Extreme Z7

Plus, with Neuralink coming along, there could be more opportunities coming for them in the future, all you may need is a properly functioning brain.

@Bobby_2021 You don't need to post cringe to become succesful on YouTube. Case in point: She seems to have real science and science news content. The pretentious philosphical videos are unnecessary. Philisophy is not her strong point.

No serious intellectual would post cringe like this. or this

Regardless of her backstory, I still don't like Sabine Hossenfelder. She's a staunch materialist and a lot of the stuff she posts on her YouTube channel is nonsense. Mainly because she seems to like to make a lot of pop-science clickbait and bullshit her way to sounding smart.

I think you mean mid-level artists. Low-level artists or amateurs are usually people who are just doing art as a hobby and don't have an art job to be replaced from.

@Leo Gura I agree that Don was not hard enough on Musk, but I don't think you are either with your take on this interview. I'm pretty dissappointed. I don't know about that. I'm not sure about asking about: The Great Replacement Theory, Anti-Semitism, Free-Speech Absolutism, are "shallow questions". Last I checked, those are pretty serious issues. Especially when a very influential person appears to promote them. From what I see it, Musk got annoyed the most everytime Don responds to (or sort of perhaps "fact-checks") Musk's justifications for his beliefs. He's free to have his beliefs and opinions and also share them, but he's not free to spread bullshit or misinformation without being debunked. I'm sure Musk cares a lot about his company products and projects, but he didn't seem to get pissed off about the fact that he was asked questions not related to his career projects, he only started fidgeting when he was told directly to his face that he believes in things that are demostrably false. Yes, all of us just casually agree with far-right posts and opinions every now and again. It happens. Lord knows I've got my own fair share of retarded posts on the internet over the years but Jesus. . . there has to be point where things stop being "controversial" and start being worrying. Don asks Musk directly why he doesn't want to take responsibility for the effects the big social media platform he owns has on society. Don points out that the site's content policy still states that hate speech is not allowed on the site. But Musk still likes to pretend that X should protect far-right posts and memes. To give my take on this, Musk's defense on this issue is that these offensive posts gets less algorithmic engagement and viewership. What he doesn't understand is that the people most vulnerable to these toxic ideologies only need to come across these kinds of posts once or a few times in order for them to go down some kind of racidalization pipeline. And as long as this kind of content remains available on the platform, no amount of alogrithmic manipulation will prevent someone from actively searching more of this kinds of content. ( As an extra thing, I don't like the portrayal of Musk as just "politically incorrect", Ricky Gervais is politically incorrect, Dave Chappelle is politically incorrect, last I checked, neither of those two were spreading sympathies to far-right messaging.) "Moderation is a propaganda word for Censorship" is straightforward and genuine, but doesn't make it intelligent. From what I've seen, people aren't responding to the interview with outrage but more laughing at Musk for humilliating himself. ----------------- In summary, I won't deny that Musk perhaps does the best of his ability to provide his own creative value to the world, but that doesn't mean you get a free pass to be a garbage human being promoting other garbage human beings. Personally, I don't really care for Don Lemon, but this interview is probably the most biting and direct we can possibly get. Because Elon was pretty much caught off guard with this interview, thinking that he would get a centrist interview that would mostly focus on his company products and not directly respond to his sympathies to far-right beliefs.

It cost me around 350$. It's sort of a more mid-high tier, I guess. It's the POCO F5 if you want to check it out. Pretty good specs, Stereo speakers, but the kicker for me is it still had a 3.5mm headphone jack.

Fortunately for me, I own a mid-tier Xiaomi phone. (Not a joke btw)

I don't mean to be insensitive towards suicide. . . But I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Beast kills himself at some point. If he does, he'll become a case study for years to come.

You're an artist if you can relate to this:

@Leo Gura I don't think these were just regular government people. This was a report from people working for the Pentagon. I was making fun of the clear conflict of interest. Maybe my thread title was too ambigious or misleading. So I changed "Pentagon Investigators" to "Pentagon's Investigators"

I like how Full Democracy is the only one without glaring inequality.

Now I don't know if AI will ruin humanity or humanity will ruin AI

Francis Bacon

Tucker Carlson? Afraid to say something wrong?

Putin being baffled that Tucker didn't ask any hard questions is proof that he's a smart guy who has no idea how dumb the American right has become.

Man, that Tucker Carlson bit felt like a parody. My favorite part was when he went "I feel radicalised against our leaders. That's right, RADICALISED". He is a man of great subtlety.

Dave is a Science Fundamentalist. And he had either no interest or was not capable of accurately understanding Formscape's points. Formscape is not "Anti-Science". He is against the almost religious attitude of adherence to the "One True Science" establishment that makes its adherents intellectually-arrogant and woefully closed-minded. Formscapes genuinely has a deep understanding of philosophy and epistemology. Dave literally called Formscape a "hypocrite" for "criticizing Science but still using Science to make videos" which is a very old and blatant strawman. Dave is a fucking monkey.

Professor Dave's denial of Science Dogmatism is utterly pathetic.

I think you're still missing the point that "science is imaginary" means "rigour is imaginary". And I don't think scientists come up with bad research because they're just "fucking around". Some scientists release bad research because it actually helps their careers (at least for a while). Integrity is at an all time low because people care more about success than truth (and this isn't unique to science.) I don't like the way you framed things as "Psychedelic experience needs to be balanced out with Rigour" which implies that psychedelic modes of thinking is the reason why scienctists supposedly are "fucking around" which I know is not what you mean to say.

My mistake. I've editted it from "anti-human" to "inhumane".

Dogmatic Postmodernist Bullshit. But in all seriousness, sure, but it's still an inhumane worldview mostly based on propaganda and falsehoods. Not all worldviews are equivalent.

I was responding specifically to your phrase "Just take a look at the world. . ." So don't try to convince me into believing that you're only talking about science as an isolated relative construct. I've dealt with enough paranoid science defenders like you to know that you don't know when you're delving into far greater topics than you realize. Science will not just become better with more Rigour. Science will also become better with more Love, Ethics, and Consciousness. Science will become better with more Truth.