NHQ

What are some better image search sites?

We are the ones that are sold out, by regulatory capture, monopolies, wireless spectra, etc. Section 230 does nothing for people, it created the platforms that censor, and gave the government a hook into the industry.

Look, even EFF supports section 230 [0]; btw, EFF is a total sell out operating as a feel good, ideological protector. All they do is swindle the "engineering culture" into pushing these things onto the world.

0. https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

I'm holding out for full 480p

This was never the open internet. You can't send a direct packet to another person without intermediaries and cloud systems. You can barely host a website from your personal computer, most cannot. This internet is as they say sold out.

Middle management is the key to taking out cartels. That's who you really want to go after. I learned that from a link on here a long time ago.

Hopefully people treat AIs like they treat other people on the internet, with disrespect and zero sympathy. We have been trained for this. Don't go soft on polite robots, that will be your undoing.

True, but you focus on price alone. I explicitly referred to enrichment, which is more than money. Life is enriched by access to info, services, etc, which the phone offers more or less equally. Life without these now is truly 3rd world.

So capitalists technology enriched poor people in ways the communism never would, via technology advancement. The smartphone comprises extreme technology infrastructure, from chips, to wireless, to software... immense industrial coordination.

Right now communists want to build multi-family homes like we all live in NYC, and claim we should do this on ideological grounds (environment, etc). Housing needs notwithstanding (and exaggerated imho), communist housing would not enrich even a middle class family who has a house in the burbs. The ideology of communist housing actually plays right into capitalist factoria.

What communists don't understand is that communism IS capitalism. I think this is what Marxism was trying to elucidate about capital, but then folks of a certain persuasion asked Marx to write a manifesto for communism which they spread the world over for ideological purposes.

Communism and capitalism are the same coin. So communist fight the wrong fight. They fight to create conditions favorable to capitalism in the name of taking the factory they never seem to get. Crowded housing and population equals commodity labor (cheap, fungible). You can't run a giant factory without nearby workers, and they can't afford houses, so you pack them in "multi family housing". Now you need to convince them this is actually the morally right thing, so communism says its better for the environment (which is not even a core concern of communism, so that proves the ideologues are just shifty, shifty to the left as needed).

Sure, and now you have to reckon that 9/11 was not done from the top by radical "jihadists". In other words, fanatical muslims could not have been the real planners, only the brainwashed operators.

What banal, even-headed plan was 9/11 then? And who was really behind it? The act of 9/11 was dramatic, but hardly tactical, unless the tactic was to have the U.S. respond a certain way. Like the author the book in this thread, 9/11 operators probably acted against their own interests. In other words, Muslims could not have been behind the actual thinking, for any intelligent leader would know the U.S. would retaliate hard.

"Embracing of conspiracy" is not what I mean. You are using newspeak definition for conspiracy. QAnon bites on "conspiracy theories" (that's what you mean) but does not run an international operation infiltrating foreign governments. Communism was/is an international conspiracy to change regimes in other countries.

Show me how QAnon is equal to Marx in universities, academics, and actual politics. Show me Putin's allegiance to MAGA. Show me QAnon has the wherewithal to compose a foreign legion, topple governments, etc. MAGA and QAnon is kitsch.

All your comparisons are nothing and you exaggerate. You're one of those people who believes Jan 6 was a serious threat? So you are r3tarded. Go pray 140 seconds for the "injured security guards" of Jan 6 lol.

Everybody has smart phones, wealthy and poor alike. Many poor people have the same exact best available model as the wealthy. That is enrichment. Communism would never have created that. Capitalism might not have gotten them manufactured as cheaply though. Thanks communism!

Fascism by definition would not be cohesive, but whoever wins power is sure to bring it together as best they can. As i understand it, fascism is simply joining political groups according to core values.

Fascism in Italy was a response to communist subterfuge. Communism is pure ideology, an intellectual politics. When there is war, famine, strife, suddenly politics of ideas don't make a lot sense. Core values switch from identity to survival. That didn't stop the communist from trying to establish a new rule amidst the strife, and communists are known to use destabilization tactics everywhere they want regime change. In fact, nothing is below communists tactics, because they believe they are liberating you. I would say any reaction to that in a time of crisis is justified.

Communists are just fascists about vague ideas they have been led to believe. Whereas no ideology is required for a politics of basic needs and survival.

You're saying QAnon on 4chan is the same as Karl Marx, Lenin, international conspiracy, etc? Which one led to one world war already, Communism or QAnon? Which one might turn Ukraine/Russia into the next one?

Trump/QAnon mythos is for memes, maybe a little cope, nobody believes Trump is a true messiah. MAGA was a hat, not a political philosophy backed by ideologues the world over.

Communists really believe they are doing liberation politics or w/e. MAGA folks just want to BBQ or w/e. MAGA people are not lining to force regime changes in foreign countries.

MAGA was a movement, communism is a whole ideology.

EDIT: by savior complex, i mean they think they are saving you, from capitalism. MAGA-likes have no such complex about saving other people. They would never join a foreign legion like communists did.

I can think of one motive. The pilot knew that the internet is crazy for airplane crash mysteries, and wanted to create a grand one.

> And I found... that [the book] is a powerful caution against the corrosive effect of centralized authority.

This conclusion boggles me lmao. I guess you have to read it like a communist in order to conclude that everything this Valtin guy perpetrated, endured, and witnessed, was all for the cause.

MAGA didn't have a whole canon of pseudo theory a la Karl Marx.

Bit of a stretch to compare normie-level citizen political interest to a cloak and dagger ideological revolution.

Communism has a savior complex, international adherents, a whole manifesto, and curious ethnic persuasions.

MAGA had broad appeal without the mysticism and radicalism.

The graphic and the pretense of mimetic causation, what a hilarious cope.

No mention of who is getting axed: the .5x gratuity hires, the ball-pen projects for also-ran elitists. $2 Ugandans can do it now that wokeness is dead.

This will lead to higher pay for real 10x types. Tech starts looking like a baseball team. You have your sluggers and your fielders.

Does a model learns a model, By Dr. Susse

Hinton's networks become the neuron of novel networks. It is important to know that these types of weights don't learn features, they map a compressed representation of the learned info, which is the input. Classification through error correction. That is actually what labels do for supervised learning (IOW they learn many ways to represent the label, and that is what the weights are). Modern AI do that plus learn features, but the weights are nevertheless a representation of what was learned, plus a fancy way to encode and decode into that domain.

What Hinton and Deepmind will do is use neural-network learned-data, or perhaps the weights, as input to this kind of network. In other words, the output of another NN is labeled a priori, ergo you can use it "unsupervised" networks, which this research expounds. This will allow them to cook the input network into a specific dish, by labels even. Now give me my phd.

edit: edit

Capsule networks were conceptually an early attempt at transformers.

Lol if you think the net is outbound. Most of those people were replaced. Who else is going to pay the high rent? The only option when rent is too high for HENRY is to pack in as many poor workers as possible. Viva congestion!

You might think this translates to less population congestion, but the reality is they want to raise rents and pack 4-8 immigrants or migrant laborers where previously one or two people lived. The wealth of California is dependent on cheap labor to obtain. They would have to sell if even the leaf blower guy was paid real wages. Rich and poor only, no mids.

Flywheels only make sense on a massive scale. We should put one in space.

Ai generated programs are not cool. You know what would be cool? Ai generated unit tests.

In the end there was the word.

Tensorflow.js is as good as the Python version, and Node.js is a better production platform, and models can run in browsers. Python is easy though; hiring about a language is a sign management doesn't know enough about programming to trust their own judgement.

https://www.tensorflow.org/js

> newborn baby

Precisely, It's like the author never understood the original definitions, but think their interpretation of the world creates them anew. It's a dictionary, not the bible.

Moderation as "we modulate other people's behaviors for you and your feelings" is justifying the act of censorship using other terms. These rationalists aren't half as smart as they think they are, or they wouldn't need so many words and novel interpretations.

You say that while letting the modelers of your cosmology get away with the most egregious science man ever witnessed. The models do wonders for technology on earth, but they do not produce any meaning out of the sky, only fantasies built on mathematical aberrations. On the contrary, and contrary to your favorite Razor, these models only make the wildest claims about the universe possible.

Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities, which are not observable, yet it cannot explain real observations, like missing energy sources and background radiation. No math changes these facts. It's all in your head.

You found a black hole? Show me the black hole, I want to see it! Is it next to the big bang? Is it closer to the infinitely expanding edges of the dying universe?

If you believe in black holes and big bangs you will believe anything. But you won't believe in another cosmology until you disbelieve anything approaching real science has been done on the universe.

You have no proof of black holes, you have never seen one. You were told that some calculations based on a model prove it, and have seen artists renderings, so you believe.

I copied from another comment of mine the following, which explains things that these astrophysicist still can't with their models. Simpler too. You should know that all the standard model does is explain. You could use the same maths and readings that they do to surmise another conclusion, maybe you will try yourself one day.

My cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback. Infinite Expansion is a mirage of light convolution until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor (ie. it's not the actual background farthest reaches, the noise is everywhere near and far).

Occam's Razors says your cosmology is wrong. It's too convoluted, it has to explain the craziest singularities which are not observable, yet can't explain real observations like missing energy and background radiation. No math changes these facts.

Models don't predict anything about space or the universe. We can't do anything out in the universe, only down here in earth atmospheres. You'd rightly assume somebody daft if they suggested using economic models on the universe, but not quantum physical models.

I'm not pushing my models or cosmology, I'm destroying the lie of academic cosmology based on weak rational sciences. I cannot convince you of another cosmology if you can't disbelieve what you've been told. You believe science has actually been done on the cosmos, because measurements.

You believe big bang, black holes, entropy and heat death, and infinite space, rather than reckoning those are things that disprove. You believe thermodynamics is universal and eternal, despite the fact that life itself breaks with them, and is older than most of your "stars" in "space". You deny your own existence to believe in scifi universality.

No internet link is going to convince you otherwise.

> it has to be absolutely immune to arbitrarily complex confounding factors in observation.

> Occams Razor

Pick one.

My goal is not making you believe my cosmology. So your argument about what I believe to know doesn't matter. My goal is to bust the cosmology everybody is being told. I'm using examples from mine to invalidate the standard, because all I know is the truth, why would I make this up?

You think the cosmology in question satisfies Occam's Razor because it's simple to you based on what you have learned and been told. Sure the model does some neat things, and all of them down here on Earth. Yet the system is clearly anything but simple, it's AN INFINITELY OPEN SYSTEM allowing for a lot of "things that need to be explained". Occam's Razor is precisely why you should be suspicious.

If my cosmology is simpler you won't believe me still. You can't believe anything else until you you cease believing that any real science has ever been done on the cosmos. Observation alone not 'nuff.

FWIW, my cosmology explains "dark matter" and the appearance of an expanding universe, in very simple terms. The missing energy source is gain from feedback, simple as. Expansion is a mirage of light convolution, all the way until it's noise, and noise points in every direction; that also explains background radiation, it's the noise floor. (NOTE: The standard model does not prove "everything in the universe is moving away from each other", it extrapolates that from the appearance of redshift in all directions; expansion is not "observed").

A new cosmology doesn't have to explain everything that the standard model does, because most of that is black hole fiction.

The funny thing about my mention of marxism is that most of the cosmological pushback I got came under that comment rather than my first one. It was the marxism that that did it lmao.