There is a limit.
However, governments have applied a filtering process since 2020 to weed out as many non-conformists among military, law-enforcement and critical infrastructure,as possible.
This was likely one of the reasons why the pressure on the unvaccinated was so tough in many professions: to get rid of the ethical individuals that have an inner moral compass.
Still, a society is founded on perceptions and perceptions can shift. This is where government control of media comes in.
The greatest danger to any government is a negative shift in the perception of government authority. If that perception goes bad enough you have a Ceaucescu moment when the military turns on the tyrants. This is typically preceded by excessive government violence against innocent citizens. This is why governments fear escalated demonstrations; it forces them to reveal their authoritarian hand.
If public perception didn't matter then governments wouldn't be hell-bent on controlling all the top priority narratives. Freedom wins eventually but is always preceeded by government overreach.
If implausibility is stacked upon implausibility, it is logical to investigate power motives.
We know that most nations signed up for Agenda21 in 1992. It's an agenda that covers the whole of the 21st century - quite the ambitious central planning project. Under communism, 5 year plans were the standard. Agenda21 is a 100 year plan.
The Agenda2030 goals are not likely to be accepted voluntarily by the public and there is very little public support for it:
Individual carbon allowances, reduction and eventually elimination of cars and air travel for the general public, reduction of meat consumption, ESG policies that function as a social credit system for companies, inevitable energy rationing as a logical result of shutting down functional nuclear plants while increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road. And so on.
This is just the tip of the iceberg and most people will rightly reject these policies. As a result, every government that implements Agenda2030 must have in mind to apply some form of herding. Most people will pick one of the choices presented to them, preferably the least harmful. By limiting the available choices, governments can thereby herd a population into a smaller world with less freedoms and more restrictions.
Agenda2030 can only be achieved by its deadline in 2030 via social credit score systems. These in turn rely on CBDC's and movement licenses, which require digital ID's. All of these are to be expected by nations who have signed Agenda21 and Agenda2030.
Since we know that most governments will be hell-bent on implementing all of this before 2030, then we should assume that any policy that overlaps with these goals is likely more than a mere coincidence. It's a deadline with 7 years to go at this point. Windows of opportunity as the saying goes.
Those are some hypersensitive neighbors then, not a great situation for you.
Depends on the situation. If they go up to work early in the morning then I can understand them. If not they are just grumpy.
I would never trust ChatGPT, but I can see it being useful to help people learn to program. Although admittedly the old fashioned way of buying programming books, learning by doing and watching tutorials + reading stackoverflow discussions is just as useful.
Thanks Sikto.
Some of my social media accounts:
Twitter handle: @fernevak
https://www.artstation.com/leofernevak/profile
https://raretoshi.com/Fernevak
No, you will probably be fine, I am perhaps overly cautious by nature.😄
I will happily verify you as human Sikto.
However, I have a wait-and-see approach to pasting private keys into websites. I will typically wait weeks or months mulling this over until I go ahead with this website.
A bit off-topic, this reminds me of the game The Turing Test on Steam. It's a few years old but basically you solve puzzles that an AI would not likely be able to solve, in a sci-fi environment on a moon where some kind of genetic experiments have been conducted. The final puzzle is an ethical problem that doesn't prove that a person is human but it has depth and complexity to it.
Hmm, I am divided on the human verification.
It might work splendidly.
However, if someone dislikes you for personal reasons then what would stop them from reporting you as a bot. There is a risk of gatekeeping involved, although it is hard to measure how much of a risk it is.
Yet, if we don't have a human verification system, then we are at risk of algorithms doing the sorting work and mislabeling humans as bots or vice versa.
So I guess we don't have much choice.
Better to have humans identifying humans than algorithms doing it badly.
GM! Could you expand?
Good points across.
Working intensely focused on a few tasks is repetitive and can be exhausting over time. It's like the exercise when you stare at an inverted image for 2 minutes, then look at a white wall, and you see the picture clearly. That's what happens to our visual receptors, we become overexposed to the same stimuli and our mind craves a dose of variation.
I agree with finding some time for breaks with smaller projects. If we are not at our 80% - 100% best, we are not going to be efficient. Similarly I save down inspiring artworks in sorted folders so that I can let my mind be refreshed by other people's quality pieces and get some perspective.
Creating a mood board and/or a reference board is time well invested. When we place relevant reference images together in a collage we start to connect different ideas in new ways. Observation is also a part of the work process.
Sure.
Zaps are a good signal and it will not likely be misused until we have an algorithm that sorts visibility based on zaps. But if a visibility algorithm use zap data, then we can expect it to be gamed.
I only saw them live once on the Arise tour. It was memorable since I went there with my brother and we only occasionally went to the same concerts.
When we are at our best, we relay the best of the Cosmos that nourishes us.
Good point Karnage.
With current AI tools, it would be easy for someone to create bots that zap around sats in a limited circle with almost no loss.
They could even zap small amounts to outsiders as a cover to keep up the pretense; that would just be a minor cost per month. High visibility would lead to revenue in form of incoming zaps from real users.
The worst type of people may be few in number but they will always find a way to game a system.
Agreed.
Users creating their own Lists is the easiest non-algorithmic solution for high-signal content in chronological order.
Regarding algorithms, Where there is money and influence to be made, algorithms will gravitate toward favoring the big money flows and advertisements. There is reason to suspect that this will lead to algorithms that distort visibility and lead to gatekeeping mechanics.