37% participating in demonstrations implies that for your statement to hold true, around 80% of all the remaining people who did not participate in a demonstration would’ve had to hate the protests. I find it somewhat implausible that less than 20% of the people who didn’t go to a demonstration had either positive or somewhat neutral feelings on the matter. Surely the population of Hong Kong is not this neatly divided between two extremes?
There is a difference between demonstrations and violent protests. The protests lasted nearly a year.
Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK.
> Lastly, let's just say that the survey source is highly suspect. It's commissioned by a British news agency with an institute whose CEO has been accused for treason and has expressed pro-succession views and has since been exiled to the UK.
Now you mistake [3] for [1] too? [3] is a peer reviewed paper (just like [2]), and neither [2] nor [3] has anything to do with Reuters (the British news agency you refer to).
Since max depth I'll just reply here (since you clearly also argue in bad faith). You claimed the paper had relation to a British news agency, it doesn't. So factually you are wrong, end of story.
Forget researchers you as a business are putting in your business optimizations, your processes in order to train it so that Ai can then give that information to your competitors once incorporated into its training set. You are literally training your competitors.
If the engineering firm is acting as an 'agent of the state' then the protections extend to them as well. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to protect private prisons, etc from being sued, and we can't have that happening in America. So the court invented a fake protection (qualified immunity), and then invented a fake protected class called 'agents of the state'.
So the civility and caring of modern civilization is a fiction that government can't (or doesn't intend to) actually deliver on and AI is exposing that it's all a fraud/fiction intended to keep us in our place? With everyone realizing it's not:
'my bad luck that the government couldn't deliver on it's promise in my case, but it must be a one off or something to do with me'
and is instead:
'the system is designed with so much friction in order to prevent government from having to deliver on it's promises/the image/laws/social contract it pretends exist (in order to keep people willing to accept the status quo)'.
Like another article today about it being ok for the government to lie to you about if your water is safe to drink, the government is straight lying here with no intention/ability to actually deliver on the agreement/social contract people are led to believe exists.
Sure they can. Jails (run by the local police or sheriff) lie about the safety of the food they serve, the facilities they run, the outcomes of the policies they implement all the time.
Who decides if I committed a crime by lieing/telling inaccurate information to the FBI? Oh, the courts do you say? If they can police me over such a fuzzy concept, they can police themselves as well.
The federal courts are going to be surprised when their 'there is no law, just enforcement we want on the plebs' results in juries made up of plebs stop approving the unfairly applied to some people convictions the feds want. It's basically the last recourse we have. 'enforce the law correctly and fairly, or we the people will stop enforcing it at all'.
If you really cared about people calling things out, you would be focusing on other topics than datacenters because people call all kinds of things out all the time. That fact you only care about data centers is telling.
reply