This thread is meant to debunk the deranged idea that our realm is a planet floating in space.
If the so called established science can't be challenged, then it's not science, but religion.
/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal
2734 replies and 1416 files omitted.
>>166283
>there is a nonzero chance that people might be impersonating shitposters
This is why you use tripcodes.
>there is a nonzero chance that people might be impersonating shitposters
This is why you use tripcodes.
>>166273
I gave him a three day ban. He has the chance to cool off and make this thread worth something. If not, he will simply repeat the process until he learns or gets bored. Again, I really like alt earth theories even if I can’t believe most of them. However, when you refuse to debate anything and call everyone that engages you a shill and also hold that the site is against you for not liking your posts, the simple solution is to alter your approach.
>>166281
Right. Making a weekly comeback to the thread for months on end instead of using the report feature gets the results you are looking for. Good job.
I gave him a three day ban. He has the chance to cool off and make this thread worth something. If not, he will simply repeat the process until he learns or gets bored. Again, I really like alt earth theories even if I can’t believe most of them. However, when you refuse to debate anything and call everyone that engages you a shill and also hold that the site is against you for not liking your posts, the simple solution is to alter your approach.
>>166281
Right. Making a weekly comeback to the thread for months on end instead of using the report feature gets the results you are looking for. Good job.
Anonymous
No.166340
>>166282
Eh, every so often when following a topic I get the crazy notion that there might be something here that isnt found elsewhere, and end up laughing hysterically at the progress the site is making toward irrelevancy and delusion. This weekend was the twitter files.
>>166286
Dishonest as always, never change faggot.
Eh, every so often when following a topic I get the crazy notion that there might be something here that isnt found elsewhere, and end up laughing hysterically at the progress the site is making toward irrelevancy and delusion. This weekend was the twitter files.
>>166286
Dishonest as always, never change faggot.
Anonymous
No.166344
imagine thinking water curves around a ball without evidence lmfao retard ball niggers xD
>Satellite Sent to Study SuperNova Star Was Just a BALLOON
https://odysee.com/@EddieAlencar:a/satellite-sent-to-study-supernova-star:3
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/nkgqXeb8Y3d9/
Given that you faggots won't post ponies or greens, I post balloons.
https://odysee.com/@EddieAlencar:a/satellite-sent-to-study-supernova-star:3
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/nkgqXeb8Y3d9/
Given that you faggots won't post ponies or greens, I post balloons.
If the Earth is flat and we were made in God's image why are balls round? Checkmate atheists.
The flat earther meme is jewish subversion to make places that tolerate it seem unjustly tolerant of kooks and cranks while making places that refuse to tolerate it seem insufficiently dedicated to taking the ideal of free speech to an absurd extreme. This thread will only die when it hits bump limit. I propose we fill this niggery thread with the dumbest shit known to man.
The flat earther meme is jewish subversion to make places that tolerate it seem unjustly tolerant of kooks and cranks while making places that refuse to tolerate it seem insufficiently dedicated to taking the ideal of free speech to an absurd extreme. This thread will only die when it hits bump limit. I propose we fill this niggery thread with the dumbest shit known to man.
>>166649
It's okay, Boom-Booms. I still like you no matter what Nigel and the other fags say. It's not your fault that they can't sage.
You are appreciated.
It's okay, Boom-Booms. I still like you no matter what Nigel and the other fags say. It's not your fault that they can't sage.
You are appreciated.
>>166653
>It will not replace artists.
Perhaps you meant to say artists won't disappear completely.
Being relegated to a niche market where Human art is unquestionably inferior to AI art. Much like it happened with chess.
No reason to be concerned. You're incapable of producing art yourself. As the perpetual consoomer you've proved to be, this should sound like paradise.
Let's not lose sight of things tho. Art is just the latest victim.
>It will not replace artists.
Perhaps you meant to say artists won't disappear completely.
Being relegated to a niche market where Human art is unquestionably inferior to AI art. Much like it happened with chess.
No reason to be concerned. You're incapable of producing art yourself. As the perpetual consoomer you've proved to be, this should sound like paradise.
Let's not lose sight of things tho. Art is just the latest victim.
>>166658
You're one angry guy. Must everything be personal with you? AI art is not going to replace every artist. Spend more time living in the art world. Are the most popular artists commissioned because they are the best artists, or because they are the most popular in their niche circles?
Remember the NFT cartoons? It is a dying fad. No, a dead fad.
AI generation is going to be exciting and new for a while.
Remember Green Day's "AI generated music video" that clearly mixed hand animated parts and parts where frames were fed through the AI?
People will say "wow look at this AI generated x". It will be a novelty.
Machines can only draw inspiration from their training data.
AI art is still at a phase where it looks off.
So it will be a novelty.
You probably aren't old enough to remember when people feared photography would kill paintings and "be the death of art".
Are you old enough to remember when people thought CGI would kill practical effects and replace human actors?
It replaced practical effects as the cheapest option. Even now, CGI reconstructions of dead or aged actors in their prime are rare. Practical effects are an artistically valued and celebrated artistic choice now, just like drawing on paper in an era where drawing on tablets is the norm.
Some day the biggest companies may hire AI art specialists to supplement their art teams. Perhaps the least valuable members of these teams will be cut. But to say nobody would hire artists to make this AI generated shit look less AI generated is asinine.
In an era where the biggest corporations rely on AI generated shite, hand drawn and intelligently designed human-crafted art will stand out more.
Just like a real claymation movie in an era of CGI.
>>166656
Compensation? I financially compensated your mother after she got intimately familiar with my flesh.
[Read more] You're one angry guy. Must everything be personal with you? AI art is not going to replace every artist. Spend more time living in the art world. Are the most popular artists commissioned because they are the best artists, or because they are the most popular in their niche circles?
Remember the NFT cartoons? It is a dying fad. No, a dead fad.
AI generation is going to be exciting and new for a while.
Remember Green Day's "AI generated music video" that clearly mixed hand animated parts and parts where frames were fed through the AI?
People will say "wow look at this AI generated x". It will be a novelty.
Machines can only draw inspiration from their training data.
AI art is still at a phase where it looks off.
So it will be a novelty.
You probably aren't old enough to remember when people feared photography would kill paintings and "be the death of art".
Are you old enough to remember when people thought CGI would kill practical effects and replace human actors?
It replaced practical effects as the cheapest option. Even now, CGI reconstructions of dead or aged actors in their prime are rare. Practical effects are an artistically valued and celebrated artistic choice now, just like drawing on paper in an era where drawing on tablets is the norm.
Some day the biggest companies may hire AI art specialists to supplement their art teams. Perhaps the least valuable members of these teams will be cut. But to say nobody would hire artists to make this AI generated shit look less AI generated is asinine.
In an era where the biggest corporations rely on AI generated shite, hand drawn and intelligently designed human-crafted art will stand out more.
Just like a real claymation movie in an era of CGI.
>>166656
Compensation? I financially compensated your mother after she got intimately familiar with my flesh.
>Heliocentric "Physics" Debunked (Mirrored from Kryptonite Physics by ChrisUK)
>Would a person on a zooming-twirling ball maintain constant acceleration? Of course, not. This video (which is actually a series of videos) will explain why.
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/heliocentric-physics-debunked-(mirrored:e
Mirror:
[YouTube] Heliocentric "Physics" Debunked (Mirrored from Kryptonite Physics by ChrisUK)![]()
This is a video about 100% physics, perhaps very technical and hard to follow if you don't have the required background.
>Would a person on a zooming-twirling ball maintain constant acceleration? Of course, not. This video (which is actually a series of videos) will explain why.
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/heliocentric-physics-debunked-(mirrored:e
Mirror:
[YouTube] Heliocentric "Physics" Debunked (Mirrored from Kryptonite Physics by ChrisUK)
This is a video about 100% physics, perhaps very technical and hard to follow if you don't have the required background.
>>166672
>the background
<highschool physics
Flashbacks to centripetal vs centrifugal force.
Wow a basic understanding of physics.
Did you know this actually proves the Earth orbits the Sun and the Earth is an orboid?
Yes the acceleration does change. The various perspectives are true.
Now imagine the circle is a sphere (yes the Earth is not a perfect sphere this is a visual aid. If you want you can think of a sphere like potato).
In the circle going toward the center increases the change in acceleration (it's acceleration because changes to velocity is its definition). To see everyone on the ride, they would still be staying still regardless of position.
In the sphere the same thing happens.
In the sphere the same thing happens.
The people on the ride would see everything else not on that ride moving.
Getting to the center of the sphere 'Earth' besides a hypothetical one would require going to the center. The center being not on the surface. It's inside.
Hypothetical sphere if you could see everything everywhere, the circle perspectives happen. With people and stuff moving about.
The sense of scale some people think of how big they are causes error in models. Yes it's hard to see specks. However the closer to the surface the more the tangential lines of sight are to being flat.
This is also a big place and for some wrapping how big things are with localized experience is a trial.
If the Earth was flat you could have a tool that could see everything from one end to another like the circle. Yes there is air and possible distortion from heat and other factors.
>Gravity but acceleration changing
Consider the trolly demonstration. Also consider the 'Top to Tail' graph.
There is constant gravity (IE acceleration).
Now consider the Earth is the trolly it goes around the track. The Trolly's down is toward the inside.
Other gravitational forces increase and decrease pulling and being pulled on even though it's a constant (on the solar system scale) force. The closer one is to the gravity the more it's enacted on. (Stronger gravity has more force.)
That kind of additional forces do impact Earth.
[Read more] >the background
<highschool physics
Flashbacks to centripetal vs centrifugal force.
Wow a basic understanding of physics.
Did you know this actually proves the Earth orbits the Sun and the Earth is an orboid?
Yes the acceleration does change. The various perspectives are true.
Now imagine the circle is a sphere (yes the Earth is not a perfect sphere this is a visual aid. If you want you can think of a sphere like potato).
In the circle going toward the center increases the change in acceleration (it's acceleration because changes to velocity is its definition). To see everyone on the ride, they would still be staying still regardless of position.
In the sphere the same thing happens.
In the sphere the same thing happens.
The people on the ride would see everything else not on that ride moving.
Getting to the center of the sphere 'Earth' besides a hypothetical one would require going to the center. The center being not on the surface. It's inside.
Hypothetical sphere if you could see everything everywhere, the circle perspectives happen. With people and stuff moving about.
The sense of scale some people think of how big they are causes error in models. Yes it's hard to see specks. However the closer to the surface the more the tangential lines of sight are to being flat.
This is also a big place and for some wrapping how big things are with localized experience is a trial.
If the Earth was flat you could have a tool that could see everything from one end to another like the circle. Yes there is air and possible distortion from heat and other factors.
>Gravity but acceleration changing
Consider the trolly demonstration. Also consider the 'Top to Tail' graph.
There is constant gravity (IE acceleration).
Now consider the Earth is the trolly it goes around the track. The Trolly's down is toward the inside.
Other gravitational forces increase and decrease pulling and being pulled on even though it's a constant (on the solar system scale) force. The closer one is to the gravity the more it's enacted on. (Stronger gravity has more force.)
That kind of additional forces do impact Earth.
>>166652
There you go with the Ad Homenim again. You call him a name and talk about his character instead of refuting the point of his argument, just like you have hundreds of times before in this thread.
There you go with the Ad Homenim again. You call him a name and talk about his character instead of refuting the point of his argument, just like you have hundreds of times before in this thread.
Anonymous
No.166680
>>166658
>Being relegated to a niche market
The modern art market has always been corrupt and full of shit. It's only use is for laundering money and promoting woke nonsense. Flooding the market with AI images isn't going to kill the metaphysical concept of art.
>Much like it happened with chess.
This is my first time hearing of a global chess market, or chess having anywhere near the same cultural significance as art.
>You're incapable of producing art yourself.
This part is just wrong. You clearly don't know him, and even if you did it wouldn't be relevant to the argument.
>Being relegated to a niche market
The modern art market has always been corrupt and full of shit. It's only use is for laundering money and promoting woke nonsense. Flooding the market with AI images isn't going to kill the metaphysical concept of art.
>Much like it happened with chess.
This is my first time hearing of a global chess market, or chess having anywhere near the same cultural significance as art.
>You're incapable of producing art yourself.
This part is just wrong. You clearly don't know him, and even if you did it wouldn't be relevant to the argument.
>>166671
Again, AI art is just the tip of the iceberg. Kinda odd you've chosen to stick to that. Do you see it as a substitute to your lack of skill? You're mediocre even as a techie, but alright.
>Passing fad
You aren't well known for your critical thinking skills. Perhaps exponential thinking is just too much for you. No, AI art is not a fad. Judging entirely by its own history, it's almost certain it will outperform human artists.
Your side's not even on denial about this. They are holding on to the idea that Human art will be considered more valuable because it was made by a human. I didn't contradicted that statement. It's probably true, but being able to make a living out of a drastically reduced market isn't the only concern.
Hence the mention of chess. Chess masters no longer discover and formulate their games out of their own creativity. They're trying their hardest to memorise shit they can barely grasp. Stuff that chess engines have already mastered years ago. The mystery is dead. The game is and will forever be driven by machines now.
The same way human art contests will seem like a 5 y/o's competition. The real shit will be AI-generated.
Remember what I told you in your self-pity thread?
>Why even bother anymore? You could have the biggest epiphany of your lifetime one day. Only to wake up the very next day with hundreds of targeted ads right on your face.
>"Check it out! A million different versions of the story you were thinking about writing yesterday! Have fun!"
>It's alright. It's paradise for a perpetual consoomer. I don't expect you to understand it.
You should try to imagine it for a moment.
Also
>Ur just too young, Kid.
You aren't even thirty yet. Imagine going boom boom in order to shill for WEF goy-soft.
I am surprised no body saw the b 3.1416 N slipping off.
[Read more] Again, AI art is just the tip of the iceberg. Kinda odd you've chosen to stick to that. Do you see it as a substitute to your lack of skill? You're mediocre even as a techie, but alright.
>Passing fad
You aren't well known for your critical thinking skills. Perhaps exponential thinking is just too much for you. No, AI art is not a fad. Judging entirely by its own history, it's almost certain it will outperform human artists.
Your side's not even on denial about this. They are holding on to the idea that Human art will be considered more valuable because it was made by a human. I didn't contradicted that statement. It's probably true, but being able to make a living out of a drastically reduced market isn't the only concern.
Hence the mention of chess. Chess masters no longer discover and formulate their games out of their own creativity. They're trying their hardest to memorise shit they can barely grasp. Stuff that chess engines have already mastered years ago. The mystery is dead. The game is and will forever be driven by machines now.
The same way human art contests will seem like a 5 y/o's competition. The real shit will be AI-generated.
Remember what I told you in your self-pity thread?
>Why even bother anymore? You could have the biggest epiphany of your lifetime one day. Only to wake up the very next day with hundreds of targeted ads right on your face.
>"Check it out! A million different versions of the story you were thinking about writing yesterday! Have fun!"
>It's alright. It's paradise for a perpetual consoomer. I don't expect you to understand it.
You should try to imagine it for a moment.
Also
>Ur just too young, Kid.
You aren't even thirty yet. Imagine going boom boom in order to shill for WEF goy-soft.
I am surprised no body saw the b 3.1416 N slipping off.
>>166679
Oh, really? Last time he called me a Jew before abandoning the discussion. It was only after the fact that I brought up his robowaifu. He even went on to spam the overboard with AI threads afterwards. What a sore bitch.
Besides, he's completely unwilling to address OP at all. It's all "Ad Homenim" from him. He gets what he gibs.
Oh, really? Last time he called me a Jew before abandoning the discussion. It was only after the fact that I brought up his robowaifu. He even went on to spam the overboard with AI threads afterwards. What a sore bitch.
Besides, he's completely unwilling to address OP at all. It's all "Ad Homenim" from him. He gets what he gibs.
>>166681
>the idea that Human art will be considered more valuable because it was made by a human
The value of art has always been and always will be subjective to the consumers and the surrounding culture. Just look at what sells for tens of thousands of dollars on the modern art market: does it all look like exceptional quality and creativity to you? I think not.
>being able to make a living out of a drastically reduced market
This could be a thing, but those who make livings off of the modern art economy aren't necessarily great artists themselves, nor are great artists necessarily rewarded by the existing economy surrounding art.
>isn't the only concern
What's the other concern?
>Chess masters no longer discover and formulate their games out of their own creativity.
Untrue.
>trying their hardest to memorise shit they can barely grasp.
Has always been a thing.
>The mystery is dead.
It wasn't really a mystery to begin with. It's a sport.
>The game is and will forever be driven by machines now.
Not true. You can still play chess without machines. It'll look in the background of highly publicized championships, but that's not the whole world of chess.
>art contests
Art contests are not the world of art.
[Read more] >the idea that Human art will be considered more valuable because it was made by a human
The value of art has always been and always will be subjective to the consumers and the surrounding culture. Just look at what sells for tens of thousands of dollars on the modern art market: does it all look like exceptional quality and creativity to you? I think not.
>being able to make a living out of a drastically reduced market
This could be a thing, but those who make livings off of the modern art economy aren't necessarily great artists themselves, nor are great artists necessarily rewarded by the existing economy surrounding art.
>isn't the only concern
What's the other concern?
>Chess masters no longer discover and formulate their games out of their own creativity.
Untrue.
>trying their hardest to memorise shit they can barely grasp.
Has always been a thing.
>The mystery is dead.
It wasn't really a mystery to begin with. It's a sport.
>The game is and will forever be driven by machines now.
Not true. You can still play chess without machines. It'll look in the background of highly publicized championships, but that's not the whole world of chess.
>art contests
Art contests are not the world of art.
Anonymous
No.166686
Anonymous
No.166687
Anonymous
No.166690
Earth is a cat and Eartha Kitt is a space alien
>>166651
Back to top fren.
>>166685
>The value of art has always been and always will be subjective to the consumers and the surrounding culture. Just look at what sells for tens of thousands of dollars on the modern art market: does it all look like exceptional quality and creativity to you? I think not.
100% agreed. However, since AI is more efficient to the point it can flood the market and overwhelm Human art, it also holds an edge on the subjective.
>This could be a thing, but those who make livings off of the modern art economy aren't necessarily great artists themselves, nor are great artists necessarily rewarded by the existing economy surrounding art.
Agreed, and it is alright to rejoice on their dread.
>Chess masters no longer discover and formulate their games out of their own creativity.
>Untrue.
Today’s chess masters learn from chess engines, that is a fact.
>trying their hardest to memorise shit they can barely grasp.
>Has always been a thing.
To a lesser extent once theory had expanded enough? Yes. However, just as your previous example here:
<“Just look at what sells for tens of thousands of dollars on the modern art market: does it all look like exceptional quality and creativity to you? I think not.”
The fact that it was bad before, does not negate the impact of AI-generated art. Or chess engines in this case. This is why Bobby Fischer said computers were partially to blame for the dead of chess. With the rest of the blame being attributed to theory.
I mean, come on. The similarities, even down to the partial blame, are simply staggering.
>The mystery is dead.
>It wasn't really a mystery to begin with. It's a sport.
Chess Masters used to figure this sport out. Today, they simply study chess engines, leagues ahead of them. You should go deeper than this. You can start by watching some of Bobby’s interviews.
>The game is and will forever be driven by machines now.
>Not true. You can still play chess without machines. It'll look in the background of highly publicized championships, but that's not the whole world of chess.
>What's the other concern?
It’s just not the same, Anon. Creativity is no longer king when everything you can come up with, will be beaten by the guy who memorized the chess engine's game. There's a reason why Chess Masters prefer this approach. It's simply not competitive to rely on your own creativity, over learning and vomiting stuff from the chess engine. Fischer was right, only casual players can escape what has become of it. This is why he wound up hating it, by his own words.
I mean, even Fischer Random is being slowly eroded. How exactly do you make a “Fischer Random” with art anyways?
>art contests
>Art contests are not the world of art.
Only reason why contests are mentioned, is because they are the only sure format that Human art can prevail. You can expect scandals such as Niemann’s in no time.
>Inb4: U can’t stuff the technology back into a box.
Two words: nuclear energy.
Btw.
No, you are not redpilling AI’s, Nigel. The same way they kicked you out of every social media platform, the same way you’ll be gatekept from the technology. And if you analyze this post. You will know the problems I associated to AI will not go away if you pressed a magical button to instantly wipe out every kike, and every nigger, fag, tranny and shitskin on this planet.
It makes sense to try and use it for the time being tho. It can only be restrained once /ourguys/ are on top.
[Read more] Back to top fren.
>>166685
>The value of art has always been and always will be subjective to the consumers and the surrounding culture. Just look at what sells for tens of thousands of dollars on the modern art market: does it all look like exceptional quality and creativity to you? I think not.
100% agreed. However, since AI is more efficient to the point it can flood the market and overwhelm Human art, it also holds an edge on the subjective.
>This could be a thing, but those who make livings off of the modern art economy aren't necessarily great artists themselves, nor are great artists necessarily rewarded by the existing economy surrounding art.
Agreed, and it is alright to rejoice on their dread.
>Chess masters no longer discover and formulate their games out of their own creativity.
>Untrue.
Today’s chess masters learn from chess engines, that is a fact.
>trying their hardest to memorise shit they can barely grasp.
>Has always been a thing.
To a lesser extent once theory had expanded enough? Yes. However, just as your previous example here:
<“Just look at what sells for tens of thousands of dollars on the modern art market: does it all look like exceptional quality and creativity to you? I think not.”
The fact that it was bad before, does not negate the impact of AI-generated art. Or chess engines in this case. This is why Bobby Fischer said computers were partially to blame for the dead of chess. With the rest of the blame being attributed to theory.
I mean, come on. The similarities, even down to the partial blame, are simply staggering.
>The mystery is dead.
>It wasn't really a mystery to begin with. It's a sport.
Chess Masters used to figure this sport out. Today, they simply study chess engines, leagues ahead of them. You should go deeper than this. You can start by watching some of Bobby’s interviews.
>The game is and will forever be driven by machines now.
>Not true. You can still play chess without machines. It'll look in the background of highly publicized championships, but that's not the whole world of chess.
>What's the other concern?
It’s just not the same, Anon. Creativity is no longer king when everything you can come up with, will be beaten by the guy who memorized the chess engine's game. There's a reason why Chess Masters prefer this approach. It's simply not competitive to rely on your own creativity, over learning and vomiting stuff from the chess engine. Fischer was right, only casual players can escape what has become of it. This is why he wound up hating it, by his own words.
I mean, even Fischer Random is being slowly eroded. How exactly do you make a “Fischer Random” with art anyways?
>art contests
>Art contests are not the world of art.
Only reason why contests are mentioned, is because they are the only sure format that Human art can prevail. You can expect scandals such as Niemann’s in no time.
>Inb4: U can’t stuff the technology back into a box.
Two words: nuclear energy.
Btw.
No, you are not redpilling AI’s, Nigel. The same way they kicked you out of every social media platform, the same way you’ll be gatekept from the technology. And if you analyze this post. You will know the problems I associated to AI will not go away if you pressed a magical button to instantly wipe out every kike, and every nigger, fag, tranny and shitskin on this planet.
It makes sense to try and use it for the time being tho. It can only be restrained once /ourguys/ are on top.
>>166692
>AI
I agree with pretty much everything you said. People shouldn't wary of AI, a Pandora's Box that can't be closed, we should probably leap to take advantage of it while we still can.
Off topic, but just imagine AI pony waifus. Imagine a having a fully voiced mare complete with generated images and a built in chat program that isn't pozzed. We will make mares real and the normies will be defeated. Imagine a world where even (You) can get an antisemitic marefriend.
>AI
I agree with pretty much everything you said. People shouldn't wary of AI, a Pandora's Box that can't be closed, we should probably leap to take advantage of it while we still can.
Off topic, but just imagine AI pony waifus. Imagine a having a fully voiced mare complete with generated images and a built in chat program that isn't pozzed. We will make mares real and the normies will be defeated. Imagine a world where even (You) can get an antisemitic marefriend.
Anonymous
No.166697
1676512876.png (663.6 KB, 3000x3112, aryanne - easter egg - surprise.png)
Imagine the best written show of all time. It's soytoon toonboom bean mouth shit generated by an AI. Who would watch it?
>>166692
>Two words: nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy hasn't been put in a box, it's just been suppressed by glowniggers assassinating scientists because they don't want the technology to spread. Digital technology isn't the same as rocket science.
>Two words: nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy hasn't been put in a box, it's just been suppressed by glowniggers assassinating scientists because they don't want the technology to spread. Digital technology isn't the same as rocket science.
>>166715
>Nuclear energy hasn't been put in a box, it's just been suppressed
Ikr. The Fukushima meltdown was likely caused by an Israeli virus. I hope man-made "hazards" generate enough doubts about AI.
>Digital technology isn't the same as rocket science.
True, once it's out there, it's out there forever. Still, shutting down further development is still an option. Good luck making breakthroughs on your laptop. Lol.
>>166714
Lmao. AI already trashes you.
>>166694
You do you, bud. I don't mind marefriends for /pol/cels.
But artificial wombs are dysgenic. Antisocial and autistic traits should continue to be breed out.
>Nuclear energy hasn't been put in a box, it's just been suppressed
Ikr. The Fukushima meltdown was likely caused by an Israeli virus. I hope man-made "hazards" generate enough doubts about AI.
>Digital technology isn't the same as rocket science.
True, once it's out there, it's out there forever. Still, shutting down further development is still an option. Good luck making breakthroughs on your laptop. Lol.
>>166714
Lmao. AI already trashes you.
>>166694
You do you, bud. I don't mind marefriends for /pol/cels.
But artificial wombs are dysgenic. Antisocial and autistic traits should continue to be breed out.
>>166718
>shutting down further development is still an option. Good luck making breakthroughs on your laptop
That is far more likely, and I'd be glad to discuss the implications of it on /cyb/ or /mlpol/, but not in the flat earth thread.
>shutting down further development is still an option. Good luck making breakthroughs on your laptop
That is far more likely, and I'd be glad to discuss the implications of it on /cyb/ or /mlpol/, but not in the flat earth thread.
Anonymous
No.166722
>>166721
You are Seb.
No matter how hard you try to force a meme, it will never convince anyone worth a damn.
You are Seb.
No matter how hard you try to force a meme, it will never convince anyone worth a damn.
Anonymous
No.166729
>The Antarctic Sky Ice and the Ice Wall - (10:50)
https://odysee.com/@EddieAlencar:a/the-antarctic-sky-ice-and-the-ice-wall:6
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bpoGwMl3E7KK/
There are a few stories about the blue ice being the dome's material.
-----
Because of lack of ponies, here you have it, Earth under the dome.
https://odysee.com/@EddieAlencar:a/the-antarctic-sky-ice-and-the-ice-wall:6
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bpoGwMl3E7KK/
There are a few stories about the blue ice being the dome's material.
-----
Because of lack of ponies, here you have it, Earth under the dome.
Anonymous
No.166739
Anonymous
No.166741
1677388160.mp4 (2.6 MB, Resolution:270x480 Length:00:02:26, ROCKET HITS THE WATERS ABOVE IN FLORIDA .mp4) [play once] [loop]
>September 24,2022.
>Another rocket hits the waters above in Florida
It is curious as rockets' trajectories always bend looking for a horizontal path instead of the vertical shortest way to space. /s
>Another rocket hits the waters above in Florida
It is curious as rockets' trajectories always bend looking for a horizontal path instead of the vertical shortest way to space. /s
Anonymous
No.166742
1677470815.jpg (148.9 KB, 1280x720, x9B15E81-61F7-4ED3-97BD-A62EE4C5A10C.jpg)
>Are they faking space? The answer ...
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/are-they-faking-space-the-answer-...:5
Mirror:
[YouTube] Are they faking space? The answer ...![]()
Only 3:51 long.
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/are-they-faking-space-the-answer-...:5
Mirror:
[YouTube] Are they faking space? The answer ...
Only 3:51 long.
Why do you keep posting garbage? Sure it annihilates flat earth stuff just by reposting their own stuff, but the quality is awful.
There's no engagement of any previous point.
There's no engagement of any previous point.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-500] [501-550] [551-600] [601-650] [651-700] [701-750] [751-800] [801-850] [851-900] [901-950] [951-1000] [1001-1050] [1051-1100] [1101-1150] [1151-1200] [1201-1250] [1251-1300] [1301-1350] [1351-1400] [1401-1450] [1451-1500] [1501-1550] [1551-1600] [1601-1650] [1651-1700] [1701-1750] [1751-1800] [1801-1850] [1851-1900] [1901-1950] [1951-2000] [2001-2050] [2051-2100] [2101-2150] [2151-2200] [2201-2250] [2251-2300] [2301-2350] [2351-2400] [2401-2450] [2451-2500] [2501-2550] [2551-2600] [2601-2650] [2651-2700] [2701-2750] [2751-2784] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
2784 replies | 1433 files | 282 UUIDs | Page 8
[Add to Thread Watcher]