/cyb/ - Cyberpunk Fiction and Fact

Cyberpunk is the idea that technology will condemn us to a future of totalitarian nightmares here you can discuss recent events and how technology has been used to facilitate greater control by the elites, or works of fiction


If you want to see the latest posts from all boards in a convenient way please check out /overboard/

Name
Email
Subject
By clicking New Reply, I acknowledge the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
Comment
0
Select File / Oekaki
File(s)
Password (For file and/or post deletion.)

2784708.png
Post in this thread every time you visit /cyb/
Anonymous
No.1422
1609
Let's get this board moving.
531 replies and 257 files omitted.
Anonymous
No.3112
8b03c6303cd5a986.jpeg
>>3099
>So all white people are aglo to you if they've ever spoken English on the internet. No Prussians, no Welsh, no Slavs, no Italians, no Irishmen, no Aryans, no Welsh, no Celts, no French just "Anglos".
Pic related.
Anonymous
No.3113
3115
>>3111
Tesla never really found proof for the electric universe theory either though.
It would be really cool if it were true though. The idea of supplying free energy to anyone in the world without cables by harnessing the theoretically abundant energy of universe was Tesla's dream.
Einstein was certainly a fraud in some aspects, but his fraud came more from stealing other scientist's breakthroughs and publishing them in his own name without credit.
Thing about theory of relativity is that it's hard to prove because we as human beings are like 2D cartoons trying to interpret the composition of the 3D pencil that drew us. Time is an intangible force in the universe as far as we can tell and we have few ways of comprehending or testing how it actually works.
Anonymous
No.3115
3117
>>3113
>we as human beings are like 2D cartoons trying to interpret the composition of the 3D pencil that drew us.
That's profound and thought provoking while at the same time gives Einstein's theory a credit that cannot be proven.
Anonymous
No.3117
3119
>>3115
That's why it's just a theory.
Anonymous
No.3119
3120
>>3117
Because Relativity cannot be proven in lab.
Anonymous
No.3120
3121
x8osuk1gxs9c1.jpeg
>>3119
Well, not with the technology we have now. They'll keep trying until they can confirm or deny it.
I think they're building another collider to test supernova tier particle physics to try and find some evidence for it.
Tbh, research out of the previous colliders has been pretty substantial, so I think it's actually cool to. It's at least better than sending money to niggers and Israel.
Anonymous
No.3121
3122 3124
>>3120
>Well, not with the technology we have now.
That's wishful thinking. Also (we) don't have anything, the collider operation is a closed project without transparency or accountability, sorta a black hole washing taxpayer's money.
Anonymous
No.3122
3123
>>3121
>closed project without transparency or accountability
No it's not. There's institutions from some 80+ countries involved, they give tours of it all the time, and all it's findings are public domain.
They just made a new discovery about antimatter (I'll make a thread for that, if anyone cares).
Anonymous
No.3123
3124
>>3122
>There's institutions from some 80+ countries involved
Observers to cheer it up.
>they give tours of it all the time
Just trust us.
>and all it's findings are public domain
Garbage about subtatomic debris backed by theoretical math unable to pass a lab's scrutiny.
>a new discovery about antimatter
If the hoaxers can provide a sample to test in a laboratory surely wil get some attention. /s
Anonymous
No.3124
3125
>>3121
>sorta a black hole washing taxpayer's money.
A drop in the bucket compared to what we send to welfare niggers, African shitholes and Israel every year. Most of it isn't even taxpayer funded at all, but fundraised by university research grants.
>>3123
>Just trust us.
What does transparency mean to you? What degree of accountability would you want?
>Garbage about subtatomic debris backed by theoretical math unable to pass a lab's scrutiny.
It's literally a laboratory to scrutinize theories.
If you have refutations to the readings from the lab, do share them.
>provide a sample to test in a laboratory
They already did that. That's how they make positrons. Look it up.
Anonymous
No.3125
3126
>>3124
>provide a sample to test in a laboratory
>They already did that.
Source? Name of the laboratory and employees in charge?
Anonymous
No.3126
3127
>>3125
>Name of the laboratory and employees in charge?
Jülich IKP-KFA, Erlangen-Nuernberg University, GSI Darmstadt and Genoa University, led by Walter Oelert, using the CERN1 LEAR.
Anonymous
No.3127
3128 3130 3132
>>3126
Gotta link? Also don't tell me is an internal CERN's laboratory with CERN's employees because we will be again at square one: Just Trust Us.
Anonymous
No.3128
3129
>>3127
He's not a CERN employee, he's a professor from the aforementioned university. Also, the CERN is a machine, not an employer.
Anonymous
No.3129
3131
3056.png
>>3128
>Also, the CERN is a machine, not an employer.
CERN is a bureaucracy administrating a humongous amount of money under the guise of reasearch.
Anonymous
No.3130
>>3127
Pardon, I meant the LEAR.
Anonymous
No.3131
3134
>>3129
>administrating a humongous amount of money under the guise of reasearch
It's really a tiny amount of money compared to other useless crap the government (s) spend on. If it was made to consolidate money, it isn't doing a very good job.
Anonymous
No.3132
3133 3136
>>3127
>Just Trust Us
What else would it take to earn your trust? I don't know what it is that you want. They got some readings that one of their nine antiprotons finally collided with a negatron after shooting them through a jet of xenon gas 33 billion times a second. Are you saying that the readings were false? All the inner workings of the machine are public domain: it's ultimately just a series of very strong magnets.
If you'd like to discuss it in detail, please make a thread about it. It's too late at night for me to debate the intricacies of particle physics, but I'm quite interested in the topic if you have any info to add about how a positron should behave under those circumstances.
Anonymous
No.3133
>>3132
>negatron
*Positron
Anonymous
No.3134
3135 3149
CERN-Brochure-2023-002-Eng.pdf
Sc4559.png
>>3131
>CERN's budget
According to (((them))) the 2023 budget is 1230.38 Million CHF = 1439.54 million U$D
Anonymous
No.3135
>>3134
Sweet
Anonymous
No.3136
3137
>>3132
>It's too late at night for me to debate the intricacies of particle physics
Reminder that "atomic" physics is just and merely a "theory".
Anonymous
No.3137
3138
>>3136
Are you telling me that atoms aren't real?
Anonymous
No.3138
3139
>>3137
I'm telling you that the book at any university will say literally "The Atomic Theory".
Anonymous
No.3139
3140
f71f72ebe9c47b937f9f0167ff641f04.gif
>>3138
Atomic theory is that matter is composed of atoms.
Are you telling me that that is untrue?
Anonymous
No.3140
3141 3143
>>3139
>Are you telling me that that is untrue?
I'm telling you, and according to academia, that there is not conclusive proof of that. That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is real. Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
Anonymous
No.3141
3142 3232
>>3140
Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real. Atomic theory is called a theory because most scientific concepts are called theories. The theory has changed over time as it has been revealed that atoms are not indivisible as we once thought.
>Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
That's just how science works

So do you or do you not believe in atomic theory?
Anonymous
No.3142
3147 3149
>>3141
>Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real.
Sure, I'm aware of lab's testing pointing at that, but to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
Anonymous
No.3143
3144
>>3140
>That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is r
Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true. It's accepted as fact by most scientists that atoms are real.
There is no president of science or other person with the authority to decide what or when models are facts instead of theories, that's why models are called theories indefinitely.
Anonymous
No.3144
3145
>>3143
>Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true.
Of course, the same than paleontologists claiming that Evolution is real. After all they have to follow the establishment's narrative to make their careers. That said, not one will risk their monetary incoming when challenged and will play safe.
Anonymous
No.3145
3146
>>3144
Not all paleontologists believe in evolution.
Anonymous
No.3146
>>3145
Sure, it comes to my mind Don Patton.
Anonymous
No.3147
3148
>>3142
>to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
That's why they're smashing them together with extremely strong magnets and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter.
Anonymous
No.3148
3149 3150 3152
>>3147
>and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter
Ah, that the key sentence. Energy signals in the form of x-rays and gamma longitude which is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris" to trick the uneducated normies.
Anonymous
No.3149
3151 3159
>>3134
So a drop in the ocean. Woooow they sure are laundering QUADRILLIANS of dollars with those millions.
Think of the hall of cost.
>>3142
People and living beings have been playing with chemicals and by proxy atoms for a long time.
>>3148
...
Have you ever tried talking to new reporters?
Anonymous
No.3150
3152
>>3148
>but they publish it as "debris"
I go further. Those charlatans publish pictures of pseudo particles, because they claim are actual subatomic particles, and ask for more money. In reality what the pictures show are "traces" of radiation impacting whatever their are using as a sensor to register the event. To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch.
Anonymous
No.3151
>>3149
>Have you ever tried talking to new reporters?
No need, I know physics and I may assisted to some lab. I'm know what I'm talking about. Do not fall for the narrative of what is our reality.
Anonymous
No.3152
3153
>>3148
>is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris"
Radiation and debris are arguably the same thing. Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves. I like to think of them as music notes in a song. Electrons and Photons are simultaneously particles and waves, but you can also think of them as a cloud.
And the type of radiation is also really indicative of what the particles did after dissipating, because as matter is converted into energy the amount of energy released can determine what happened.
Also could be promising for engineering discoveries, such as advanced fusion reactors.
>to trick the uneducated normies.
Most normies don't actually care if a neutron split in two pieces is given a name. None of them even seemed to care that an anti-hydrogen atom was recently created. Only nerds like me bother to read this stuff.
>>3150
The pictures are just visual aids because they're impossible to conceptualize anyway. Particles that act like waves or fields of energy don't look like beads; they don't look like anything at all in fact.
>To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch
That's a fair point. A lot of the particles they're to creating are so unnatural and unstable that they dissipate instantly, and the only proof of their existence is that they produced the correct expected type of waves based on the math.
Anonymous
No.3153
3154 3156
>>3152
>Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves
You are confusing matter with its manifestation of optic light, also called photons.
Anonymous
No.3154
3155
>>3153
Electrons behave similarly, simultaneously particle and wave.
Anonymous
No.3155
3157
>>3154
Electrons have mass, photons quite not. Electrons have electric charge, photons don't
Anonymous
No.3156
3158
>>3153
>matter
Once you get into subatomic particles, the definition of "matter" gets really gray.
Anonymous
No.3157
>>3155
Yes I know that. I passed middle school.
Anonymous
No.3158
3160
>>3156
>Once you get into subatomic particles
Well, it is the field of charlatans claiming to be discovering the holy new thing, they may know something about to tinker with matter, but the interpretation of what they are dealing with has, and according to them, a great latitude.
Anonymous
No.3159
>>3149
>So a drop in the ocean
My point exactly. It's barely taking in any money considering the scale of the project and the number of actors involved. If it disappeared tomorrow your taxes would not change one cent.
Anonymous
No.3160
3161
>>3158
It's all quite fascinating, imo.
Anonymous
No.3161
3162
>>3160
>fascinating
I agree, but take into account that most of their "ideas" are based in "Theoretical Physics" which is also based on "Theoretical Math", which is based on math tricks such as multi-dimensional matrices with not correlation with the physical world.
Anonymous
No.3162
3163
>>3161
>not correlation with the physical world
Oh sure, nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant. No point in researching those
Anonymous
No.3163
3164 3165
>>3162
>nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant
Name an actual one functioning. The theory sounds great but its implementation is science fiction.
Anonymous
No.3164
3166
>>3163
>Name an actual one functioning
The JT-60SA in Japan
Anonymous
No.3165
>>3163
Go take a look at the sun and stars.
>that's not what I ment!
Anonymous
No.3166
3167
87465.jpg
>>3164
>The JT-60SA in Japan
Not actually functioning. Call me it does.
https://www.jt60sa.org/wp/
Anonymous
No.3167
3168
>>3166
It already works, it's just continuing to developed. It's already generated plasma fields.
Anonymous
No.3168
3169 3170 3171 3172
>>3167
>It's already generated plasma fields.
I'm not arguing that as it can be done in a home lab.
What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city. I mean its characteristics to be economically viable and not a simple project for burning money.
Allow me to clarify; all these "marvelous" devices are propped as the new tech, the vanguard, the future, however the KEY for all of them to be practical is the power relation input/output. Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output. Can that be possible? As the current technology is developed, I very much doubt it.
Anonymous
No.3169
3173
>>3168
>What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city.
Just last year it created a net positive yield, which is a huge deal because it means that given some time to optimize it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
Which is why researching the science behind it is important.
Anonymous
No.3170
3171
>>3168
Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology, I fail to see how a city can't be.
Anonymous
No.3171
3172 3176 3195
>>3170
>Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology
That is totally different tech. Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam, which spins a turbine, which spins a electric generator. No much science is involved in that.

>>3168
>because it means that given some time to optimize
Okay, you rest on faith. I'm don't want to be a contrarian, but to my knowledge, the fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
Anonymous
No.3172
3174
>>3168
>Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output.
It's like a bastardized chemical exothermic reaction.
Getting the two components to bond ejects a high energy neutron (proton and election bonded tightly), the conditions is tons of heat, movement and those two isotopes.
>>3171
>Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam,
One of the fusion reactors shunts the hot high energy neutron to coolent aka basically water and you know what would happen next.
Other types attempt other things.
Anonymous
No.3173
3175
>>3169
>it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
To give you a taste of the holy grail those scientists and the oligarchs funding them are after:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Anonymous
No.3174
3175
>>3172
>and you know what would happen next.
Yeah, only steam.
Anonymous
No.3175
3177
>>3173
Nuclear Fusion is the next best thing to that. Life could be so indulgent in glowniggers didn't keep fear mongering people out of researching nuclear energy. It was Tesla's dream.
>>3174
Steam = electricity = lots of other stuff.
Steam is good.
Anonymous
No.3176
>>3171
>fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
That's only one generation.
Anonymous
No.3177
3178
>>3175
>lots of other stuff
Yeah, isotope galore ready to be chemically reprocessed for mainly nuclear medicine.
Anonymous
No.3178
3179
>>3177
Also technology adapting to an indulgent surplus of available energy. Electric water desalination could make agriculture easier. Electric mills could synthesize steel and other polymers for cheap. Much faster internet, etc.
Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Anonymous
No.3179
3180 3181
>>3178
>Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Sorry anon but I believe you are drunk in jewish lies,
Technologies are NOT in humanity hands, but jewish hands. Do you really believe jews will make available such benefits for a negligible price as you fantasize it? Really?
Anonymous
No.3180
3182
>>3179
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
I believe they'll do what's profitable. There is a lot of money to be made in this tech.
Jews already own all of the oil rigs and mineral mines and still sell them for energy. If nuclear energy becomes profitable they'll use it too.
Anonymous
No.3181
3183
>>3179
>Jewish hands
Solution: remove Jews. Then we can have nice things.
Anonymous
No.3182
>>3180
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
Perhaps, but only to the point of deploying it as a contracted goyim. To be an employee doesn't give the right to own the (((company)))'s tools.
Anonymous
No.3183
3184 3187
238aa21.jpg
>>3181
>Solution: remove Jews.
At this point a fantasy. There are millions on the jew's payroll and most of them are more than willing to kill for a steady flow of shekels.
Anonymous
No.3184
3185
>>3183
So what's your solution?
Anonymous
No.3185
3190
>>3184
Go gray.
Anonymous
No.3187
3189
>>3183
What a cowardly cop-out. Just surrendering to the Jews like a cuck because the battle is up hill.
Anonymous
No.3189
3191
>>3187
Going gray is not surrendering at all fren.
Anonymous
No.3190
3192
>>3185
That's not a solution.
Anonymous
No.3191
>>3189
It is if you allow the kikes to keep stealing everything your ancestors built.
Anonymous
No.3192
3193
>>3190
It is what it is. Make an assessment and act according to it. Remember, your own neighbors will be the first to point at you.
Anonymous
No.3193
3194
>>3192
Whatever you say faggot.
I'm the meantime, I'll be doing my job as usual. Maybe some corporate kikes benefit from it, but that won't stop me from pursuit of artifice.
Anonymous
No.3194
>>3193
Suit yourself.
Anonymous
No.3195
3196
>>3171
Spinning turbines is how you make power moron. All power technology is based on that. Burn coal and it heats water, spins turbine. Windmill directly turns a turbine. Water dams pour water through a turbine. Nuclear power is heating water and turns a turbine. The fuck do you mean it is different?
Anonymous
No.3196
3197 3198
7fbf.jpg
>>3195
>The fuck do you mean it is different?
>illiterate in tech drops his oppinion
Fusion vs Fission ring a bell?
Read the thread again, nigger.
Anonymous
No.3197
>>3196
Nuclear Fusion still produces heat that can fuel a turbine; the mechanics behind the generator is still just boiling water.
Anonymous
No.3198
3199
>>3196
How about you read my post again, double nigger? I said they are the same through turbine electrical generation. You respond with one splits atoms and one combines. Fucking hell you are hopelessly stupid. If a fission reactor can power a sub or aircraft carrier, a fusion one can too, and same goes for a city. Power is power. You get power for one device, it can scale to multiple across a power grid. That is how we have coal that powered a train now powering cities, retard.
Anonymous
No.3199
3200
>>3198
Bump.
Well, somethings are difficult to scale up.
Anonymous
No.3200
>>3199
Scale is normally a problem, but with the power available with nuclear technology, scale isn't really the issue. Cost is. Coal was hard to scale from operating a single engine to operating enough turbines to make sure the power doesn't drop over thousands of homes. Nuclear is far more reliable at scale, but you need all of this tech to make it work. Furthermore, there are better materials that would generate hundreds of times more energy than current material, but because the tech for what we have is already made, no one wants to upgrade and relearn the process.
Anonymous
No.3201
3202
9tu1vun2yf9c1.png

Anonymous
No.3202
image-319.png
>>3201
As a person who works with electricians on a daily basis, can confirm.
Anonymous
No.3203
FB_IMG_1704388494936.jpg

Anonymous
No.3205
File (hide): 29379A626B8BB07D5C6CDF97897B9A25-2733427.mp4 (2.6 MB, Resolution:640x366 Length:00:00:37, html5mediaembed-8o7Dl837Bscl-1.mp4) [play once] [loop]
html5mediaembed-8o7Dl837Bscl-1.mp4

Anonymous
No.3210
File (hide): 7811A51A835817A20E5050067FCBAFDA-3415061.mp4 (3.3 MB, Resolution:618x1100 Length:00:00:25, Wideningcandiedcrafty_00a22d_11234877.mp4) [play once] [loop]
Wideningcandiedcrafty_00a22d_11234877.mp4

Anonymous
No.3211
20240117_020101.jpg

Anonymous
No.3212
e3e3fa40e411f18365f1e44d24e7c23d.jpg

Anonymous
No.3224
https://youtu.be/0r2x7G0hwCw
Anonymous
No.3226
IMG_5476.png.jpg

Anonymous
No.3227
17067178878622835591026340444102-1.jpg

VRIL PONY
No.3232
3233
image.png
>>3141
Anonymous
No.3233
>>3232
Patrician
Anonymous
No.3250
6424795.png
A study in Australia found out bad parenting means children don't develop language as well.
Same study blames technology for bad parenting.
Because the parents aren't speaking to children and aren't using new adult words the child gets handicapped and speaks much less than those of a similar age.
This is how another pillar the collapse occurrs, shear neglect as the tried and true means of knowledge transfer crumbles even more.

Setting a kid down infront of a tablet isn't enough.
Because of the exhausting of time (labor, distractions, ect.) deliberately choosing to have quality time is increasingly important and difficult.
I wonder what happens when massive waves of unsocialized people do their thing.
Anonymous
No.3264
3267 3268
hp.jpg
He says our HP printer when he really means their HP printer.
Anonymous
No.3267
>>3264
HP sucks, new DYMO thermal printers suck now also because they added the same DRM stuff printers use, if you don't use DYMO brand labels it won't print
Anonymous
No.3268
>>3264
That's some serious bullshit.