Nikki Haley’s name is being thrown around after her mysterious departure announcement.
Not sure if serious or trying to be funny, but I laughed either way, thanks! The mystery though!  I honestly didn’t think anyone would notice. ._. Come on now, just because half this forum is retarded and can't use google, don't assume your sly tricks will just get past everyone. Nikki Haley’s name is being thrown around after her mysterious departure announcement.
Yeah, though she's not going to be someone on the Democratic ticket (unless something crazy happens, as she is a pretty deep conservative from the state of NC I think) Though I do really think that the Democrats are going to win unless they put someone up that isn't part of the establishment, because they learned what doing that actually does to their chances of winning the presidency that they really should've won. I'm seeing a Booker or Harris run. That's just me though. Hmm, valid point. While Trump wasn't an establishment candidate and blew the traditional establishment out of the water, I'm not sure how much of the "deep state" projection can be pushed. Like the fumes for that must be getting pretty low with conservatives controlling all three branches of government. Who knows, if China keeps the pressure on Trump's supporters, Clinton could feasibly stand a chance, rofl. --- Edit: To the retarded troll, maybe if you contribute rather than whining about libtards, your shit posts wouldn't get deleted.  Buck up snowflake. |
|
|
|
Haley is a republican so count her out although there will probably be a primary challenge for the GOP nomination. There will be a ton of democrats at first like the GOP had last time. There will most likely be two strings of debates to begin the process. Pretty interesting to look at oods. https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/democrat-candidateLady gaga (100:1) odds Chelsea Clinton George Cloony The rock Oprah Zuckerburg Michelle Obama Michael Avenatti are the dark horses amongst basically every major democrat politician. As an independent, I think Sanders (3rd best odds) and Gabbard (12th best odds) are the only ones I would vote for but who knows what the celebraties might say. Oprah could come out as an actual leftist, steal the nation's heart, and rise to the top pretty quickly. Pretty far odds on most of those people. Kamala Harris has good odds. Might be a bit early for prediction. Also, Nikki Haley’s name is being thrown around after her mysterious departure announcement.
Don't troll man. Might as well just say Clinton's running as GOP nominee in 2020. |
|
|
|
|
Who stands against Trump?
Hillary's lost once and that was her only shot.
Sanders is another old white man with a dream.
Elizabeth Warren's a whip.
It's a couple years away, which a lot can change in that time, but might as well start talking about it now.
Edit: Try to keep the conservation on topic and don't mention conservative / libertarians as running for the democratic party.
I might need to start keeping a list of shame. ._.
|
|
|
|
This is the initial campaign in getting the average Joe used to living with AI, but what will the next step be?
The current step is digital assistants. How long has Siri been around? I agree, but I think the more important question is what else can Siri do in the future besides being our personal Google and/or assistants? Do you think we will see Siri evolve in the future? Deep data mining and data analytics could literally utilize old Siri voice snippets to optimize your searches. I'm fairly sure this already happens with Android and certain applications. There's so many sensors available in a phone, it's lovely! |
|
|
|
....
If he was audited, then the investigation could be on-going. Statue of limitations only apply to un-investigated crimes.....
Ongoing from 2004? An estate tax case going on for 14 years? Interesting theory. By the way, wouldn't you think that the guilty party that deserved that Noose would be Estate Executor, not the heirs? But somehow Trump is the one .... Ahahaha, estate executor for an estate that's worth an IOU note. You're funny dude. Nah, cash was funneled. You'd know this if you bothered to read the article. |
|
|
|
|
Called depression or other mental health issue. Go see a doctor.
|
|
|
|
So, mining *bitcoin* is resource based, so economics can play a role into it, but at the technical core the concept was "proof-of-work". What does the work? Oh right the capital. In a large distributed system, the majority of the workers would control the the rules. This is done by all the workers sharing and collaborating, and distributing new rules.
From an ideological standpoint, that seems very socialist. However, in recent years, the sha256 hash really has been attacked. ASICs are literally purposely built devices to mine BTC. It's kinda crazy that people make chips to be the "best worker". The problem is because they're the overwhelming majority that has invested into this very specific purpose, they're going to continue this production.
In reality, the same could be said about socialism.
I love how you just operate from the assumed premise that Bitcoin is Socialist then just arrange your arguments from that point, and of course the evil Capitalists are overwhelming the poor Socialist victims. I forgot what that's called... something about confirmation bias is it? What you are describing is the fact that owning capital (miners) means you have more control, and make more profit, and yes, do more work. There is nothing Socialist about this, in fact I am fairly certain you know very little about Communism/Marxism/Socialism and its origins, because Marx himself heavily promoted central banking. I don't think you really understand bitcoin. If it were just about capital, it'd be switched to proof-of-stake instead of proof-of-work. Rather than being trolling in your comments, why not argue logically? I was playing as a victim, I was explaining what BTC actually is. If you have arguments with proof-of-work or proof-of-capacity or have problems following the abstraction logic, be clear in the articulation of that instead of just posting trollish responses. |
|
|
|
Socialism is based on equality and social ownership. What economic equality (the one Engels wrote about in Anti-Dühring) can we say when significant production powers are in one wealthy hand, when the creator has such power, and capitalist banks accumulate funds through unfair income redistribution and playing on volatilities. When we talk about social order, we must take into account the question of power. the usual average worker (who somehow accumulated funds for an entrance ticket) cant exerting economic influence on bitcoin, while super large players have such an opportunity.
All that Bitcoin takes from socialism that is Marx parfume for libertarian core.
So, I think you actually don't really understand how bitcoin operates as a technical level. While this is off-topic, it could be brought on-topic about actually using the implementation of Bitcoin as an example. However, I'm going to argue the merits because it's literally the thread, and you probably actually believe what you say is true from an socialist-economics standpoint rather than the actual technical implementation of bitcoin. --- So, mining *bitcoin* is resource based, so economics can play a role into it, but at the technical core the concept was "proof-of-work". Proof-of-work for Bitcoin is the sha256 hash. Which back when it came out, was pretty standard (and still good today). In a large distributed system, the majority of the workers would control the the rules. This is done by all the workers sharing and collaborating, and distributing new rules. From an ideological standpoint, that seems very socialist. However, in recent years, the sha256 hash really has been attacked. ASICs are literally purposely built devices to mine BTC. It's kinda crazy that people make chips to be the "best worker". The problem is because they're the overwhelming majority that has invested into this very specific purpose, they're going to continue this production. In reality, the same could be said about socialism. |
|
|
|
|
I feel as a certain subset of users constantly aim to take most political based threads entirely off-topic by misrepresenting basic facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Socialism is akin to democracy in the work place, in my eyes.
The major flaw of socialism in the past, was the requirement for it to be centralized. Capitalism has always been decentralized (except for the entity issuing the monetary currency).
Overall, I think in the future, socialism can come back as we enter the information era. To track a shirt from sheep to sale would have been impossible 100 years ago. Now, it's just a few cameras, a few algorithms, and a beefy distributed database.
|
|
|
|
You've yet to disprove by claims directly, after I've backed it with evidence. You've also tried to strawman my arguments. You're falling for several logical falluclities blindly, seems pretty common with conservtards. I'm not sure there's much hope for people like you. So, I recommend at this point you should fucking kill yourself kiddo I'm convinced. Still waiting for you to source material at a level most high school students can manage. Uhh, if you weren't blind, this is the reference the highschool student would reference; https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-systemWhich references other material, which was quoted. But still, you should kill yourself Once again you fail to specify what in that link supports your argument of 1 in 4 women on college campuses being the victims of rape. All you are doing is demonstrating that you could not pass a high school level English class. If you aren't even familiar with this material how do you expect to communicate it to anyone else? Once again, you strawman me. Fucking tard, go kill yourself please thanks! You make assumptions about my argument or try to put words into an argument that I've never made. Read my comments you retarded fuckface instead of just trying to assume what I'm saying. The link, just because it seems you are blind references; Individuals of college-age >Female Students: 20% report >Female Non-Students: 32% report For a university source, I'd probably use doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36421.v2 |
|
|
|
then tell me who controls the means of production for bitcoin. who "owns" bitcoin?
The one who has computational capabilities (i even may say significant capabilities). They are not guaranteed to anyone. And bought on the market with a probability of more than 90%. Also luckers and architects. Besides, Satoshi had a stabilization fund (or i wrong?). Decentralized emission does not guarantee equality. Bitcoin functions on proof of work, so the workers technically own bitcoin |
|
|
|
then tell me who controls the means of production for bitcoin. who "owns" bitcoin?
Furthermore it was specifically designed and cultivated by the banking elite as controlled opposition to Capitalism. Give it up.
Rofl, I think you got capitalism and communism switched up there buddy. Big words that start with C seem to confuse you. -- Overall, BTC can be utilized as a currency for any community. The issue is that it's tied to fiat currency rather than actual resources. |
|
|
|
You've yet to disprove by claims directly, after I've backed it with evidence. You've also tried to strawman my arguments. You're falling for several logical falluclities blindly, seems pretty common with conservtards. I'm not sure there's much hope for people like you. So, I recommend at this point you should fucking kill yourself kiddo I'm convinced. Still waiting for you to source material at a level most high school students can manage. Uhh, if you weren't blind, this is the reference the highschool student would reference; https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-systemWhich references other material, which was quoted. But still, you should kill yourself |
|
|
|
x
Thanks for the very thorough example of your lack of self control, as well as your total ignorance of how statistics work, and how to use them. Still waiting for you to source anything that supports the claim of 1 in 4 women on college campuses being raped or anything besides your frothing rhetoric to support the concept of "rape culture" in the USA. Or feel free to keep frothing at the mouth and flailing, it is clearly convincing people. You've yet to disprove by claims directly, after I've backed it with evidence. You've also tried to strawman my arguments. You're falling for several logical falluclities blindly, seems pretty common with conservtards. I'm not sure there's much hope for people like you. So, I recommend at this point you should fucking kill yourself kiddo |
|
|
|
If I have to explain every single link, source for individuals in post~ There's no need for a full explanation, but it would be nice to quickly read what the link is about without having to open it. Yes, your post appears quite clever in retrospect. However, you have to understand that the mods are probably getting hundreds maybe thousands of reports per day. If they came across one and it had one word, I could see them not taking the time to investigate the link and how it justifies the post. Try not to take it too personally. Better QA on the human mods then  Just seems now that quantity of words > quality of words. |
|
|
|
Obviously you have very little argument based on your emotional response and your need to modify my words to make them fit your narrative of who you think I am (or what you want me to appear like). Love all the personal attacks too, they really help you get your argument across.
Emotion response has nothing to do with logical response, you fuckwit. If you had any educational background, you'd realize logic is true regardless of emotion. Now, let's make it really simple for you, is 2+2=4 wrong because "emotion"? No. You're a fucking 'tard for even trying to use this as an argument. Get logic'd bitch. I am sure the illegal immigrants that make up ONE THIRD of our prison population because those people are law abiding citizens contributing to our community. "The percentage of all federal prisoners who are criminal aliens has remained the same over the last 3 years--about 27 percent." https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-337RHow much of that is non-violent offenders? The war on drugs. The war on immigrants. It's all the same shit. Put people not doing anything VIOLENT or HARMING anyone (other than themselves [for drugs]), and put them in prisons. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jspHuh, immigration sits at 6.5% percent. Drugs sit at 46.1%. The war on drugs is failing, so I guess the war on immigrants starts? To be honest, we should have a war on banking/insurance/embezzlement and fraud claims. Those are where the majority of money is stolen. Do you have any idea why so many rapists are not prosecuted (other than a lack of reporting?) BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST FALSELY REPORTED CRIME “a higher percentage of complaints of forcible rape are determined “unfounded” or found by investigation to be false, than for any other Index Crime. While the average of “unfounded” rates for all Crime Index offenses was 2% in 1997, 8 percent of the forcible rape complaints were “unfounded” for the same time frame.” https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1997/97sec2.pdf Page 22, Subheading "Nature" Note, 8% is when they could FACTUALLY PROVE the accused did not rape, not just when there wasn't enough evidence. I wonder how many more were false but could not be proven to be false, but considering about half of all accusations lack the evidence to bring the charge to court It could be quite considerable. People like you like to pretend that women are some how above lying about such things. Women are humans. Humans lie to hurt and destroy other humans. That is what the courts and due process is for. You would however love to take the rights of due process for men and throw them out the window to make some liars happy, and send innocent men to prison where they will likely be raped for real. Sounds like justice to me! Whoa, whoa. Whoa! That's way too fast for a 'tard like you. "It's the most reported, but unfounded claim. When fraud does occur, the fraud is proven by evidence very rarely." Alright here, let's look at the actual numbers; so fraud occurs in like 10% of the cases max. What's the percentage of inmates in prison? Something like 10%. Cool, so, like 10% of people abuse shit, so let's ignore the WHOLE fucking system for the other 90%? Fuck that noise. Fuck off for telling me "10 > 90". LOGIC'D.I do fear the chances of false claims made against me for any crime. Sexual crimes scare me less than a cop planting drugs in my car. My word vs cop's word is way worse than my word vs other person's word for some reason in our justice system. But anywho, that's another topic entirely than RAPE. 10% of cops are probably likely to be criminals too, it's the other 85% of cops that don't hold them accountable that make me disgusted. For woman who lie about sex crimes, I'm absolutely sure both are disgusted. I am looking through that mess of sources you shotgunned at me, and no where within it ANYWHERE do I see support for this insanely retarded "1 in 4 women on college campuses are raped" number, nor nothing that indicates to me a "rape culture". Women in the USA are the most free, privileged, and well treated than they EVER HAVE BEEN ANYWHERE IN HUMAN HISTORY, but you are right, "rape culture".
You're the rape culture. If someone sexually assaults you, report it. If you do not consent to unwanted sexual contact, contact the police. I best expect the police to look into the person going around making UNWANTED SEXUAL CONTACT with other individuals. The fact that you say PEOPLE SHOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT UNWANTED SEXUAL CONTACT BECAUSE PEOPLE MAKE FALSE CLAIMS is rape culture. As for "USA are most free, priviledged..." spiel, FAKE NEWS -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report#WEF_Global_Gender_Gap_Index_rankingsExtraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now you try. Pretty sure you didn't actually even read any of that which is why you didn't bother with page numbers. I find that is a tactic ignorant people like to use. They are too lazy to read and don't, then hope I am like them instead of supporting their argument by sourcing the exact statement by page rather than claiming multiple hundred of pages long reports are "the source". That wouldn't even cut it as a source in a high school essay.
You know, if I said I wrote the report, you'd say I was just falsifying the information. I'm pretty sure you could be doing these reports yourself and only then would you actually believe the numbers. I think because the multiple different authors, and multiple different studies all come to a pretty similar conclusion, it's a factually viable claim. You've only backed a single claim you had up with a source. Of course, you used the claim to prove that 11+2 = 13. Which I've never disputed. I'm just saying 11's not right. P.S. Try skipping the "you are a sexist racist bigot" spiel, it just makes you look like a frothing loon responding like that when I am just providing facts you don't agree with. Or don't, that is why conservatives are winning so keep it up for all I care.
Nah, you're just a conservatard. Conservtards tend to be all those, mostly because they propagate their message blindly without logic. You're trying to tell me 11+2 = 13. You following blindy "their" logic. When in reality, if you actually start adding it up, it looks a lot like this. 1 + 2 = 3
3 - 0 = 3
3 + 2 + 4 + 3 - 4 + 2 + 2 = 11
11 + 2 = 13They're purposely sly in their arguments and quickly move from 11 -> 13 for every argument. And continuously try to argue that 11+2 = 13 while I'm trying to say 3+2+4+3-4+2+2 = 12. 12 + 2 = 14. I see 14. Everyone else sees 14, yet you insist it's 13 |
|
|
|
But the real question is what are the alternatives then?
Liquid democracy. |
|
|
|
Not a single soul here would read the research paper even though it's literally on topic ._.
The article probably could kill the entire thread because it's something that scientists have been asking for the last 40-50 years... not just some random guy's thoughts/opinions.
that doesn't matter. all you did was post a link, none of your own thoughts or words. if you reposted that article with some narrative of your own included i doubt anyone would see a problem with it. but as is, i wholeheartedly agree with the moderator's decision to delete the post. K. Random bullshit opinions that are somewhat related to the topic > research papers that discuss the topic in-depth. Good to know where you standard on propagating information online. |
|
|
|
If I have to explain every single link, source for individuals in post~ There's no need for a full explanation, but it would be nice to quickly read what the link is about without having to open it. In regards with technical aspects like doing some linking some article then it would be better to write down the title of the topic rather than using the word "poop" it does not sound that good and somehow could be annoying for some other members whom were spending their time consciously. Anyway, a deleted post will not going to reflect your dignity as a member and a posts which has been deleted also is considered as a natural phenomenon where vast spam posts. Do it correctly next time for us to decide whether to open the article or not after reading a short description of the link. We introduce the Minimal Turing Test, an experimental paradigm for studying perceptions and meta-perceptions of different social groups or kinds of agents, in which participants must use a single word to convince a judge of their identity. We illustrate the paradigm by having participants act as contestants or judges in a Minimal Turing Test in which contestants must convince a judge they are a human, rather than an artificial intelligence. We embed the production data from such a large-scale Minimal Turing Test in a semantic vector space, and construct an ordering over pairwise evaluations from judges. This allows us to identify the semantic structure in the words that people give, and to obtain quantitative measures of the importance that people place on different attributes. Ratings from independent coders of the production data provide additional evidence for the agency and experience dimensions discovered in previous work on mind perception. We use the theory of Rational Speech Acts as a framework for interpreting the behavior of contestants and judges in the Minimal Turing Test. Not a single soul here would read the research paper even though it's literally on topic ._. The article probably could kill the entire thread because it's something that scientists have been asking for the last 40-50 years... not just some random guy's thoughts/opinions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
