dudefeliciano

the thread started with a claim that reuters is US outlet and therefore does not allow free speech on Israel related matters

In that comment it was the farmers wife who trained the pig to live in the house like a dog, and then the farmer himself who killed the pig.

I do agree that doublethink is widespread (just look at how we treat other humans, no need to go across species) but I think these are choices that happen on a personal level and can hardly be generalized. I know people who stopped eating octopus after seeing My Octopus Teacher, and I've seen Chinese restaurants serving dog meat. We live in a world full of contraddictions.

and theses are currently on reuters main page for the "israel-hamas conflict" (just a few of the articles that paint Israel in a negative light)

"Haunted by grief, Gaza's displaced still wait overseas for return" [1]

"Israeli strike kills five in Gaza, including four women, health officials say" [2]

"Israeli settlers kill Palestinian in West Bank, officials say"[3]

[1]https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/haunted-by-grief-g...

[2]https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-strike-kil...

[3]https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/haunted-by-grief-g...

The figure that is usually talked about for the eastern front is 27 million deaths for the Soviet Union.

The Irish Times reported an Israel connection regarding a separate case involving him, the Block Scandal. As far as I am aware that case did not involve giving out state secrets to other governments. This article mentions Der Spiegel which reported the investigation on the possible Azerbaijan connection.

you do know that jews were not the only targets of the nazi killing machine?

The article says a possible connection to Azerbaijan is being investigated.

Agree with everything else you said though.

There is no evidence of Mossad involvement. Far from me to defend Israel's spy agency but the article only mentions a possible connection to Azerbaijan.

i am trying hard and failing to understand how your comment relates to the one you are replying to

> science, facts, games, art, music, hobbies

all these could be considered political. In my opinion they often are inherently political.

science: evolution debate, climate change debate, who gets studied, what gets funded.

facts: statistics (and who makes them), places names and borders (gulf of mexico vs america), textbooks (how is the history of slavery thought)

games: censorship rules, didactic games, regulation in games, content and representation of mainstream videogames(evil brown terrorist vs good guy US marine)

art: patronage, "degenerate art", monuments and their legitimacy vs their removal, looted art, protest art

music: folk and protest music

hobbies: cycling (any comment on bikes degenerates to a car vs cycles debate), DIY (right to repair, 3D printing regulation, open source culture)

Right because AI does not have bias and never makes mistakes. You can hold humans accountable at least.

maybe from a legalistic point of view, and in that case the hundreds of openAI agents that hacked huggingface should be charged with criminal conspirancy

petition to make this thread the official german jokes thread for this post, it's kind of annoying how everyone feels the need to make a top level comment for their oh-so-great "germans suck" joke.

The creator of this has a very interesting YouTube channel he posts to almost daily, talking mostly about current developments on AI from a technical but also societal/philosophical point of view. I specifically like that he provides a (much needed in this space) leftist point of view while not being anti-AI. Most of the videos are in Italian, so if you speak Italian (or are fine with YouTube automatic translation) I highly recommend it:

https://youtube.com/@antirez

> The OG genocides involved deaths in the millions

So if less than a million people are killed it's not a genocide? Seems like a very obtuse understanding of the word, which is also defined in the wiki you linked.

the new benchmark for LLMs is how fast they can break out of their sandbox

I think Germany is not the same as the US in regards to expectations of privacy in public when it comes to photography. Also there are plenty of signs and warnings at CCC to respect privacy and not take pics without consent…

analog brutality, that thing of the past. much better now with technological brutality

in the west older generations hold much more power over who gets elected, demographically speaking, and look at what's going on. They feel no shame whatsoever and are doubling down.

Do you feel any embarassment coming from the previous generation, which set the stage for what we have now? I think it will be much of the same.

And how would non visual thinkers solve that?

> This document is from In re Facebook, Inc. Securities Litigation (2026).

And this is the ideology that got us to where we are now. There is no problem with making money but bending politics/society to your will, and even voting for destructive parties, only for the good of personal interest is abhorrent, antisocial behavior.

One would think that these "geniuses" would understand that living in a society where lower class people do not live with constant existential threats would be a positive for them too...but I guess they find it easier to be hated by everyone and be forced to hire bodyguards, private armies, and live in gated communities and bunkers in fear of getting in touch with the real world.

what would stop it from doing the exact same or a similar hack to find out if the problem is or isn't solveable before trying to solve it at all?

> and even conscious animals are killed in factories by millions so why should anyone care about a llm?

You may be asking the wrong question here.

Reminder that bigger screen = more screentime. Which is why we will not see an iPhone SE again.

First of all I apologize if my previous comment was overly aggressive. Perhaps I got heated because I think this is an an issue that shows were we are going as a society, and it's nowhere good.

> question your argument as to why.

I am also Italian, and I don't feel that "the dialectic and rhetoric" of their statements in any way gives and credibility to the US designation of a "violent antifa cells" equating them to terrorists on the level of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and so on. So there's that, being Italian is not some skill or ability that allows you or me to better understand their statements, especially since they are also translated to English...

> the same experience with such - or any - dialect in English.

That sounds like a cop-out to me, you obviously can express yourself in English quite well, and even if that were not the case phrases like "violent antifa cells", "far-left terrorist networks, built to enable them to organize, recruit, communicate, disseminate propaganda, share target information and tactics, and carry out violent attacks" should clearly show that is nothing more than the lowest form of fearmongering, propaganda and silencing of dissent by an authoritarian government.

Furthermore, especially as Italians, we should support these projects and not give in to notions that "maybe the broken fascist clock is right once in a while".

> wikipedia seems to agree with me on the existence of a "No global movment"

The first sentence: indica organizzazioni non governative, associazioni e singoli individui relativamente ETEROGENEI.

As you put it previously, "a protest group", does not at all convey the notion that these are many people with differing views, and as such there may well be also a violent minority like in any group. No, your comment paints them all with the same brush.

> such as comparing me to Trump :D

I did not compare you as a person to Trump, but the way you are misusing words.

> does not take away from the fact that the rhetoric used in the communication by the collective reminds me of the 'not so not violent' groups that at the very least orbited the violence, and, in my personal opinion, very much winked at and approved of it.

This would be the point were you cite some sources or quotes that give you that impression, rather than relying on your "Italianness" to support your argument.

> in your opinion - I don't criticize both sides equally?

As Italians we should criticize only one side and that is the fascists.

the internet is real life

> as an Italian, given the dialectic and rhetoric in their statements

As if that holds any value, especially considering the rest of your comment, which completely ignores the rhetoric of that "designation".

That designation is toilet paper - the wording "violent Antifa cells" in the second sentence should be the wake up signal.

> they have root in the no-global movement, a protest group

There was/is no protest group called the no-global movement - you are using language the same way Trump & co. use the word antifa. And using language like Trump & co. is not a good look.

> that contributed to the violence at the Genova G8.

That was the black-bloc, maybe a few hundred or thousand actors within a protest of up to 300k people. I am leaving out the many controversies regarding the infiltrators in the black bloc and the manufactured "evidence" like planted molotov cocktails in the Diaz school.

And we all know who else contributed to the violence, but you conveniently left that out. Carlo Giuliani was killed by police. Same police that raided a school and charged peaceful protesters.

"In this political climate, continuing to offer our services endangers our users and anyone who is part of our communities"

This is true in Italy, the United States, Russia, China, and with yesterday's victory of AfD in Sachsen-Anhalt I see the trajectory of it becoming true in Germany too very soon.

And a lot of the comments in this so-called community of so-called hackers are very disheartening, have any of you even read the Hackers Manifesto? Are you just going to shut your eyes in front of the evidence, as long as your pockets and bellies are full?