zpallin

I noticed this myself. Hard not to notice how some of the close-ups on fans have that glossy visual sensation that is common in AI generated content, or this one woman I noticed swinging her arms above her head in an unnatural manner.

Fascinating that it’s even so subtle. They have been transparent about using it though.

> It has already happened. Thailand asked US Air Force to vacate in 1976 after the Vietnam War. USAF closed its base and vacated.

Right after the US lost a war... I doubt the US was prepared to fight Thailand over it at the time and is why they capitulated. But had US defeated North Vietnamese forces, I doubt the US would have allowed Thailand to kick them out.

> Let us not forget that US vacated Japan too.

Except they didn't. You've heard of Kadena Air Force base in Okinawa, right? What about Misawa, or Yokota?

> But if a request is made and US feels that the request is legitimate it will definitely quit the base.

Except in Japan where the US keeps buying influence with the LDP to subvert Democracy. Only about 25% of Japanese citizens support the existence of the base and multiple referendums have been held by people to remove the base.

Also, Guantanamo in Cuba, where the Cuban government has consistently declared the US occupation there illegal since 2002.

My point is that it's a technicality. On the surface, legally, these countries are not officially occupied by the US. But if any of these countries tried kicking the US out... what do you think would happen?

It appears that you are advocating for censorship then. If you think all this /r/politics stuff is contemptible, would you agree that banning T_D was good, even if it was, as you assert, a biased measure?

> US has an army base in Japan, South Korea and Australia. So is US occupying Japan, South Korea or Australia?

Technically it's not military occupation by definition, but if China had a military base in one of its ally's territories, would you try to claim that it is occupation? And is it only not occupation if the US does it?

How is this a rational response to what I wrote? You think calling a spade a spade is too much? US is expansionist, that much is clear. Absolutely in no way am I saying that makes the US the same as China in all aspects. Both are unique in their approaches to global domination.

It's still expansionism, and strange to say it's not.

> However, US is not about expansionism.

... wait, what? Since when? You don't think US military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are about expansionism?

Besides, the concept of expansionism includes economic expansion, not just border expansion.

Technically 2000 subs, 200 established "communities."

> they migrated to thedonald.win

An individual can migrate a forum without any assistance. Not denying that The_Donald was a community, just saying that the migration of content is not evidence of the extent to which something is a community.

> And yet Reddit happily ignores vote brigading and other negative externalities from any subreddit that toes their party line, so it seems bizarre to single T_D out.

Except T_D literally was not singled out. CTH was also banned, along with approximately 2000 subreddits.

> "we're fishing for a made up reason that lets us boot you guys"

Reddit has listed "communities that promote hate" as a reason to ban subreddits for at least 5 years. Not sure how this is "fishing for a made up reason."

I don't but that's not really my point -- the poll itself isn't a problem, it's the lack of multiple polls that cautions me to draw concrete conclusions from it as rayiner did. 140 people out of 30 million is about 10% margin of error. Add sample bias to that and this poll alone is nowhere near conclusive, although as I indicated it's still useful to reflect on the issue.

Nice. However, since yougov experiences sample bias due to their data collection method being only online participants, and the sample size of black people isn't anywhere near even 5% margin of error (meaning it could be completely wrong) this study is not usable to draw conclusions on its own.

Agreed. To a lot of people, policing means "solve disruptions in society" but that's an oversimplistic and unrealistic idea of what police are trained to do and what is even possible with an institution that treats violence as a necessary means to do their job.

And for the record, I am squarely in the defund camp, but also open minded to discussion.

So, it means Santa Cruz has a track record for being on the cutting edge of policing technology?

I heard this recently, but I forgot where: policing software is supposed to be used to help inform decisions in addition to established investigative practices, but police are instead using the software as decision-makers which has possibly decreased accuracy in investigating crimes.