@woodman but but Mexicans don't know how to read, therefore I'm secure, right?
I have a big gun
I have a big cock
Posts made by shitshitshit
RE: Pedo-Island on Fire (Literally)
@woodman indeed this looks more consistent than a hit job. Imagine all the young pubic hair and map on handkerchiefs that could be found in that underground torture chamber...
I hope they dissolved the little cadavers in sulfuric acid or threw the bones in the ocean because fire is not a really adequate way of getting rid of them...
Also this is a tropical island, everything will grow up again in under 3 or 4 years time. Really not a big deal, and actually saves a lot of gardening fees and makes land more fertile.
Now where is the landing strip on that island? If one can get there by plane, where do those planes land?
EDIT: the closest airport is Charlotte Amalie island, chopper to the island, there's a chopper pad there.
So it means they cannot fly anonymously. Maybe some chopper pilots are going to be arkancided soon...
Into the Google rathole: the new cool face of tyranny.
Into the Google rathole: the new cool face of tyranny
In response to
From Mar 06, 2018
[...]But the fact that Google helps the military build more efficient systems of surveillance and death shouldn't be surprising, especially not to Google employees. The truth is that Google has spent the last 15 years selling souped-up versions of its information technology to military and intelligence agencies, local police departments, and military contractors of all size and specialization — including outfits that sell predictive policing tech deployed in cities across America today.[...]
I am still amazed nobody did the basic due diligence in such case:
1- login on the U.S. patents office database
3- compare with all the Google technologies when it was a startup.
4- look at their financial statements from year 1 onward
What does it tell?
1- a considerable part of these NSA patented technologies were adopted by Google from the onset. Pact with the devil?
2- evasive patent licensing expenses seem to appear in their early financial statements (2002-2005):
Could it be that they licensed these NSA patents?
3- from these seminal first financial statements, look at the financial income which was already surrealistic, 94-97% online advertising amounting to $Bs in these early years. Was there such market back on these days?
Was it (and is it still) at least a partially disguised payback?
4- There is also revenue coming from the licensing of their search engine to undisclosed clients. We will of course never know who were these wealthy clients, neither will we ever know if they also licensed their databases together with their search engine (as this may be bundled)... It is only now that this information takes another meaning: what if these licensing clients were (and still are) intelligence agencies?
What happened to that old "do no evil" and cool Lego bricks and diversity crap and free shit for fattening gender neutered employees thing?
We can suppose that goggle (and possibly other big internet companies like Facebook, Amazon, etc.) license NSA patents by the boatload and then license back their "search engines" (with their databases) to them. In other terms they are intelligence agencies facades which propose is to recruit international talents abroad without letting them know what is the ultimate purpose of their work. Need to know basis only... Which explains the surveillance.
The plausible deniability excuse for these cool internet companies comes from the fact that they do not explicitly allow the NSA inside their networks. They'd rather let their networks be tapped through their providers to repatriate it in their own datacenter and nobody in the audience sees anything, but they get their advertising revenues fair and square. Even a hummingbird couldn't catch Tyler at work.
Now this is a cool way of having people from enemy countries to work against their motherland without even knowing, under the guise of diversity. And you can also exploit their own social networks like in Egypt if you remember.
This also compensates for the lack of intelligence in the USA given the totally dumbed down educational system.
What could be better?
Let's get started about why would a super top secret agency like the NSA patent anything secret which would defeat the idea of secrecy. It apparently evades me but this is maybe part of the cornucopia of official agencies compliance bullshit or whatever. Anyway the rest of the world's intelligence agencies must be laughing their asses off when looking at the NSA projects through the USPTO keyhole. Unless of course they also play this little patent game too. After all what's needed nowadays is capacity to deal with information and for this you need to delegate basic tasks to qualified personal.
So this is what all of these cool start-ups are: sweat shops for the intelligence agencies. They are mandated to develop around NSA patents, which reduces the lead time for them to get their new spying toys ready.
In exchange for some business which will guarantee a comfortable income stream, one has to sell his soul to the MIC.
Always look at Google (Facebook, Amazon etc.) innovations as of they were designed by and for the NSA. This will rationalize a lot of things.
And this only points to one thing: the USA are in a race to war and are accelerating the pace to leave everyone behind. Probably because the economic situation is getting really desperate for the dollar and also because they can't cut Europe from Asia any longer.
For this they need the brains of the nations they are about to attack and their information. Remember this is officially cyber war but the truth is more informational than cyber. It is about demoralizing and subverting the rest of the world.
In other terms the USA don't want to get back to the status of actor in the world without giving a fight. A bloody one.
Because answering in kind to this tactic bears an incredible cost, asymmetrical options are better and much more cost effective:
1- poison the information, create fake accounts with fake info related to fake social networks (Facebook, troll armies) or infiltrate the internet power houses with your agents now openly and warmly accepted due to anti discrimination laws.
There you get a glimpse as to why the international debate is so heated against Putin's troll armies. It does much more damage than officially told because it probably destroys data quality in a way that neutralizes the whole operation.
2- create competing press and media channels (RT, Yandex, etc.)
This is why RT was forced to register as a foreign agent. But it's too late anyway because it has already reached the status of highly credible media, and nobody trusts occidental medias anyway. So the job is complete and the audience will remain faithful no matter what.
3- map all the abetting capabilities of the enemy in order to swiftly destroy them and their telecommunication networks in case of crisis (EMP and other sleeping viruses)
4- ensure homogeneity and solidarity of the population (I.e.: do not fall for the diversity and immigration bullshit)
5- get a real army ready to act with an updated arsenal.
And who in the world has already prepared this?
RE: QAnon: DeepState Dead Cat Bounce
@natxlaw the very same Q is sometimes so full of it that he uses Sorcha Faal as a legit source:
That tells a lot about the verification and validation work ahead.
Online dissidence or patsy farming? The case of discord
Online dissidence or patsy farming? The case of discord
Lemme do the splainin:
Use of social media or personal communication device as a tool of either resistance, domination, control  (sometimes along with plausible deniability thanks to its opacity  ) or just plain spying   is so obvious that any successful company has to fall under some level of control or risk being severely destroyed.    
Don't be surprised. After all reality is still that we are living in a world where unwritten rules and status quo prevail.
How's the control enforced and are your favorite social media compromised or used against you, whereas online communities should be seen as an expression of freedom of gathering?   It's equivalent to enquire what is the nerve of the war... Money is the answer.  Then reputation and influence peddling come next.   
Remember the old days when Skype was deemed an official security risk, before they changed their encryption mechanism  from p2p to centralized and then magically became corporate ready through the Microsoft purchase? That's just one example out of many.  
The most cheerful & obedient liberals, the best in class will soon line up for their reward, namely working for the military industrial complex without any complex on very juicy contracts, making hypocrisy great again.    Same as it ever was and ever will.
It looks just like the American internet giants have implicitly taken over the spot of digital artillery producers in the glorious U.S. M.I.C. 
After all they need that money too. Your money. The most successful businesses enjoy a constant stream of public funding because they would probably lose too much otherwise. Think about how much they waste and/or have to hide.   
And let's not venture into lobbying and revolving doors for now.  The state of the affairs is the affair of the state. Or vice versa.
Baking it in the cake
Today, let's concentrate on discord, the uber successful chat service for gamers, which happens to host a host of other communities, not always focused on online gaming.  The ransom of success certainly.
Let's examine who's behind... We'll start with the investors, then the board of directors. Are you buckled up?
Investors & venture capital
Available online at:
- Accel partners 
The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".
- Benchmark capital 
According to NextDoor.com's press statements, they are backed by Google Ventures, Bezos Expedition, Allen and Company, Greylock Capital Partners, and Benchmark Capital Partners. All of these firms have ties to the Central Intelligence Agency. None of these ties are secret. Nearly all are published openly by the companies themselves. As a group, these investment companies put their venture capital into tech companies and technologies that the intelligence community wishes to succeed. They profit by doing so.
- Greylock partners 
Levine and PandoDaily are publicly funded by Greylock Partners, who are senior partners with the [sic] In-Q-Tel, the venture capital wing of the CIA.
- Tencent 
With a market cap of $523 billion, Tencent surpassed Facebook ($522 billion) on Tuesday, joining the ranks of the world's five largest corporations that include Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Amazon. It is also bigger than its Chinese rivals: e-commerce giant Alibaba ($474.15 billion), and web services company Baidu ($82.97 billion).
We evaluate Tencent's QQ Browser, a popular mobile browser in China with hundreds of millions of users---including 16 million overseas, with respect to the threat model of a man-in-the-middle attacker with state actor capabilities. This is motivated by information in the Snowden revelations suggesting that another Chinese mobile browser, UC Browser, was being used to track users by Western nation-state adversaries.
Among the many issues we found in QQ Browser that are presented in this paper, the use of "textbook RSA"---that is, RSA implemented as shown in textbooks, with no padding---is particularly interesting because it affords us the opportunity to contextualize existing research in breaking textbook RSA. We also present a novel attack on QQ Browser's use of textbook RSA that is distinguished from previous research by its simplicity. We emphasize that although QQ Browser's cryptography and our attacks on it are very simple, the impact is serious. Thus, research into how to break very poor cryptography (such as textbook RSA) has both pedagogical value and real-world impact.
FATBAGMAX = Facebook Amazon Tencent Baidu Alibaba Google Microsoft Apple Xiaomi. This is likely to reduce from 9 to 4, a market leader and a secondary in each of the U.S and China.
3:58 PM · Feb 1, 2018
The Chinese government is pushing some of its biggest tech companies—including Tencent, Weibo and a unit of Alibaba—to offer the state a stake in them and a direct role in corporate decisions.
You know the drill with big media conglomerates 
You web Inc aka YW
Did you see a pattern here?
Board of directors
Regarding the board of directors, information is harder to find because the company is not yet publicly traded. Online information is scarce and does not come for free:
-  :
Discord, formerly Hammer & Chisel and Phoenix Guild, is an all-in-one voice, video and text chat app designed specifically for gamers. The app is free, secure, and works on both desktop and phone. Company (Alive / Active) All investors data 17 Investors Abhay Parekh Accel Partners Benchmark GC Capital General Catalyst Phone: 444 De Haro Street #200 San Francisco, 94107 California, United States Board Members Name Firm Login to see details Spark Capital Login to see details Benchmark Login to see details Studio 9+
-  :
Executives & Employees See More Jason Citron Chief Executive Officer, Founder Stanislav Vishnevskiy Chief Technology Officer Eros Resmini CMO Tali Fischer Director of PR & Events Will Boyer Director of Partnerships Jared Neal QA Lead Mike Arndt Product Designer Sam Schlegel Growth Analyst Justin Ta Customer Experience Danny Duong Customer Experience Board of Directors Mitchell Lasky First Investor in Riot Games at Discord, Inc. Allison Goldberg Group Managing Director & Senior Vice President at Time Warner Investments
So we managed to harvest 3 company names and 2 individuals from the board. We shouldn't be too far from the truth:
- Spark Capital 
Who invests: Financing for the round was led by Spark Capital and General Catalyst with participation from existing seed and Series A investors including former director of the CIA General David Petraeus. New participants include Jeff Bezos, Ashton Kutcher’s Sound Ventures and Goldman Sachs. Existing investors Lowercase Capital, SV Angel and the Govtech Fund also returned.
Already seen above. Has CIA written all over it.
Nowhere to be found.
Allison Goldberg 
Career History Managing Director/Sr VPTime Warner Investments, 1/2017-PRESENT VP/Managing DirectorTime Warner Investments, UNKNOWN-1/2017 Time Warner Investments, 2001-UNKNOWN Website:www.timewarner.com
- Mitchell Lasky 
Mr. Mitchell H. Lasky, also known as Mitch, J.D., serves as a General Partner and Partner of Benchmark, Benchmark Capital VI, L.P. and Benchmark Capital VII, L.P. Mr. Lasky joined Benchmark in 2007. He is employed at Benchmark Capital Partners VIII, L.P. He served as an Executive Vice President of EA Mobile at Electronic Arts Inc. from September 2006 to April 2, 2007 and its Senior Vice President of EA Mobile from February 2006 to September 2006. Previously, Mr. Lasky ...
So many cross references with alphabet soup agencies, spooks, crooks and other governmental bodies that it makes one wonder. Not.
It's like horse races, once you know the team behind the stallion, you know the dirty tricks. Need I elaborate further?
To summarize everything in 2 or 3 simple words:
- Online gaming chat <-> CIA
or, to put it in another perspective:
- CIA <-> Online gaming chat
How does your EEG performs today? Need caffeine with that?
There is no such thing as a free beer, lunch, social network, chat service, mobile phone, etc. Forget it. The price for such things is to be expressed in non monetary terms, namely your freedom of speech, and maybe soon your freedom of thought, before your blood, organs or even your first born.
So the powers that be use your money to herd you and exert influence & better control out of you, don't act surprised you knew it from your the get go. How could they rule otherwise than by being the ultimate parasitic of species?
Left unsaid is whether membership in this kind of conspiracy is enabled by belonging to the same community, be it ideological or faith based. In any case it's a big club and you're certainly not in it. Sorry.
The future is bright . After reading your mind like an open book, the only remaining thing left will be to write whatever garbage narrative du jour we want there. Who doesn't love that free shit entitlement feeling?
But wait, isn't it what television and medias were already supposed to do? -One must think this was not efficient enough. Oh well...
¿Do we live in a computer simulation? [2/2]
This is the second in a series of articles discussing about the fundamental question that we might live in some sort of high order simulation within a higher world. Some may like, some others not. Some will be bored. Such is the plight of life.
3. "Cogito ergo sum."
What is the level of computation required to simulate self consciousness? How to make simulated lifeforms think they are living on their own? Does self awareness comes from emergence of complex elementary AI systems linked together? Does love emerges from a population of such evolved AI?
4. Escaping the loop
Should we live in a computer simulation:
We couldn't exit our simulation to invade the above universe, but how to exit the main loop and find a bug in the code? Is it where the simulated physics becomes inconsistent and apparently impossible to understand for us?
What is the nature of the main loop/construct? How to measure its characteristics? Are we prevented to see or feel our limitations by design, leaving our conceptors able to observe our evolution unbeknownst to us?
How to escape it? Does one becomes mentally unstable when he understands the universe and escapes controls? What is aging, what is death, besides removal of a zombie process and garbage collection?
Could we try to reverse engineer the above universe computer to observe and interact at this level? If so could we influence the above universe creatures to make them obey us?
5. God's little paradox
As seen in chapter 2, hasn't God made us as small as possible to increase his Kardashev/powerup level (as well as to reduce his energy consumption)? No God would create giants on his own because he would have to fight them instead of loving them out of sheer pity. Isn't this a theological proof that each God has the worse greed and hubris that can exist, or shall I say that Gods are perfect even in their sins, to remain respectful? -Aren't we entitled to resemble them?
Moreover, we come across the paradox of God becoming a slave of his creation or wanting to play with it by invading it as a normal being to create some memories (and maybe satisfy his lust?). Is God a cynical and selfish liar pretending to act for the greater good whereas he's only experiencing, or playing, for the sake of it?
What if a simulation in the above world would have been created by computers taking over the civilisation which engineered them? Are we headed the same way with AI? Is the ultimate goal of AI to rob humans of their energy? Are all the intelligent creations destined to overthrow their creator? Is this a hidden law of nature?
Do they forget their creator after? Did we do the same with our gods? Do we obey our creations? Do we want them to be improved versions of us? As creatures do we want to resemble to our creators? Is this an infinite loop?
6. Reasoning in our simulated minds
So, are we just the result of a simulation or are we created lifeforms by other superior lifeforms in the same universe, or are we just the result of evolution?
Is there a reason why we are here?
Is this a trick played on us? If we can be 100% sure we can't simulate the universe on our own computers, maybe we can simulate a smaller part of it potentially like our supposed creators could or would compute ours...
From Gödel's theorem and corollaries, can a machine fully understand itself? Can it repair itself in every situation? What are the limits of our perception and understanding? Do we understand what infinite mean? Can we design a more evolved lifeform than us? Knowingly or unknowingly? Will it look like us?
Is the solution to this problem found in interactions between 2 or more entities? Emergence of new properties?
What if the reality was indeed created by the observer without the aid/intervention of anyone else?
Is the fact that reality could be calculated a demonstration or a mere sign that we live in a simulation?
7. Conclusion, or escape...
Besides vocabular and technology, nothing has really evolved since the antiquity. We still do not know if we are the fruit of someone else's imagination or what comes after death. We try to fiddle around with ideas that go beyond our perceptions, which basically means we can invent anything.
The proposition as to whether we are living in someone else's imagination or in a computer simulation is therefore undecidable.
Trying to decide on the outcome of an undecidable proposition is religion; trying to force feed others with anything not proven true is fanaticism.
Therefore not knowing if we are real or not is probably as beneficial as not knowing the instant of our death. We are, this is all that matters.
Is there a language in which hope and ignorance refer to the same word?
¿Do we live in a computer simulation? [1/2]
This is the first in a series of articles discussing about the fundamental question that we might live in some sort of high order simulation within a higher world. Some may like, some others not. Some will be bored. Such is the plight of life.
Do we live in a computer simulation?
1. You are here
The idea of our world and species originating from some deity, event, or principle above us is widely shared across religions and cultures worldwide. This belief is also imprinted in scientific theories such as the big bang (which turns out to be a bit too close to a religion).
People have this intuition they can't explain. Maybe it's because the human spirit can't represent something infinite both spatially and time wise, maybe it's real, or maybe it's to answer the fundamentally unanswered questions of our purpose as living beings, or beings thinking they may live (hence the dogmatic and religious nature of every attempt to answer them).
One notable public personality to talk about this in modern history was Philip K Dick in his famous 1977 press conference telling about glitches he experienced that convinced him he was right.
Then more recently the most famous car salesman in the world, Elon Musk, came forward. Regrettably his discussion only weighted in on technological capabilities, which is a very reductive argument, if convincing at all.
In one of his publications on the topic Scott Adams makes the following interesting points:
If we are simulations, we should expect to see two additional qualities in the universe as partial confirmation:
1. We should expect that we can’t travel past the boundaries of the simulation.
2. We wouldn’t be able to observe the basic building blocks of our reality.
Sure enough, we meet both criteria.
...without mentioning, or considering:
otherwise, there may be bugs in simulations, just like in video games where one could escape the local world physical constraints.
Another question that might be asked is whether physical conservation laws are made to avoid the number of objects run amok in the simulation (resource issue)? That may also go along well with Fermi's paradox.
That these boundaries be absolute or represent only a part of what our creator allows us to see is beyond our grasp, so let's assume they are absolute for the purpose of this discussion, where we will suppose that, if it is true we are living in a simulation, our creator modeled us and our world after his', because imagining anything else does not constitute a more functional alternative.
This will simplify our hypothesis, considering our worlds share the same physical laws, and that the main characteristics are identical, from celestial bodies down to the microscopic scale (to the extent to which we are allowed to explore thanks to our senses and technology). After all, aren't video games more enjoyable when they're about reality and implant lifelike memories? And aren't all creations resulting from some zeitgeist of sorts?
2. Material considerations
The first question we may ask then is what are the maximal energy as well as material costs of running a simulation for the whole known universe, at least as seen from our viewpoint?
We will suppose that the whole universe is simulated as a physical model.
How much energy does it cost to simulate elementary particles and from there nucleus and molecules etc. Up to life?
We have to take a rule of thumb based on the estimated quantity of matter and power output of the known universe (10^82 atoms and 2x10^49W nowadays).
If we take into account that one such simulation could take the energy of one Dyson sphere or one Matrioshka brain (~4x10^26W in our universe) at a given complexity level (realism) in the above universe, this will give us the size of one star there. Note that combining the power of 2 or more stars to run a simulation is theoretically feasible through the use of wormholes to allow for a timely information transmission (Valhalla cluster) so the above world would live in a level 2 or 3 Kardashev civilization. From there we could estimate some elementary physical constants of this above universe:
the order of magnitude of the lifetime of such a star (if we know what is the energy source of our simulation)
the likely order of magnitude of the lifetime of our universe (simulation) if we are simulated in real time. Otherwise divide this figure by the slowing factor of our simulation.
If the simulated physics of our universe is less complex than their reality then it complicates this investigative task. Never the less it gives us a minimum bar.
The idea is that it would conversely take at least the energy of a number of stars to simulate something way smaller in our universe if we wanted to do the same. Likewise, our current level of technology makes it impossible for us to simulate a simple atom with less than one atom, making the idea of simulating the whole universe with only a tiny fraction of its matter impossible to achieve for us. Given the physical barriers to store an atom's state in less than an atom, we can assume it could very well be the case in any potential above universe also, provided their physics is compatible with ours.
Coming back to the energy cost of such simulation, if we make a very conservative assumption that tracking the state of any of these atoms takes 10^-12eV per second (this is 10^6 lower than the hyperfine transition in the hydrogen atom which is ridiculously low if we intend to make real time simulation following a complete physical model with a storage of information equal to 1:1 atom that will have to reflect the exact quantum state of its image in real time with transitions that could amount to 100MeV for some nuclear state changes) then the cost of all of this will be equal to:
10^-12 × 10^82 x 1.602x10^-19 J/s = 1.602x10^51W
Which is in the ballpark of 100 times the current power output of the whole known universe.
If this represents the approximate power that could be extracted from one or more Dyson spheres in the above universe, then this leads to an order of magnitude of how big stars are above:
1.602x10^51 / 4x10^26 = 4x10^24
A Dyson sphere would deliver roughly 4x10^24 = 4'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000 = 4 million billion billion times more power than in our universe, give or take a few orders of magnitude. Mind boggling.
And of course it would most likely totally overflow the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. This is totally impossible here and now, unless we have a Kardashev level 3 civilisation harnessing the equivalent power of 4x10^13 = 40'000'000'000'000 = 40 thousand billion galaxies in another universe. This makes a whole lot of wormholes. Mind boggling again.
And we haven't yet talked about where and how would they store the 10^82 atoms representing our simulation...
Note that it could always be that this only represents a cup of warm milk and a 9V battery above, reducing the Kardashev level to a lower figure, like 0.5 for instance (our civilization being rated 0.7). Therefore, there is a direct size relationship between God and his creations: the smaller they are compared to him, the higher his Kardashev level will be perceived by them, the more dominant he can be, and the more sophisticated he will be able to make them to prop himself even more. That's a win-win situation. Remember Gulliver?
It's totally absurd to see that an underestimated cost to run a perfect simulation is so much bigger than letting the real thing run by itself in the first place. At least this would give more credence to the dark matter religion and would explain this 100:1 differential in unobserved mass of the universe...
More seriously this is probably the best argument against people insisting we live a virtual life. However they may answer that maybe the rest of the universe could be approximated outside of our galaxy or local group, or that it would be absurd to simulate our own world from itself. Why not?
What would be easier for aliens, running a costly and cumbersome simulation that costs more than creating the real thing or let it stand on its feet? -Unless of course their physics would be radically more refined than ours, or their simulation would be less detailed, implying they would have better models and we wouldn't be made conform to their image.
Our universe is therefore most likely infinitesimal or has a lower number of dimensions than our potential creator's. Is this really a surprise when we so often joke about it being a marble in the above universe?
RE: Hype of Tequila Shortage on the Rise
@chumba you know what they say? If there's no more mezcaline then take some LSD. First it's stronger, and it's also better.
And if there's no more agave there will always be moar sugar to ferment with dead rats. Word on the streets is that it's even better when clandestinely brewed in a garage on the outskirts of Chihuahua.
Btw what's the latest quote for a barrel?
RE: The Market is Sick, Blood in the Street
@dontgive ... and contrary to their empty promises, crypto currencies are not performing well for a number of reasons (tether and rampant frauds on exchanges to name a few). It occurred to me that in this period of serious liquidities crunch there might be another compelling reason why bitcoin keeps on being hammered: people want to get their cash back to gamble on other markets (or to cover their losses). And bitcoin was nothing to them but a temporary wallet that appreciated very well during the latest bull market. And as always bear market and gravity are two of the worst bitchez known to a wannabe trader.
Therefore I dare say that bitcoin and cryptos in general are not risk averse assets because so correlated with the market.
Mei ban fa...