Seems about right, though I’d note that if you have geese, the rooster doesn’t even begin to compare for chaotic bastard.

That’s essentially Cunningham’s Law in action - “the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to post a question - it’s to post the wrong answer.”

The parasites are killing their hosts.

It’s hard to pick a favorite - that’s the point. Every one of them is good.

That said, the first one that popped into my head was Leave the Biker, and Survival Car, Joe Rey, Radiation Vibe, Sick Day and Sink to the Bottom come to mind quickly and easily.

Pretty much. I wouldn’t presume to say "masterpieces " but easily the most important quality of my favorite albums is that they’re strong from start to finish.

A few that come to me right off:

Lloyd Cole and the Commotions - Rattlesnakes

Fountains of Wayne - Fountains of Wayne

The Presidents of the United States of America - The Presidents of the United States of America

XTC - Black Sea

They Might Be Giants - Flood

The Rainmakers - Flirting with the Universe

Was (Not Was) - What Up Dog?

Morphine - Cure for Pain

I’m not an anarchist by accident.

Trump might as well have been created from scratch by China for the sole purpose of guaranteeing that they will become the world leader in science and technology, and thus the dominant superpower, while the US fades into obscurity.

He couldn’t have done a better job of it.

Very simple dynamic at work here - behavior that you want repeated is rewarded.

It’s only punished if you don’t want it repeated.

None to speak of.

I’m pretty sure I have some from almost random pointd throughout at least a good part of my life squirreled away somewhere, but I couldn’t tell you where.

My favorite ex-girlfriend has a bajillion pictures of me, since she takes photos constantly and always wants people in them, so I was the most common subject for a time. I never even really looked at them then though, and now they’re on the other side of the country (though if they were here, I still probably wouldn’t look at them).

It’s not so much that I dislike them or anything - I’ve just never really seen the point, and never even really think about it.

Mm… yes. You might well be right. I can see a number of otherwise inexplicable things that point that way.

That said, while they’ll undoubtedly capture a significant amount of the market, I don’t see any way they can monopolize it - computing technology is simply too common and even mundane.

Still though…

I introduce a mechanism by which lying solely for ones personal benefit and to the detriment of others causes an instant and invariably fatal cerebral hemorrhage.

I’m not entirely sure how that works out, but I’m more than willing to find out.

I think it’s pretty obvious at this point that a lot of the backdrop for the AI arms race is a competition to see who can succeed in paywalling the internet as a whole.

Machine learning is more in the nature of a side business. The primary goal of scraping the entire internet is to then strangle the original sites by denying them traffic, so that the data the corporations have stored away in their centers is all that’s left, and anyone who wants to access it will have to pay them.

It’s essentially rent-seeking on the largest and thus most brazenly evil, scale the world has seen yet.

And made just that much more evil by the fact that it’s all based on content that they’ve stolen from us in the first place.

This is the sort of thing you get when you elect an insane moron with the emotional maturity and attention span of a toddler.

There’s a shit event horizon.

There’s always a certain amount of shit-quality posting, but when the conmunity is relatively small, the shitty posters are on their own against a group that doesn’t like them, so they can’t make a really strong or long-lasting inpression.

But as the community grows, the number of shitty posters also grows, and it reaches a point at which there are enough of them encouraging each other that the opposition no longer matters. And then fairly quickly, the quality posters will say “Fuck this - this forum sucks,” and go somewhere else.

And the shitty posters are all rhati left.

This should be his “Let them eat cake” - the quote that goes down in history to neatly illustrate what a loathsome piece of self-absorbed shit he really is.

Why are fascists such crybabies?

Affirmation.

They’re generally desperately insecure and unable to find anything of any value in themselves, so since they can’t build themselves up, they try to tear other people down.

And it doesn’t work very well, so if they come to depend on it, they have to do it virtually nonstop.

It’s cynically amusingly ironically pretty much exactly the old cliche about the advent of the automobile putting buggy whip manufacturers out of business.

We’re exactly at that point, and official US policy, under Trump, is to discourage automobiles and subsidize buggy whips. And even a moderately bright child can see how that’s going to work out.

But children have the advantage of not being blinkered by a lifetime of compromises, betrayals, excuses and lies in pursuit of wealth and power.

My post was a very condensed version of a very complex and detailed set of views. If you pull a phrase out of context and try to slap a trite and superficial interpretation on it, you’re almost certainly going to get it wrong.

Some more details to aid in parsing the whole thing:

I don’t think rights exist in any objective sense at all. They’re entirely constructs. That means, among other things, that they can and should be shaped in such a way as to best serve their intended purpose.

I didn’t say that privacy is a foundational right - I said that it’s a foundational violated right. As I then went on to try to explain, my view is that the common conception of rights is backwards.

What I mean by that is that, for instance, nobody should have to claim a right to not have their privacy breached, since not having their privacy breached is the default. Their privacy can only be breached if someone else takes it upon themselves to act in a specific way in order to breach their privacy, so (and rather obviously IMO), if we’re to grant credence to the constructs we call “rights’,” then the way it should work is that that somebody else has to prove that they have a right to breach your privacy.

But the way that it actually works is that others breach your privacy as a matter of course and generally without controversy.

My view is that the fact that they can and do do that - that when the matter does come up, it’s just treated as a given that they’re entirely free to do that unless and until you can somehow prove that you have a right to stop them - serves to frame the whole issue in a way that grants people free reign to violate others as they please unless and until those others can successfully claim a right to stop them. In that sense, it’s “foundational.”

Or to put it another way - nobody starts by blithely presuming a right to kill other people. They start by blithely presuming a right to, for instance, violate other people’s privacy, then expand from there.

This doesn’t even semm like a coherent question.

“Naturally forbidden” is, if I’m parsing it correctly, a nonsense phrase.