Fear is not a good driver of this behavior. Reward yourself for thinking through a problem on your own, and discourage the use of AI by recognizing it’s inferiority to your mind. It’s great for searching quick things. It’s not good at thinking, it’s just fooling you like a charismatic salesman.

Sorry everyone here is acting in a way that likely will give you more anxiety.

AI has great potential in both directions. For many people, or in many instances, it will do the wrong thing and can produce dangerous outcomes (such as the psychosis people are referring to in this thread). But, if used responsibly alongside human assistance it is much more accessible and affordable (for now) than sets of mental health tools which are lacking in MANY ways and very few people would deny this.

I have seen it used both very well for health and also very poorly. It really depends on the skill of the user, just like most tools.

I think it’s very valid to question why other people aren’t getting the same results as you, but there’s many reasons why. Someone who can’t readily and accurately describe their situation or needs will suffer from choosing to learn from an AI, where as someone who is more knowledgeable about the topic, logic or communication is more likely to get benefit. The challenge is that… These people don’t know how to differentiate between the two groups and all will end up with mistakes from the AI affecting them.

Rights aren’t real. They’re granted by the collective. Turn on the collective, and they’ll turn on you. No magic system keeps your rights in place then. You can certainly choose to identify others as an enemy, treating them poorly and thinking they should die. That isn’t even uncommon.

Now, do you have the infinite resources to make it happen? No. Do billionaires? Yes. That’s the problem.

You can say anything. You cannot create logic from nothing. He has a point - a purpose. He is saying cancer cannot be tolerated in a system because it kills the system. You’re saying random people can be killed in a system because… they can be killed? His has purpose of defending life, yours has no purpose.

Halito!

This is the best explanation I’ve seen on this online, completely agree. The loss, or even grief, that many have for a culture they never knew is very real and drives some unfortunate behavior.

That’s why the general strike doesn’t happen on a certain date, it happens once enough people commit.

Economic tactics. The general strike is more powerful than people seem to realize.

A movement is a defined and coordinated event. It isn’t wanting something. The stats are not made up, but they have a lot of context that isn’t shared in the single sentence for sure.

Movements are not the same as protests, movements have leadership that has explicitly defined asks that the followers agree with. iirc the organizers had challenges with this, so their default asks were awareness and they got that.

Perhaps on the ifs. But the alternative is much fucking worse so there’s no choice but to try the best option available with as many people as we can get on board.

Law enforcement historically backs down when numbers on the other side are large enough. General strike doesn’t really trigger till we hit a certain amount of the population, seems it should be best if triggered and focused in large economic centers. (Cities with high economic impact) Maybe factories, big tech, etc?

That would make it likely law enforcement didn’t have the space to react.

A general strike is much larger in scale than a regular strike. It ceases economic activity, not just going to work. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say they require mutual aid networks (them existing is obviously a good thing) because you’re referencing union strikes.

If economic activity ceases, enforcement mechanisms are paralyzed. Refer to Oakland in 1946 or France 1968 general strikes to learn about the parameters which created success. Mutual aid networks were not among them.

A general strike is, in my opinion, the only good option left, and I really want people to understand we can do it and we can do it quickly, if only we are all prepared to do what it takes, not misinformed, and not scared of propaganda.

1/5 can only stop the 4/5 if they don’t fight back. So many people have been culturally taught to be run over - through distorted ideas of ‘respect’ ‘politeness’ ‘order’ and more.

They won’t let us? No. We won’t let them. Get up and defy them. In whatever style suits one best. Economic strikes, go off grid, protest with weapons, join a hacker organization, stop paying taxes, boycott the companies you hate… List goes on. Any one thing might feel like nothing, but together it is everything. Online there’s so much hopeless content, it is easy to feel like no one else is mobilizing. But they are and they need every single one of us to take action. It’s not important that we have the perfect strategy, it’s important that we all defy together.

The people of Texas are gerrymandered to oblivion and this is well documented. They didn’t vote for this. Billionaires came to Tx and bought the politicians, maga spread through and removed the old style Rs.

Not that I think anyone should try to run from these problems. They should be faced head on. But, it’s important to not blame the wrong people.

Breeds are defined by organizations that determine breed based on lineage, followed by conformation. They do not align across different countries. Dogs have the AKC, CKC in America. They don’t follow the same definitions. It also causes lots of issues to classify things like this and leads to bad decision making by lots of people. Even as it is now, there’s no clear definition for things like Pit Bulls. There’s also a ton of health issues that arise from defining breeds and trying to follow this logic.

Humans are not controlled and bred based on these things so a Breed Standard would not be possible. There is simply a continuous line of people.

Perform a cluster analysis on dogs - they will kind of fall into clusters because we bred selectively for them. But humans, which have not been selectively bred even in smaller geographic regions, would not provide decent clustering results based on race categories.

Without good clustering, whatever groups you make have more inaccuracies than accuracies in your grouped statements. (Border collies are high energy, greyhounds are lazy > 65% true at best) this is because of the insane complexity of DNA and the lack of selective breeding artificially limiting the DNA diversity. Plus other stuff.