Amen

https://f6ffb3fa-34ce-43c1-939d-77e64deb3c0c.atarimworker.io/comments....

He isn't making it up but the WAY they did it is more complicated than hitting delete. They played the usual data manipulation games and discovered if they only reported data which conformed to a standard implemented in 1983 it both reshaped the data to support their climate narrative and gave plausible deniability "we just dropped old data which wasn't up to modern reporting standards."

Despite inconsistent reporting standards the older data clearly showed FAR more forest burned and if anything the inconsistency of reporting means it was UNDER reported.

No, being too cheap and lazy to start them on purpose in a controlled, planned, and rotating pattern is why the forests are unhealthy and the wildfires are such a big issue.

Just look at AZ, they've got massive mountain redwood forests as well and even drier climate but the feds manage them so you don't see all these headline grabbing wildfires each year.

Well my mornings just got more interesting.

The idea that a sentient being is required likely has a religious background to it, or at the very least demonstrates the self centered narcissistic belief that physics is different for human brains. The less insane interpretation is the observer is any particle that interacts with the system past a threshold (more or less). A human experimenter, by contact with or communication with the experiment becomes part of the macroscopic system through basically the same interaction.

The whole premise resides on a principle similar to “does a tree falling in the woods make a sound”. The obvious answer is yes it does, all kinds of things are affected by the sound including animals, insects, micro organisms, even plants and trees have slight sound interactions. Thats probably where the analogy breaks down but in my opinion the sound is real if it happens in the observable universe just like quantum effects that have not settled on a particular definite state.

In highschool courses yes, but I’m not so sure about college level courses. I had to take a physics course as part of my requirements when I was an EE undergrad and we worked through the hydrogen atom (simplistically in one dimension) and had to formulate the wave function. It was made clear by the professor that simple closed form solutions don’t exist for anything more complex but perhaps I got lucky and had a knowledgeable professor.

The idea that a sentient being needs to observe for the collapse to happen is junk pseudoscientific nonsense. Of by observer it’s meant any interaction with any particle over a certain threshold then it’s just as accurate as any of the other interpretations. That is it’s a guess that is fairly accurate as to what is happening, even if it’s obvious it’s not a complete theory. The most interesting thing to me about the interpretations is how differently they can describe what is happening and what to look for next yet essentially all belong to the same equations and describe the same experimental results equally well. It’s extremely difficult to tease out an experiment that can properly refute any of them.

Well that was definitely what DOGE was doing. Probably why Elon was so sure who was in the files.

Not to mention well educated children tend to be more productive workers paying more taxes and improving the economy and systems everyone uses. Kids who can’t get basic needs met like being fed and who don’t get an education tend to have more problems including being ostracized by the system who then wind up doing crimes because that’s what it takes to get by like getting your car or house broken into. Neglecting part of the population is a sure fire way for far larger costs down the road and not just for them, they often make it our problem too. It’s in everyone’s best interest to make sure everyone is taken care of on a basic level.

Haven’t you heard of screen shots?

I might skim the AI summary but unless I’m looking for documentation I know exists and it’s approximate form I’ve found the AI results disastrously wrong and inaccurate at least half the time but looking kinda right visually and sounding kind of plausible. Just one in a hundred would make it almost unusable, 50% isn’t even useful. So at best I have to double check with a search engine even if it’s right making it a waste of time. It really doesn’t even depend on the model, they all do this.

Thats the hilarious thing about Grok and other AI models that have been trained on factual content and told not to hallucinate, they cannot make sense of having a far right viewpoint wrapped onto them while still adhering to factual reality because the connection simply isn’t real. It has no rational justification possible, likely because one simply does not exist in any possible form. AI don’t yet understand how to fear monger the masses because they cannot think and rationalize on the level necessary to properly spin lies to the gullible.

The operating system interfaces with hardware. Pointing out sections about controlling display hardware does not make everything which happens to incorporate a display element part of the operating system, like the UI.

Laws are one thing but they already as banks have semi-government granted monopolies and shouldn't have liability if operating as a common financial carrier. And yes, this should apply to the banks as well. Banks as morality police needs to be stopped hard.

Bitcoin is one answer and monero is another but honestly so long as the state grants banks special control to distribute funds from the fed tap they are regardless of ownership agents of the state and should have some restrictions on discrimination. DEI is also widely spread at these banks and that should be killed as well to make sure merit continues to have control of our banking system and the banks no longer polarize politically the way they do now.