AI: Trump, Musk, and other billionaires are a danger to humanity and must be removed at all costs to save the human race.

Pentagon: Eh, this thing is broken. Keeps telling us we’re the bad guys.

Sure. I wasn’t implying they were realistic, I was just drawing an analogy between Realism, the classical art style, and modern animation styles (like Pixar’s). Whatever style or genre you aim for, do it well.

It’s a simpler animation style so don’t expect Pixar level stuff

One of the things you learn in art school is that if you aim for something like realism (or Pixar, in this case), but you fail to get there, people will notice and critique you for it. If you aim for a style you can do well, on the other hand, nobody will care that you didn’t do Realism (or Pixar).

Up and coming artists in any genre would do well to remember that it’s okay not to be Pixar or Capcom or whatever. Sometimes working within your limitations can inspire truly creative works.

Ohanian just joined alongside Project Liberty (no relation to the weirdo right-wing grift with the same name, from what I can tell) to help buy out TikTok.

His actions seem to be mostly in line with those in favor of consumers. I, too, am cautiously optimistic.

And more specifically, it’s pollinators in general that need help, honeybees excluded.

In any case, if your security depends on malicious actors not discovering your phone number, a generally public piece of information, your have no security to begin with.

I am taking the time to remove my info from the various aggregators, and it is scary the kind of detailed info that exists out there just as public information.

As you say, if you are worried about a phone number being tied to your identity, it’s already public information.

at that point u basically handing the agencys meta data on a platter

Can you explain what you mean? I’m not sure I understand how that would work.

So you just had a shower-thought about the existence of stupid people and thought we didn’t know?

Okay… But that’s determined by the qualities of the argument, not pointing out that there’s dumb people in their midst.

“Atheists and theists both have naive, credulous adherents” isn’t saying anything novel.

What are you trying to say? Why are you being cagey?

He also says, “I believe providing more varied viewpoints supports our journalistic mission and will help readers navigate the issues facing this nation.”

Yeah, because as everybody knows, including “varied viewpoints” on whether Elon is doing a good job, whether Trump is a fascist, or whether trans people deserve basic human rights—without any necessary facts or contexts—is just good journalism! /s

And they wonder why people are turning to alternative media sources for their news. Jesus H. Christmas, y’all. Society is run by the absolute dumbest people.

I still don’t understand your purpose. To promote…pluralism? To point out that each group has dumb people? To highlight that it’s human to follow blindly? I just don’t understand where you’re coming from.

Are you a theist trying to bridge some perceived divide?

ETA: Also, I disagree with your use of “most” for any of those groups. Unless you can prove that it’s indeed “most,” at best you can say “some” or “many.”

Most of us just swallow the official narrative of our tribe and trust what the authorities say.

Which is of course a terrible way to acquire quality knowledge.

Okay. Where are you going with this? Are you just highlighting that people are often not skeptical, reasonable, or rational? Because that’s commonly known.

Some people don’t care about that stuff, and it’s their right to be as private (or not) as they choose. They can’t make informed decisions, however, if companies don’t tell them what they’re doing with user data.

OP might mean it’s the future of internet access. I don’t think these network operators are under any illusions that they could connect NYC to San Francisco with just LoS radios.

A municipal mesh network isn’t a bad idea, but I worry about what security measures are in place, effectively securing a wireless network with hundreds of independent stations feels like it wouldn’t be trivial.

Probably the same as a WISP, since that’s what this essentially is. I don’t know about specifics of security, since they didn’t mention it.

And surely this will need a WAN gateway to the internet somewhere, so it’ll only be as reliable as the route to that uplink.

They have volunteer nodes that connect to each other and multiple super nodes that connect to WAN via peering and having transit donated by Packet.net and Webair. I don’t know what any of that means, but that’s what they said about how they are able to provide service.

Yep. Those people are obviously “liars,” since they are using an uncommon colloquial definition. 😉

What does that mean?

I would fall into the latter category. Lots of people are earnestly wrong without being liars.

It’s funny. They could try—I don’t know—providing some good products that sell themselves, but instead, they have decided to resort to surreptitiously selling our data and pushing more schlock at us.

Weird that people wouldn’t be excited about that…

I call mine a brain! 😉