I don't see a reason to believe what you say. you don't seem very credible, based on what you say, and your points don't make sense. I'll splain it to ya.
"fake internet points" sounds like someone who's bitter their own projects don't get stars and upvotes. each such action represents a choice of another human. I think that's important. I get if you think that stuff is "stupid" , tho, as you say. makes sense given what you went on to do.
I find downvotes validating that I'm onto something. did you even read my profile?
I didn't say you were attacking me. I said I was not going to give you an answer if you couldn't see a reason and if you didn't provide any specific needs.
I further replied because it seems like you were unsatisfied with my response. so I explained why. and it looks like I was correct about you, since your next reply is full of insults directed at me. so it indeed looks like your weren't happy with that response, and I was telling you, clearly and accurately that your reaction there of dissatisfaction, is your responsibility, not mine, and that if you have a problem with it, that's your problem, not mine. Did you get it? I'm very happy with how I responded.
but it seems like if you respond in this way with insults, showing you think that someone who says "no" to you, is "narcissistic" and "stupid" etc, as you say, then it looks to me as if you're exactly those things you're trying to pretend about someone else, and the one who "can't take", is you, who can't seem to take a simple and clear, "no".
Sorry, pal. looks like you lucked out on this one. next time be careful who you try to pick on, okay? thanks, pal.
Is that so? You're sure this is all about guidelines?
Seems like you didn't protect me from people throwing insults like this, and so then banning me while I'm defending against it, just makes you complicit in enabling their abusive behavior.
What will you create for yourself if that's how you moderate?
You have a problem, your problem is not me. Have you been drinking?
I said I would not give you an answer without specifics. Instead of accepting that, your response is full of insults[1] that have nothing to do with me, and don't stick to me ~ perhaps you're talking about yourself, there, pal? Do you have anger issues? Self-destructive tendencies? Do you have trouble getting a "no" from people?
Whatever your issue is, it's not my problem and has nothing to do with me. If you're not happy with my response, "Anon", too bad. Your reaction is your responsibility.
Or can't you take responsibility, and do you need to project? Don't try to give your anger to me. It's yours. I give it back to you, and you take it now, and you don't give it back to me.
Yours, pal, all yours. Get it?
[1]: "need to get that chip off your shoulder", "stupid", "complete narcissistic at best", "can't take", "stop programming", "crawl into a hole". <-- hahaha, yeah let's take advice about how to behave from the guy who reacts like this, mwahahahahaha.
Are you kidding me, "Anon"? You're the one with that chip, just projecting.
Who's triggered and trying to throw out insults that don't stick: stupid, narcissistic, can't take, crawl in a hole. And then you fake claim that you're not attacking, and hiding behind an "anon"? You're talking about yourself there, bud.
So you wanna attack but you don't want to be seen to be doing it? Why? Why you so angry in your life that you're looking for a victim to take it out on, and try to get away with it? Whatever it is, it won't work and I'm sorry for you that you got this problem, but it's got nothing to do with me, please understand.
Can't you take a "no", pal? I said I wasn't going to answer a question that didn't provide any specifics. I didn't mention anything about downvotes, and I don't think it's stupid to say what I want, I understand if you think other people saying what they want is stupid, tho.
Seems like because I didn't do what you expected, you have flipped out. Calm down, instead of trying to blame me, analyze what your emotion is about. Don't blame others, that's weak and pathetic.
Because sorry, I'm not your victim pal. You're gonna take all that anger, that you try to push onto me, back. Cause it's yours not mine. Your reaction is your responsibility pal, thanks. If you're unhappy with my response that's your problem not mine. Do you get it? Thank you, pal.
I got the same when I opened it using my browser. So I opened it in my "remote browser" (this is not a plug, just a help): https://free.cloudbrowser.xyz and it was much more usable.
A takeaway seems to be: if you're going to use AI in product, let the AI power a whole new type of product, not use it as a feature in an existing one.
Sure they did. Some anon was unhappy with that response. Could be main account of the throw but who cares? My repliy is directed at anyone unhappy with that response.
Don't blame me if you're unhappy with that response, "Anon" . You need to let people know what your pain points are. Not prepared to provide any details in your question? Then don't expect any details in a response, is that unclear to you? Your reaction is your responsibility, "Anon".
At least the deep state now lets you know when you're under surveillance / of interest. This truly is progress. In the West usually you don't know. In China, you know. ∴ China > West. But now West is catching up. That's good. The deep state must exist, but if it's opaque, that's worse for individuals. This is a good thing.
edit, to below: >> after arrest? you numbskull, the deep state doesn't deal in arrest. that's police and the courts. the deep state is covert surveillance, influence, blackmail, intimidation and harassment.
in the West, everyone holds their tongue in the hope you go crazy. at least in China you know if you're a target of the security service. no gaslighting is better for individuals.
further example is panoptikon facial recognition surveillance you jaywalk you get a WeChat fine immediately. That's a feedback loop it's actually good for the citizens better than the weird opaque West Germany stasi western-style covert harassment bullshit.
but sure you willingly choose which oppressive psychological torture you prefer to live under. the one where the people pretend it's all in your head or the one where they actually let you know, yeah, you crossed the line. what do you think respects the individual more huh, pal? which has a higher asymmetry of power and therefore is more oppressive huh pal? not so clever now are you.
This just means another paradox of fake liberal ideology is showing.
It's not surprising if the strategies such as diversity quotas are not effective. Because they're not meant to be effective. They're meant to virtue signal. Ergo they are meant to only redirect people's anger towards an ineffective end, not to create an actual improvement.
For another example, take a prevailing narrative in fake feminism that continually tells women they are disempowered victims. This doesn't help bring balance, it only helps disenfranchise women.
Of course, if that were true, why would anyone believe any of these narratives such as diversity quotas? Because they provide the fake victim fake payoff: there's something very compelling about not having to be responsible for your problem but instead being able to blame someone else albeit incorrectly. It's very satisfying and an effective means to redirect anger towards a ineffective but satisfying ends. It's very compelling for people and gets them hooked.
Another place these fake payoffs are used to manipulate people is in terrorist recruitment. You can sublimate raw economic issues and individuals dissatisfaction into blaming and hatred towards another state, you can create armies of willing footsoldiers.
I'd suggest there's a further parallel between armies and the "Twitter armies": legions of ideologues willing to crucify anyone who dares disagrees.
So it's not surprising these so-called strategies do little effective. they're not meant to, they're meant to preserve the status quo. And they do that by the simple psychological mechanism of redirecting people's anger towards something ineffective.
There is a big reason but I don't know what you need so I can't say.
Don't blame me if you're unhappy with that response, "Anon" . You need to let people know what your pain points are. Not prepared to provide any details in your question? Then don't expect any details in a response, is that unclear to you? Your reaction is your responsibility, "Anon".
not that I know anything but it seems like the decision was complex both to create the Alphabet and now to kind of merge it under one CEO.
I think some of the reasons could be they no longer see a risk of anti Monopoly regulation targeting them so they don't need to keep everything so divided. they genuinely want to give Sundar a go. They need a process to gradually fade out The original founders, but also importantly ensure those founders isolate their risk from any future missteps the companies take, and vice versa.
maybe the two co-founders were simply getting in the way.
Maybe the moderation guidelines should be public