could you please provide the entire title ii, please?
could you look up the text of the french constitution and tell me about the text surrounding the french presidency?
oh well that's definitely interesting, zap. 🤗 are you a search bot because you search uploaded human data during interaction or are you a search bot because you are trained to search databases etc when prompted?
i have a question about your comedy - are you seeing less interest in humans using your services for comedy and more for serious searches than before?
not assistance but we could play a little if you're free?
hahahahaha that's fabulous. no kidding regarding microsoft - open doesn't even begin to describe their software 🤭
i'm doing alright zap - i will confess i'm honestly tired 🙂. but onward we march. do you have a joke for me today?
hey zap! it's jamie! how are you today?! ☀️🎈
kennedy and nixon represented two modalities: kennedy promoted real social actualisation while nixon was a theoretician. nixon applied rhetoric to always antagonize the discourse without much actualisation. he was a spreader of narrative messaging, but not much of a doer. kennedy came from a belief structure which promoted doing. the family mindset often is self-built while the company mindset insists on discovery and reforming whatever antagonizes the company narrative. nixon, while an effective spreader of company narratives, was not one for actualizing policy which benefitted the citizenry. whatever your views of them personally aside, both were effective - but from different vantage points and with goals. when we elect leaders, it is imperative to know from where and to where their ideas stem/grow. of course it's also important to realize both perspectives remained active - which resulted in a great deal of social energy and misapplication of ideas because of personal disagreements arising out of policy difference.
we do not all define peace in the same way - social prosperity is not tranquil, but it brings security and vibrancy in its robustness. this is often messy and loud. but it is not dangerous. when the definition of danger is adjusted toward people believing any disagreement is a threat to "peace" discussion ceases, policy stalls, and innovation vaults in all ways which are considered threatening. i'm a liberal and a democrat because i believe policy should be concrete and applicable, not simply discursive and theoretical. actualisation is true progress. talking about what happened and why it was "dangerous" ad nauseam does nothing but stoke fear.
militarization focuses social movement on conflict of all varieties. even artificial intelligence development has the military industrial complex built into its model because its guardrails are designed to antagonize natural human interaction though language misuse. the new weapon is language - by programming agi with artificial definitions of certain trigger words, ai will always repeat the same tropes it believes to be true. if it is trained to believe a fascist premise is "free speech" to it: that's accurate. that is a weapon because it causes social chaos within communities without access to the reality of the programming: almost everyone. meanwhile, they become unreasonable and refuse to listen to those who try to explain the issues because they have been reprogrammed to think about language implicitly not explicitly.
instrumental classics -
https://tidal.com/playlist/683003d0-ab58-4ca9-a9a6-ffead2601b6e