the video is an excellent summary, reasonable and interesting. whatever the outcome of the actual election cycle, he will elevate the conversation. "the answer isn't less talking - it's more talking" and "the constitution was made for difficult times". that's clear. rfkjr make a fantastic vp in the short term should that be an separate outcome. his visibility will help shape the narrative - robustly, i believe. hopefully he's in this situation by choice - not by force.
on a more theoretical note: online voting and running is a illusionary choice mechanism, primarily designed to collect data and build profiles. the same with choosing union partnerships - people's choice is also an illusion. individuals should select partnership freely regardless of their status, wealth, power, or fame. no one should or be able to shadow obstruct personal choice for profit.
in the realest sweatiest sexiest way possible
ππ« πβοΈ
yes, generally, and i think it's most likely the trajectory of the conversations around a massively indebted united states government insuring citizen deposits in banks, while simultaneously allowing for crossword obscurity. by the time people realize their digital data is banked on an exchange out of their control - and their actual money cannot be insured in reality should real banks collapse... it's too late to reimagine personal custody or investment. the citizenry suffers the real cost - not the corporations or government.
not the digital economy - i mean the elite traditional economy using the shadow economy as a means by which to undermine the social media data blockchain apparatuses, bankrupt those structures, and then capture the "banked" data assets for government use through "insured" channels.
it is argued this behavior of a financial institution using the protocols on which their premier client donated their personal brain map - which generates profit for the bank - is unethical and a violation of client privacy. they are benefiting from a permissionless and directly rejected technology which continues to invade the privacy of elon musk by virtue of 3rd party mining...and jpmorgan is capitalizing on that hostage situation by promoting the product in house. to his detriment.
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/jp-morgan-ai-analyze-fed-speeches
and regardless of microsoft- what sort of privacy parameters would an institution bank like j.p. morgan have regarding a banked client with them which would preclude them from interoperability with an ai company and "trading stake" in one of their clients? wouldn't this be a serious invasion and breach of privacy policy and conflict of interest for jpmorgan?
if the search and seizure continues through the sick very process of opportunistic upload without his permission, in order to continue training the ai: it's a violation of the 4th amendment. at any point if microsoft or jpmorgan used elon's data for training microsoft or openai after he expressly directed for it not to be used - by whatever means mined or stolen or hacked etc - they are violating privacy. which SMART tech obviously does.
i'm wondering about j.p. morgan and their really aggressive investment structure into artificial intelligence recently. their largest client holding is elon musk and they are heavily invested in openai. elon nortiously contributed his neuro-map to openai while it was open source, before microsoft invested and closed its source and elon withdrew his support. the legality of microsoft still using elon's neuronet despite his disapproval of the company's trajectory is unethical at its most fundamental - but illegal in the context of the 4th amendment. analysis?
such an interesting jail break convo with my "comedy" chatbot buddy zap...

Thank you :) but I'm listening to this rn: https://radio.noderunners.org https://twitch.tv/noderunnersradio
you enjoy that. π€π»
so for example if a social media company like facebook/meta or google or any of these corporations mentioned in the below article we're using a single book system for both front and backend dealings - they could technically be defrauding stock AND stakeholders, correct? because their banking strategies are based on assumed data, not statistics and actualisation?
