intentionally released in the least damaging way possible.
No, the LEAST damaging way to handle the information would have been to delete it and never speak of it instead of presenting it to the world after ginning up lots of interest with an announcement the previous day.
I think Musk is right about AI . . . it's among the few technologies that might easily bring an end to us even without malice from those creating and wielding it.
I also think Musk is genuine in his positive intentions for Neuralink.
But high technologies are always dangerous. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue them, but we really MUST be smart about it, and not just left-brain-logic smart.
BTW, if you've never read Bill Joy's famous The Future Doesn't Need Us in Wired (from 2000), it's still, well, thought-provoking.
The 21st-century technologies—genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR)—are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them.
Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication.
I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.
Congratulations! Trump doesn't drink, so you've got a partner and role model right there. And I'll second all the suggestions for AA if you need help; I've never gone to a meeting but several people I respect have told me it really helped them.
Yes! Paul had Trump-level crowds and support; some supporters even ran a large Ron Paul Blimp for a while. The MSM gave him the complete slander-and-cancel treatment, including leaving his name OFF of polls including a few times when he WON the poll outright.
"Lost all credibility" -- no, not with me anyway. SOME credibility, yes: he's apparently a bit sloppy in vetting material, and I'll be more cautious about what he puts out in the future as a result. But if making a mistake costs someone ALL CREDIBILITY then no one on Earth is credible, including everyone here.
"Died Suddenly" contains a LOT of truth and is having a very positive effect in the world, waking people up to the truth of the Poison Death Shots (as Dr. Zelenko called them).
^ THIS is the winning argument. Great reply, GQD_.
This fake Q could come out and ruin everyone’s credibility at any moment. Have you seen anyone warning or trying to sway us AWAY from NEW Q POSTS. OTHER THAN MSM AND SHILLS?
No.
The exact opposite. You are seeing DJT and JR OPENLY ENDORSE AND PROMOTE Q TO THE EXTREME. No more little deltas and proofs w misspellings matching up to a post, BUT ACTUAL SCREENSHOTS OF ENTIRE POSTS.
A long page of excellent quotes by Spooner, who understood Power much the way J.R.R. Tolkien did:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/238917.Lysander_Spooner
I think you're confusing Jobs' insistence on controlling the hardware / software combination (so that Apple's hardware wouldn't be ruined, user-experience-wise, by crappy software) with free speech in the sense of free discussion of ideas. The first was a design decision for products he sold and helped create -- Steve's design sense is largely what MADE the post-Apple 1 Apple successful -- while the second is censorship of non-Cabal-approved ideas as Apple is involved with today.
If Steve was (contrary to not only that famous Big Brother Superbowl ad but to much of Apple's advertising during Steve's tenure) into censorship of ideas, I'm unaware of it.
"Falsifiable" has more than one meaning; in regards to scientific theory, it means:
Adj. 1. falsifiable - capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.
If a theory is not falsifiable (i.e., if it cannot be proven either true or false) it is useless. Steve Kirsch is saying that at least one event featured in the film can be proven false. See below for more.
Here is Dr. Robert Malone's comment on one of his concerns about the film: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/sins-of-information-warfare
This is directly analogous to one of the apparent breaches of accuracy in the current “Died Suddenly” video, wherein (apparently) an example of sudden death is being used which is demonstrably unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID) vaccination. It may or may not even be the same event.
My opinion is that these breaches of technical accuracy are not acceptable. For either side of the debate. It is often said, when debating an opponent (or an internet troll) that “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts”. Furthermore, these types of “artistic license” distortions of truth cause both damage to the credibility of the arguments being made (which may otherwise be valid), and can also cause psychologic pain.
Furthermore, these types of errors become weapons which will be deployed against us by our opponents in this unrestricted information war battlefield.
Comment by an anon ("A Midwestern Doctor") https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/what-is-causing-the-died-suddenly
(This is a long piece about "vax" damage; the Died Suddenly film is a very small part of the discussion):
Unfortunately, as alluded to above, there is one huge issue with this segment. The live clot at the end has nothing to do with the COVID-19 vaccinations (it came from a surgery posted on youtube a year before the vaccines entered the market). I suspect this arose because someone re-uploaded that clip and labeled it as being from the vaccines (either as a prank or as clickbait) and then it was re-shared until the Died Suddenly team got it and added it in since it supported their narrative. This illustrates why it is so important to have strict editorial controls on any production, especially one that is difficult to revise after the fact and will be viewed by large numbers of people. I debated clipping that ending part off (since it makes this a much worse clip to share), but did not as I felt it is important for our community to be transparent and open about any inaccuracies on our end.
Later, he adds:
The producers of Died Suddenly have my genuine sympathy for these oversights, as I recognize from writing here on complex subjects how easy it is despite my best efforts to make factual errors and as much as I hate to say this “spread misinformation” (this is why I and colleagues periodically volunteer to vet medical information being compiled to challenge this vaccination program).
At the same time however, I also believe once these mistakes are recognized, they need to be addressed. Since I can edit my own written posts after publication, I recognize it is much easier for someone like me to do that than a video publisher, but I nonetheless believe it must also be seriously considered for a documentary that had a limited release to a video-sharing platform.
True. Even were the movie perfect, the Cabal and its lackies would attack it energetically.
That doesn't negate the honest criticism though; the movie presents some things which are easily disproven and THOSE will eat away at the film's credibility.
(Emphasis added)
Risk-limiting audits consider contest margins and errors discovered by the audit, yielding a minimum of missing incorrect outcome, called a “risk limit.” You start with the assumption that there must be an incorrect outcome, and you audit until you disprove it or correct it. If you go through the first round and have found enough discrepancies that haven’t met the risk limit, then you conduct a second round, and continue conducting rounds until we meet the risk limit. The ballots are compared with the sample of the reported winner instead of the voting system.
The main function is to disprove the possibility of a inaccurate vote count, and find a way to validate the reported winner. So if, in fact. the vote count is actually inaccurate and the reported winner is not the actual winner there isn’t any possible way of finding out. This doesn’t validate the actual results. It’s a “work around'” from proving the vote count is correct and the reported winner is actually the winner.Basically whoever has the most votes, legit or not, at the time of the audit, is guaranteed to be the winner every time.
If the election official is a Democrat, they will not run the audit until the Democrat candidate has more reported votes then the opposition.
Replacing education with malicious propaganda will do that to a population.