the hottest it can be. each subsequent bounce is less hot since the energy (heat) transfer happened. I think the Globo model also seems to think that we live in a closed system which we dont. heat sheds into space not just towards the planet.
For the sake of argument, let's say the earth is warming because of "greenhouse gasses" this would not increase temperatures everywhere it increases average temperatures.the cold areas get warmer while the warm areas remain either the same or drops slightly. The point is that the earth becomes more stable, more temperate, more tropical, it would be a greening episode.
I think so as long as he gets enough of whatever stimulants he needs lol, a diaper, etc.