1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

yeah, but this is the marines we're talking about. if they're told not to kill, it'll be worse for the rioters than if they got their heads blown off.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

there may be other reasons for this.

she's covering all her bases. if things go south, and the marines have to step in, she can deny she said it wasn't necessary.

that being said, is it sad I'll feel a little bad for the rioters if the crayon eaters get involved?

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

I've seen a few ai videos of trump over the last week or so. The usual shitposty nonsense we all love, and then listening to this I realized: ai tends to clean up his voice a bit.

if you listen, trump has a bit of gravel in his voice, and a slight squeak, whether due to strain on the vocal cords or just age, I can't say, but it's there.

moving forward, when listening to/watching content to see if it's ai or not, it might be prudent to search not just for ai-generated flaws, but natural, normal flaws as well, as a way to indicate the realism of a video/audio clip.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

I stand by the idea they just didn't grind the sawdust fine enough.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

quality control: make sure the sawdust is finely ground from now on.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

hell, there used to be jokes about michael jackson/Cher Bono falling apart as their cosmetics broke down...

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

it's a good read. informative, funny, entertaining. i'm sure he embellished a bit here or there for a good narrative, but it's all stuff he went through.

3
yeldarb1983 3 points ago +3 / -0

funny thing is Jaimie Reidy told us a lot of this years ago.

hell, they even made a movie out of his book, "Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman."

0
yeldarb1983 0 points ago +1 / -1

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-

<deep breath>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH-

<etc>

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +2 / -1

my first thought is ai faked footage intended to make the right look like assholes and suckers

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

okay. Lemmt just start this Ted Talk by saying the footage could be completely legit. I don't know for sure about any of what I'm about to say, other than my own observations of the footage itself.

That being said, there are a number of oddities about this footage that stand out to me

  • number 1: the level of detail seems awfully high for a consumer grade camcorder from the 2000s. why can I see smudges on the glass of the window so clearly?

  • number 2: the frame rate appears...odd. it had the same sort of choppy motion I normally get with 60FPS video, which would be weird for footage from that time period, again, froma consumer-grade camcorder no less

  • Number 3: why would a rescue crew (which this seems to be presented as taking the footage) be recording footage in the first place? seems like they should be focused on finding people to save.

again, maybe it's nothing. maybe it's something, but it's sus as all hell.

2
yeldarb1983 2 points ago +2 / -0

...if fucking Xi Jinping gave the us a jet during trade negotiations, trump would have to accept it.

it's called diplomacy, you disingenuous hacks!

of course it's going to have be gone over with a fine-tooth comb and retrofitted to become Airforce One, assuming it actually does become such, but you don't turn down the gift. it's an insult in parts of the world like this, and itll sour any trade talks in five minutes.

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

...lead poisoning would be cheaper...and more appropriate...

1
yeldarb1983 1 point ago +1 / -0

up front, props to bondi and Patel for shutting these bastards down. seriously good job there.

Now let me sidestep the people saying where are the epstein logs, etc. and talk about this from an economics perspective (full disclosure, i'm not an economist, i'm just a guy who understands supply and demand reasonably well).

If all we're doing is going after the people producing the content, pimping out the girls, kidnapping/trafficking them, then all we're doing is creating a hole in the market that some other disreputable group will inevitably fill, because as the supply goes down, the demand remains the same, and the price goes up. those people who will do this can charge an ever increasing premium on their disgusting services, so all we end up doing is playing whack-a-mole with the suppliers, while the abuse continues. We should absolutely still go after the suppliers, but they're only half of the problem.

If, on the other hand, we also target the consumers of this content, ie: the people paying for CSAM material, the Disgusting Johns who pay for the priviledge of abusing children, etc. then the demand goes down as well, and it becomes a less profitable business venture, and fewer and fewer groups will step up to ride the gravy train that comes with taking the legal and social risks that come with being associated with this filthy business.

to summarize, i do think it's important to go after the suppliers, but it's equally if not more important to go after the consumers as well.

view more: Next ›