kspacewalk2

You're now the second person doing this. I won't try to keep up with the conspiracies, and multiple levels of unstated implications based on the assumptions about those conspiracies being facts. Israel has never been, nor will likely ever be a superpower or anything akin to a near-peer adversary of the United States, so I'm not too sure what there is to talk about. Still waiting for anyone to propose a topic.

You want to socialize the costs of pizza delivery?

I'm not sure what your question is. Did someone draw a distinction? If you transplanted the 1960s FBI to modern times and told them to look for influence in favour of Russia or Israel or whoever you mean but for some reason don't name, and told them to use the same tactics, they probably would try.

>Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to prevent a multi-coalition, working class movement across ethnicity, unions, and religions that would have made the US a better democracy.

It's communism. Cold War. All there is to it. As with much other evil, this was done because the FBI feared that Big Bad Uncle Ivan will somehow gain influence over this leader and use it for leverage in the Cold War.

The same multitudes of extramarital affairs and other racy and embarrassing stuff that Dr King took part in, as a reverend, could be used by communists to blackmail him into working for them or making decisions that favour the Soviet Union. Is it far-fetched? Sure. Is it, in hindsight, paranoid and stupid? Yep. But can we say with certainty, without hindsight, that it was impossible, when you have an entire organization dedicated to rooting out hidden influence of the enemy in an existential covert global struggle?

And it wasn't all paranoia. The Soviet Union under Stalin was extremely good at infiltrating American academia, civil society and government. The Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, etc. The US government went from ignoring the problem and dealing with it so incompetently actual Soviet spies were in almost cabinet-level positions, to hysterically over-reacting and ruining the lives of people like Dr King "just in case".

>the tyrannical government of the EU, which requires total control for the next phases of its very existence

When people start saying hyper-opinionated stuff like this, I usually tune out. The rest of your comment, whether or not it has nuggets of merit or insight, is going to be tainted by the fact that you've bought into the whole "evil EU is tyrannical" thing. It's very in vogue right now among the MAGA and alt-right types. They all started hating the EU with a passion of a thousand suns all of a sudden, pretty much in synchrony, and curiously coinciding with anti-EU propaganda campaigns driven by EU's fascist neighbour next door, angry at the EU stopping it from genociding its way through eastern Europe.

Like, your point about one of the Euro's main raison d'etres for the general public - frictionless cross-border transactions without needing to convert currencies - going away with online payments, that's a good point. Too bad about all the talking points you couched it in.

Centrally planned at the municipal level. Every municipality's city council doubles as a mini-Gosplan which passes edicts down to the plebs about how much housing is to be allowed in their town. What's that, you say? More people want to move in than Gosplan thought? Too bad for them and the housing market.

>And as long as you propose a project that fits zoning rules on the specific parcel you own, you get a permit to build your dream house.

Yes, after the central planners decided that a plot of land is to have a single-family dwelling (subject to restrictions on the number of bedrooms, lot coverage, lot frontage, generous buffers on all 4 sides, building height, etc etc), then you are of course free to build exactly that kind of single family dwelling and no other.

>And if one city, county or state says no to your commercial or industrial venture, it's nice that you can shop other states that might love to have you.

It's also nice for the homeowners to see their property values artificially inflated by artificial scarcity brought about by their little local central planning committee. No one claims a centrally planned economy is bad for everyone. In this case, it's great for the rich and the incumbents.

>If I want to build a house in Sonoma, the voters in LA should not get a say.

Should they get a say about building the necessary infrastructure to make your home (as opposed to homestead) possible in Sonoma? Their tax money is spent on it.

>And if your town's rules are overly burdensome and stupid, that's an issue for your town's government to solve.

And whose issue is it to solve if every single town's rules are overly burdensome and stupid? Not for incumbent homeowners, mind you, for them all is well and they'd like to keep it that way. But for renters and those wanting to afford a place to live.

And a centrally planned housing economy in the self-described capitalist free-market paradise.

There are multiple ways of imposing this structure, laws, and trade-offs between various stakeholders. For example, Japan has a national top-down system where municipalities have little control over development, and therefore by necessity the system is mostly rules-based - if you meet the hopefully well-crafted requirements, you build. Whereas in North America, housing is a top-down and centrally planned economy at the municipal level. In Britain and a lot of North America, decisions are 'discretionary' and subject to reviews and debates and NIMBY tantrums (otherwise known as democratic control by taxpayers). Various bandaids are applied over the North American system to attempt to stop it from becoming a Kafkaesque bureaucratic mess where nothing gets built, and at times those efforts even partially succeed, even if the whole thing has an air of reforming the Gosplan.

Confusing comment. What foreign dictator are you referring to?

I'm waiting for concrete examples.

I don't think I've ever encountered something written by an LLM that was better than barely passable prose. It's just about suitable for documentation and mundane news regurgitation, but a piece of creative writing? Please show me your favourite examples where it's better than "passable", I'm open to changing my mind.

Figuring out whether something is written by AI or a human is fairly easy with Pangram, and soon all major models will embed fingerprinting and it will be basically 100% detectable.

What doesn't work? Comparing people's rhetoric?