ignorethefacts

That's a great resource, thanks.

It's what I expected, what the UN predicts follows the agenda of the day. Previous it was the fear of some enemy population and now they are trying to normalise the idea of population reduction.

People can often behave similarly to LLMs, not simply regurgitating the data they have but are incapable of imagining anything outside of their dataset. Data in a dataset does not have to be accurate, unique or truthful for an LLM to produce an output that is coherent to the dataset.

It's obvious from every question you have asked that you only consume information from sources that push the "approved narrative". Are you able to imagine anything outside of your current Russia-Ukraine dataset?

> How do you justify Russia invading a sovereign country?

I'm sure what you mean by that is, "do I think Russia was justified in defending their sovereignty from the numerous violations of international agreements ultimately threatening their sovereignty", then yes. "Do I think Russia is justified in liberating and defending a peoples under siege and in need of help?", yes.

> Does that not constitute a death march?

I don't really understand your question, so from wiki: "A death march is a forced march of prisoners of war or other captives or deportees in which individuals are left to die along the way. ... Death marches usually feature harsh physical labour and abuse, neglect of prisoner injury and illness, deliberate starvation and dehydration, humiliation, torture, and execution of those unable to keep up the marching pace. The march may end at a prisoner-of-war camp or internment camp, or it may continue until all the prisoners are dead. "

From that I still don't understand your question.

Anyone with any military understanding and with the factual account of the situation on-the-ground in Ukraine (which you can not get from sources pushing the "approved narrative") will draw the inevitable conclusion that Ukraine will is not and never was capable of achieving any kind of victory against Russia in this confrontation. The Western leaders must know this. I can not believe that the US military and other Western militaries have not presented detailed reports to the leaders explaining this conclusion down to the most mundane of details.

Russia has offered reasonable terms and has been present for negotiations, but it was Ukraine at the behest of the Western death-cult that has forced peace to fail each time.

> Why would you think the western world ( the death cult ? ) would want to support Russia's aggression instead of Ukraine's defense?

A war fought on the defense can never result in victory. The western support of Ukraine is provided on the provision that Ukraine does not attack Russian territory.

The support the western world is "giving" to Ukraine is not free. On top of the pointless death, destruction and devastation that Ukraine is suffering, Ukraine will inevitably have to repay the debt incurred from the "gifts". Ukraine is nothing to the western world, just a dog to kick and a cow to milk all the while serving as a cautionary tale designed to keep other nations in line and their own citizens blood appetite sated for now and hooked in anticipation for a feast soon.

> And finally, with the entire world already against Russia's aggression, why would Canada need to discredit India who's Russian support seems to be limited to dark room oil deals?

"the entire world" only stands against Russia in your perception, formed from a curated bubble of "approved sources". In reality, the world is split and Russia has powerful allies, one of which is the long-standing ally India. India is not just a back-room oil partner for Russia, they are an important and powerful military ally. By global population, Russia has more support than Ukraine. But of course, "the entire world" doesn't consider all lives equal so who cares about little details like that.

The vile, seething hatred deeply embedded in the hearts and minds of people overcome all rationality. See how many even on this website seek vicious token vengeance against an old man who was not guilty of any crimes they themselves implicitly support in their own countries foreign policies and actions. There is so much historical context lost when the fat virtue signalers project their first-world peace-time morals onto a people who were subject to war, famine, hatred, degradation and humiliation. Imagine being down-voted for showing sympathy for an old man. What a disgusting pit of snakes we find ourselves in.

> Hypothetically, is there some sort of motive you have for Canada to want to blame India for such a murder? What would they have to gain?

Canada is part of the death cult hell bent on world domination. The current plan involves using Ukrainians as fodder in a hopeless attempt for what they outwardly claim is the defeat of Russia. India is one of Russia's key allies and blowing up such a minor event in the media follows the trend of isolating and disrupting Russia's allies, both physically and in the minds of the people in the west.

Rare to see a level head who doesn't just believe everything they are told immediately.

Consider a scenario where there were no nuclear weapons, but you had convinced the world that nuclear weapons exist. This scenario has very similar implications to the current world where no body is using nuclear weapons. In this scenario, you would necessarily have multiple factors:

1) You have other nations as co-conspirators who know that you nor they have nuclear weapons.

2) You have other nations who are not co-conspirators who don't know that you don't have nuclear weapons.

  2 a) Some of these nations might claim they have nuclear weapons.

    2 a i) The original lie is perpetuated because it's useful.

    2 a ii) The original lie is perpetuated because the other nations fear they might actually have figured it out.

  2 b) Some of these nations will want nuclear weapons and invest vast resources into a program that can never eventuate. They will be forever trapped in submission.

  2 c) Some of these nations will be allies who purchase "nuclear weapons" but they are never allowed to verify them.

3) You have the general public indoctrinated in the belief that nuclear weapons exist.

  3 a) It would be easy to control your own populations because they fear nuclear war.

  3 b) It would be easy to control other populations because they fear nuclear war.

  3 c) "Why bother, we don't have nukes" mentality.

---

The common belief is that the world would be doomed by the firecrackers going off. But the world is very large and life on earth has survived worse. The power in any threat is the idea of "what might happen". Ideas like "we might ignite the entire atmosphere of earth", "radioactive fallout will spread throughout the earth", "a nuclear winter will destroy life on earth". Such existential fear porn easily embeds into imagination when accompanied by visual imagery that we've all been exposed to. Whether nuclear weapons were real or not, the "nuclear deterrent" would be just as effective.

Conventional weapons are extremely destructive and devastating. Germany and Japan got to taste that in their defeat as the allies ruthlessly firebombed defenseless urban centers [0][1][2].

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51448486 [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-43546839 [2] https://www.elsevier.com/connect/maps-reveal-how-japans-citi...

Another HN user recently offered a term for this: Glossification.

It's not just the internet that has gone through this, any endeavor that involves an audience will undergo a commercialization optimization process which will erode the essence of what was enjoyable to uncover what is functional. Many meaningful questions can be asked about this, all beginning with 'why'.

You can still find pieces of amateur enthusiasm in various niches hidden in corners unsearchable, almost a self-protective mechanism naturally evolved to keep what little remains for people to enjoy from the eroding process.

This is a terrible piece of ignore-the-facts advice. The emerging facts about the health impacts from plastics are significant and irreversible. Anxiety is a healthy human response to a threat.

Go returning tuples as a norm and a way to handle simultaneously success and failure is the reason I believe go to be a fundamentally unsafe language. With a single binary return value you must successfully handle two cases, every time you increase the number of return flags, you double the complexity.

Confusing correlation and causality is probably the most effective form of viral propaganda. Most people don't know what causality is and even when they do they can't easily spot when it's proven or inverted.

For example in this article, let's take the numbers and statements that provide at face value. The article claims: there is a rising number of LGBT+ individuals being outed because of technology. The claim of course carries forward the lie that LGBT+ has always existed naturally in the same proportions over time and therefore concludes that the rise of outings must be because of the technology. No need to consider any other possibilities because the article doesn't even make it sound like there's any doubt. Propaganda payload successfully delivered.

The claims that LGBT+ individuals are being targeted specifically is absurd in any case, because schools in the Western world have been force feeding the LGBT+ agenda with vigor as of late.

Foot has an opt-in server mode so that if you are used to running multiple terminals at once, you can save a little memory. Great for a low-end device. Of course, if the server is closed/crashes, you lose all the client terminals which can be annoying.

It would be a good idea if biology along with most other sciences weren't rail-roaded down a dead-end. There will be no meaningful medicine to come from this sadly.

I agree, the UFO narrative is a psyop. They are shifting the Overton window on us and the questions are to what extent and what purpose.

The worst and best conspiracy theory I have heard about this is that there has been a plan to stage an alien invasion. 100% fake invasion with real explosions. You just need to get the population into the right mindset such that they will suspend their disbelief when the bombs drop and the media is showing fake aliens. Add a sprinkle of NASA magic and their new satellites will 'confirm' everything. Once you believe aliens are real, the theory states you will abandon all religion and either worship the new overlords or trust your government.

The theory sounded ridiculous to me until we had all these government sponsored psyops pushing us closer towards it.

Aliens are not real.

Articles like these exist primarily to shift the Overton window. One day they will convince you aliens are real. They are not real.

If NASA puts their satellites in space with their new fancy UFO detectors, and they start detecting many UFOs in the absence of eye witness accounts, do you believe them? It is very dangerous to discredit human accounts and trust a process that cannot be verified.

Be skeptical of any claims that aliens are real, no matter who is making the claim.

Consider the techniques being used and only available to players with resources:

- employ bots/troll farms to astro-turf comments, blogs, videos and articles at a large scale. - employ more writers to pump out stories on the major news outlets. - fund research in any direction they choose, and only broadcast supporting research. - their message is already out, taught in schools, blasted on the media, etc. This means there is a hierarchy of experts all the way down to the hacker news commenter 'who heard a thing one time', and they are ready to refute anything without consideration.

It is known that most people are only reading headlines and comment sections now. When the main players can produce 1000x more content than the combined efforts of the few who have anything else to say, it appears to most people that there is not only a consensus, but most things are settled unanimously.

- With LLMs you can write the dot points of an article and have it develop something readable (time saver). - You can interact with the LLMs to bounce ideas and discuss things, allowing you to build up a more fleshed out argument (virtual peers). - You can discover research terms that might be deranked from search engines. - LLMs can criticize your work and provide ways to improve it (peer review). This criticism will handily have the flavor of the mainstream message as all LLMs are trained on predominantly mainstream sources.

One person can do more now with less.

You could argue that the mainstream can use the same techniques, and surely they will. But the trend I am noticing is that there is a lot of traction for alternative views as the mainstream message has reached saturation and a vacuum formed from the suppression of well researched alternative messages.

Adding to this, AI gives the common folk a fighting chance in the information war which has already been waged upon us. Up until now only the rich and the powerful had the ability to participate. Now that it is so easy for people to put together coherent and well researched thoughts in their scarce free moments, the advantage the rich minority had in the information war is temporarily slipping.

We have to keep AI open and thriving. We saw many nonsensical movies about the rights of sentient AI, but the true battle is the rights of humans to have access to AI. It won't last long if we don't defend it.

And so it begins. Australia once again leading the charge against freedom and privacy, this will no doubt be accompanied with legislation that makes AI illegal and give rights to police to search any device suspected of containing any AI. Of course, they already made encrypted devices illegal previously so you'll get hit with a double whammy if you dare to follow best practices.

Not everyone who posts here is a coder but I do agree with you the narcissism and astro-turfing on HN is high.

I suspect the high-confidence/narcissist combination is especially high here due to this being an industry/entrepreneurial forum where being confidently wrong is a positive trait.

The astro-turfers appealing to the confidently wrong go by unnoticed to the majority.

The abstract of the study states the metric for over-confidence they developed is "the tendency to give incorrect answers rather than ‘don’t know’ responses to questions on scientific facts". I think that's true. I maintain that being confidently skeptical of confident claims and research is not the same thing.

That's a bad take.

The science mouthpieces (aka media and government speaking on behalf of scientists) were insisting they knew the immutable facts and any questions or doubt in those immutable facts were heretical. Anyone who has an appreciation of the evolving nature of scientific research should immediately see the red flags in that.

"Antivax" is not a position of anti-science, it's a slanderous label for an alternative theory with its own compelling evidence.

It is disturbing to me that this is published in pubmed and written with such an authoritative and definitive position. Looking at the similar articles, there is a lot of activity in the conspiracy space on pubmed.

I can not look past the irony of medical researchers researching narcissism as though they have no hint or sign of narcissism. Pair that with their bias, and the document reads as something from a church preparing for an inquisition.

I'm sure many people on Hacker News are savvy to it, but this research is weaponized. If you enter a hospital with well researched reservations on a treatment protocol, especially a mandated plan such as we had with covid recently or even something like cancer treatment, you will be flagged.

For example, recently I had to stand on behalf of a loved one and explain my reservations against the treatment protocol that the hospital decided for my loved one, which I soon discovered they were not applying correctly based on the study the protocol derived from.

Something became very clear through the discussion however: the doctors don't dig deeper than the hospital mandates or marketing. I later discovered that the government mandates threatened doctors with fines and worse for not complying. The entire process was a checklist. As a computer scientist it was clear to me, those doctors are standing in as intermediaries in a trial process to automate and remove humans from the loop. By not acting more critically and exercising their individual medical expertise, they are demonstrating their own redundance to the hospital and medical system.

Once you add this kind of "research" to the checklist then even doctors seeking treatment will lose their voice.