You really need to watch Red Dwarf
I was just on my way mention this 😅
Absolute first thing I thought of.
I’m partial to the theory that Kennedy’s head spontaneously exploded, a rare but not unheard-of phenomenon, and the authorities hurried to find and frame some schmuck for shooting him, because the idea that an assassin could kill the President would lead to far less existential terror and mass panic than the idea that the President’s head could spontaneously explode without explanation, as could anybody else’s.
My favourite theory. "His head just did that"
Kennedy suddenly dreamed up a basilisk
That’s a dangerous idea you’re playing with
some thoughts may be hazardous to your skull integrity
Cognitohazard on the grassy knoll
"AI" doesn't understand how guns work. There's a dial sight on the bolt ...
That's actually a comforting fact, honestly.
THAT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED GUNS TO KILL HUMANS.
I MEAN THEY DON'T NEED GUNS. Guns used by AI would be designed to be used by AI. We already have automatic nerf and paintball turrets which to me says even if I haven't seen one, it exists for real guns too. Such a device would be perfect for AI control. Perfect in some strange sense anyway...
We already have automatic nerf and paintball turrets which to me says even if I haven’t seen one, it exists for real guns too.
I'd like to introduce you to the US Navy's Phalanx CWIS. It's a fully automated 20mm rotary turret designed to destroy aircraft, missiles, and small boats.
I'm not sure I understand what is going on in that video. Is the line from tracers and it's just firing stupidly fast?
Yeah. The line is tracers. Only every 7th round or something like that is a tracer, though. So for every one you're seeing there's another six you're not seeing. It's very much an 'accuracy by volume' sort of deal.
And the barrel extension/trunnion has dials too ...
Infinite Multiverse Theory states that there are infinite possibilities and infinite outcomes that all exist, or not.
So in this universe JFK assassinated president Lee Harvey Oswald.
Is an a.i. derivative image of a political figure considered art or a political figure? I'll poll my fellow mods on the rule 4. Interesting. Because this is the issue in Hollywood. I'll vouch for you, Stamets.
I don't see "AI" being a relevant factor here, it should be treated the same as if it was drawn, photoshopped or otherwise.
Although I don't know the full intention of the rule as it was originally created, I assume the intention to be avoiding political debate here. One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is by banning political figures, no questions asked, but that also prohibits a bunch of content that is unlikely to result in political debate.
At the same time, we have
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods
so I would consider this an exception on that ground.
IMO this post stays. It breaks the letter of the rule but does not break the intent of the rule.
Fuck you, Oliver Stone.
I knew it, I'm finally not alone
General rules:
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
