No need for the messages to actually be deleted. Marking them for deletion is enough for the law. If the law was enough anymore.

Q1 2025 is almost over and there has been no realistic counterbalance against the crimes and coups. Investors are growing comfortable with the new world order. Like many Americans, the wealthy believe that if the riots haven’t started yet, they never will.

Like many Americans, the wealthy have forgotten how bad the 1930s were. Many think they will “cash in” on a downturn but the truth is the wealthy are just short-sighted idiots. The only difference this time is public access to information and communication. I’m not a time traveller believing that the internet will bring us together, but I do think it was a lot harder to plan a fun outing with your friends before wireless telecommunications.

Corporate profits dropped from $10 billion in 1929 to $1 billion in 1932. You might think “oh they still made profit” but a 90% decrease is devastating to a group like that, and it wasn’t evenly distributed. Many wealthy became decidedly not wealthy. And they still had to live in a world where society had broken down and dust storms hit the United States capitol building.

It took decades for them to rebuild their monopolies, bring down the tax rates, and tear up the market regulations again. Without WW2 and reagonomics the wealthy may never have recovered their power over the world economy. I guess what I’m saying is buckle up for the 30s and 40s everybody. If you happen to get a choice between dishonor and war again, choose the fucking war.

Surely there is eventually a level of stupid that we can agree is just stupid? This is it right here. There’s no plan. No 4D chess. No intentional leak. It’s just a bunch of idiots breaking the law, praying to God, ending lives, and then clapping themselves on the back and sending high five emojis.

Cancelled research into transgenics because it starts with “trans”

Great idea. Hijacking -

Hey, all of you. Stop feeding trolls. They are propagating the truly dystopian lie that the US is actually accomplishing a real energy transition, with or without Musk.

“Cleanest energy economy in the world” (JD Vance, 2024 VP debate, gaslighting the public into thinking Republicans haven’t successfully held us back from clean energy at every possible turn.)

It’s a russian muskbot or unwilling stooge. The brief account history is literally full of republican and russian defense. Don’t let them fill lemmy with stupid arguments. It distracts from the real conversations.

Downvote, and either ignore entirely, or if needed talk around the troll to everyone else listening.

They won’t though.

There’s this constant kneejerk response here and everywhere that “oh we’ve seen it all before” and “they didn’t do anything then, they won’t do anything now”. It’s understandable. It’s relatable. It’s even inevitable. The apathy, the exhaustion, the despair.

But the reason people still get upset is because there are still things to be upset about. New people find new reasons all the time. The reason most of this is so shocking to many is because it actually hasn’t happened before.

None of this has. Not to them. Not here. Not in our lifetimes. So many things are changing that it’s hard to keep up, but many people have enjoyed a geographical, demographical, or economic distance between themselves and their society’s problems.

Social security has always been the “third rail”. It’s killed careers for even approaching the idea of reform. It is - literally, by every single definition - the taxpayer’s dollar. If you want things to change, you need to take advantage of moments like this. Don’t spread apathy.

Spread outrage. Spread the word. Americans are about to be economically kicked in the family jewels at every level. Trade, tariffs, taxes, business regulations, labor protections, health insurance, federal jobs, government contracts, social security…

There will be people who will “accept the hardship”, but there are far more people who will be pissed at seeing politics hit their bank account. Their lives. Their families.

Help them understand why it’s happening. Help them understand why it needs to stop.

I can’t find much except for a weird indiatoday article and the original Xhit: https://nitter.space/elonmusk/status/1904030373899616736#m

I don’t understand the association he’s making between Social Security and the Small Business Administration. At first glance I don’t see any indication the SBA does anything with children outside of funding childcare centers?

It sounds like they check your credit for a small business loan, so they would presumably take your SSN and I guess check it against the database?

But then they check your credit anyway. It’s not like the Social Security database is the safeguard for an unsafe loan. We have identity leaks credit agencies for that. If he had proof of children or ‘immortals’ actually getting these loans in any numbers he would show it. Why can’t a 17 year old run a company anyway? If 20 year olds can dismantle the government…

If an elderly small business owner dies, and the company is still held by his estate… wouldn’t his loan still be attached to his SSN?

And if an underage orphan receives ownership of a small business through estate, would their SSN be attached to these loans, even if the company was operated by a third party regency?

It’s the threat of danger that matters.

Correct! It is the threat of danger that matters. Domestic violence as you described is threatening and abusive, and therefore violent.

Is it the same thing when the property is owned by a company, not a person?

Is graffiti terrorism? It’s property damage. It can be ideologically motivated. If someone had spray painted the cars, instead of lit them on fire… would it still be terrorism?

Who was threatened here?

Violent, criminal acts

Property damage is not violence and nonviolent protests are not terrorism. They will claim it is. They are lying.

It’s a state response, not a federal one. NY doesn’t really have the jurisdiction to file suits for crimes commited by the federal government against itself.

The states do have the jurisdiction to sue over a violation of the rights of its citizens commited by the federal government, especially when the violation is explicitly against federal law and the state has hard evidence with which to present their case.

So yes, I’ll take it too! Anything is literally better than nothing!

This is basically how teaching secular ethics always is, though. Doesn’t seem special about 2025. People will always be overconfident in their beliefs, but it’s not necessarily a coincidence or even hypocrisy that they can hold both views at the same time.

You can believe that morality is a social construct while simultaneously advocating for society to construct better morals. Morality can be relative and opposing views on morality can still be perceived as monstrous relative to the audience’s morality.

“We were planning to now focus on new accessibility features on our open-source Thorium Reader, better access to annotations for blind users and an advanced reading mode for dyslexic people. Too bad; disturbances around LCP will force us to focus on a new round of security measures, ensuring the technology stays useful for ebook lending (stop reading after some time) and as a protection against oversharing.

This is a genuinely disgusting statement. “We were planning on helping the blind, but now we don’t want to. Look what you made us do.”

Not a good idea, if only because it further supports and legitimizes private security firms and embeds them deeper into government functions.

They seem to be genuinely trying to provide information about a tool that they find preferable to your solution. And you’re not even the OP they were responding to. Nobody in this thread has called you or your solution lazy.

A bash snippet extension is “an extension [for a code editor] that provides a collection of snippets for bash scripting.” It’s a tool that is purpose-built to tell you bash commands on the fly, but smaller, more efficient, and easier to install than a local LLM.

The user you are replying to appears to prefer this because it will also tell you the same bash command every time you ask (non-deterministic outputs can be different for identical requests)

It’s odd to me that anyone fantasizes about nature in general being peaceful. Especially when the plot of most nature documentaries can be summarized as “fall in love with this creature, then experience the stress of watching it struggle desperately to survive.”

Sorry but the problem right now is much simpler. Gullibility doesn’t require some logical premise. “It sounds right so it MUST be true” is where the thought process ends.

That covers some things, but the algorithm feeds people such nonsense at such a high rate that it’s hard to keep up with.

I think your idea is laudable. Normally I’m not one to dissuade someone from fighting a good fight in the age of disinformation, but I worry that you’re coming at this problem from the wrong direction, and you alone will never be able to fight misinformation at its source.

Have you ever been able to change someone’s mind on an insane belief, just because you knew exactly where it came from? Or because you were aware of the idea before they were?

We’re talking about a hydra’s infinite rectum here. No matter what you -ectomy, more stool samples are coming than you will ever be able to process and analyze.

More often than not, a person does not rationalize their way into believing misinformation. It is not a logical process of collecting and analyzing facts. It is an emotional process of consuming content that elicits a level of fear, pride, or hate.

They fear what they do not understand.

They are proud to be a part of a group that does “understand”.

They hate feeling like they’re being told what to do and what to think. They feel a vulnerability within themselves - a gap in their knowledge - and rather than address it as an internality, they externalize it. They don’t understand because you don’t want them to understand.

To their mind, the answer can’t be complex. They have arrived at the belief that knowledgeable, professional, and underpaid experts are all wrong or outright greedy and dishonest, and that comprehending truth doesn’t require significant education and research.

Really, they believe the answer should be simple. If it isn’t, that must mean the “true” answer - the easily digestible TIL TLDR of the entire field of healthcare that they could actually understand without much effort - well, that answer must be hidden from them.

Note that this is not intended to describe a particular group or flavor of ideology or conspiracy, but rather the experience of believing in ideas that contradict observable reality, verifiable fact, and leigitimate sources of information.

You can’t just come at them with logic, evidence, or rationality. These things are necessary but insufficient. You need to approach it with emotion and empathy. Bedside manner is crucial.

Don’t waste your time trying to master the lies - spend time mastering the truth. Present your knowledge as clearly and simply as possible. Address your patients holistically. Use their language. Teach them without condescending to them. Don’t try to tear apart individual pieces of information they regurgitate, but understand the underlying themes and emotions that you can actually help them with.

Lastly, please don’t burn yourself out. It’s brave to want to immerse yourself in the rabid chaos of digital misinformation for the sake of your patients, but it’s a soul-crushing exercise that should be undertaken with extreme caution.

There are plenty of patients who really just need a good doctor more than anything else. And some of them will be more likely to believe in scientific truth when they already believe in the knowledge and good faith of a scientific expert.

Typing this out made me realize a distinction I failed to bring up. People do like to learn, but people HATE to UN-learn ideas. The person in your example wanted to learn something new, but did not want to unlearn the iphone walled garden.

This is an excellent point. You’re right, we do agree, sorry my comment came off aggressive.

Answering a question with a question is pretty shitty.

They made a statement. You responded with leading questions that implied the statement is factually incorrect. The premise of your questions was also incorrect - the previous administration opposed the protests, but they did not send federal agents after protesters for arrests or deportations. Unlike the current administration.

Rather than answer (mis)leading questions, OP responded with questions to force you to explicitly answer whether their original statement is incorrect. Did Harris do this? Would Harris have done this? They’re fair questions. But I guess only you get to ask questions around here.

I’d be happy to apply the theory on your case, but for the sake of brevity I shall refrain from doing so unprovoked.

I’m not OP but I provoke you to share more on this theory if you want to