NHQ

"self-absorbed, vain and entitled" is not narcissism, thats a fairy tale version

A.I. is a clever way to export electricity.

Section 230: time for a reset

Tiktok to get Murdoch'd like Myspace. That is, of course, the plan. The result, a migration to Facebook (again).

Posting "anonymously" on twitter as "Zero HP Lovecraft" counts as unequivocal and public racism.

This is all about industrial robotics. In order to train robotics AI, Zuckyrberg must create realistic "embodied" farmvilles for users to play. This is likely the only path to robotics for facebook, hence the ballistic spending.

Thats only 25M in 2025 dollars.

That would be 2025 logic, but at the time it was not "big textile", it was universal control over industrialization. As if big textile is any different than big oil, all the same owners today as in 1800, owning everything and protecting that claim to rights.

The point however is not that of protecting copyright, but that copyright protection was invented to usurp technology which was not truly invented. This is how controlling history controls the present, for if all roads lead back to "we invented this and own it" then all roads forwards must pay that toll. If the narrative were not true, then the premise could not hold.

This is a solved case, they were used for textiles. But to admit this would break history, so instead it is constantly rattled academically. Put one next to the Voynich Manuscript in the Museum or Jurassic Technology.

The cause behind this narrative hustle is the industrial historical arrogation which teaches that knitting was not invented until 1000 years after "The Romans". They had textiles, weaving, but no knitting.

This is early mere patent protection during the capitol rush of industrialism, claiming devices which were not actually invented as pretended, and therefor should have no claim to copyrights. The cotton gin was not invented in 1793.

Moreover it is a supremely ignorant and abstract notion, showing how detached academia is from reality. Anybody with time on their hands and some vines may invent weaving, knotting, knitting, and with metal slivers many ways to make pins. There has never been a people without this technology.

This has surfaced quite a bit recently with internet historians. We are to believe hundreds of seaworthy ships would be abandoned, that the captains and owners of ships decided to become miners.

How is it explained that some ships when buried were farther out from what we are to presume was the old shoreline? Would not the tide or some authority have moved them one way or another long before then?

The ships buried more inland are in places apparently not accessible to ships at the time, the shore did not go inland that far according to other depictions.

It appears the mint governors are paying attention to the internet scholarship, or why would they suddenly make this page with redundant yet skimpy details? As if to tell the platforms "this is the doctrine about the buried ships of San Francisco, update your community notes and fact checking."

Sure enough, google AI gave this very link immediately for several useless references when pushed for records.

The irony is that actually litigating copyright law would lead to the repeal of said copyright law. And so in all cases of backwaters laws that are used to "protect interests" of "corporations" yet criminalize petty individual cases.

This of course cannot be allowed to happen, so the the legal system is just a limbo, a bar which regular individuals must strain to pass under but that corporations regularly overstep.

The farce of treating a corporation as an individual precludes common sense legal procedure to investigate people who are responsible for criminal action taken by the company. Its obviously premeditated and in all ways an illicit act knowingly perpetrated by persons. The only discourse should be about upending this penthouse legalism.

They built large-masonry structures without laying down roads, or apparently sewers either. Some of the structures are sitting atop raised foundations, higher than the others, yet apparently without stairs or ramps.

Many of the roofs in the background appear to be masonry, compared to the modern tile roofing seen in the foreground, and the masonry roofs are very weathered. All of the masonry looks like it has a 200 year old patina impervious to power washing. Behind it all and only slightly taller than all of the structures, a hill that looks distinctly dug out, and which exposed dirt is the same coloras the patina on the old roofs.

Ranking civilians is a wartime measure.

Yes, the real government is the one in agreement, and the "handful of issues" account for almost all of the spending. Their disagreements, in budget terms and in reality, are cheap and pretentious theatrics.

But I doubt the politicians "don't bat an eye" at 200M, for they know that money is going straight out of the economy and into private coffers.

The government budgeters are not naive to the economics of military spending. The cope about pennies on the tax dollar is naive about both economics and what the government is really doing.

This idea that government is incapable, dumb, and prone to mismanagement is a harmful rationalization, and simply not true. If anything, this thinking excuses the government to act that way, and then there is no way of knowing if they are purposefully mismanaging or doing so because incapable.