>> No -- even though you haven't told me that you're not educated on the >> topic, which would make it seem like you can pose as a semi-expert >> without anyone getting the wise. However, I can tell through analysis >> of your writing. > > lawl - Oh wait - Are you using a super AI to do the 'analysis'?
Ha, no. I wondered if you'd catch that though. >> People educated on a topic simply don't talk about >> the topic in the same way as those who aren't, except a few >> self-educated wildcards. Maybe you're one of them, but if you were, >> you'd know that it was bullshit (even AI gadgets like Alexa and such >> -- stick with Roomba-level and you'll be more accurate). so... >> > Ill spell it out for you : the AI bullshit I was > referring to is image recognition. Of course there isn't > anything 'intelligent' in it, it just works by brute force on > FASTER CHEAPER HARDWARE. Ah, you are right in theory. >> Have you ever talked to a high-level government official? > > No. But I've talked to a lot of lackeys of 'high level > officials'. And you're conclusion is that they could find a needle of intelligence in a mountain of hay? In theory, yes. In practice, they don't know how. Perhaps they're archiving it for some future time however when they have the tech. >> They >> cultivate and harness the feelings you are expressing so they can live >> in that magical moment of power you provide. > > if you are a surveillance state with records of people > all over the planet, do you want your targets to know that you > have that 'capability' or do you want them to believe you > don't? > > the answer to the rhetorical question is obviously : if you are > a spy you don't want your victims to realize they are being > spied on. So you lie and say you can't spy on them cause it's > 'too expensive'. > > in other words what you are saying is what a government agent > would say. SHIT. Yet, in may analysis you are analyzing from the pov of a paranoiac -- not an intelligent skeptic. Which is why you'd better making a path to enlightenment. Governments don't care much about that activity. > "No one knows how to make flash memory " > > the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you think jesus makes > flash memory? I'm wondering about it. I'm just saying there are powers that people tap into without even knowing about it and that science hasn't understood. Things like quantum entanglement. >> > the target of surveillance is joe-six pack, not any >> > 'terrists' that only exist in the mind of fascist juedo-christian >> > scum from the 'developed world'. >> >> Yeah, and joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data to analyze by >> your super AI network. So all that work for nuthin'. > > "joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data" > > of course he is - and here you show again that you are either > clueless or spreading misinformation on purpose. > > I'll let you figure out why totalitarian governemnts (that is > all governments) find it very useful to know what their tax > cattle think and do. I think you are onto something, but that "something" is not technological in nature. >> It shows I got high up at one point -- that's all. I probably got it >> from being in jail, actually. But seriously, you're better off >> following a path to enlightenment then getting super specialized in >> crypto or anything else technical at this point. > > not sure if you're using the impersonal you, but I am not > getting specialized in crypto anyway Well, what are you actually here for? >> My writing is going to be wierd. It's true -- it comes from a very >> unique journey across the unknown, but treat it/me like digital shaman >> -- wild but magically, technically accurate. > > though in reality you are mostly arguing for its own sake. YOU > said "the internet has been turned into the old medium" > which I take it to mean the internet has become an outlet for > the same old propaganda. No, it has become a medium for people to express their ego, not to connect to one another or motivate society. Marxos