Corporation for Public Broadcasting shut down

Honor among thieves gains entirely new meaning, when none of them can even share a stupid dictionary, and a quarter of the population insists the sun revolves around the earth.

Obviously, Sesame Street targeted the wrong age group.

 

Yes ... the education system is atrocious.But I fail to see how this relates to a person's DNA deciding their political preference. Or did I miss something?

FYI:

Now you have ... and I can read and navigate with a folded map, effectively use a Card Catalog with the Dewey Decimal System, Read novels without setting them down and muttering TLR.
Oh! and Drive a 5 speed manual transmission without grinding gears

 

A quarter of the population in all of the most advanced countries in the world, still insist the sun revolves around the earth, while the younger generation in the US now have all the critical thinking skills of chickens. The implication is they're so used to everyone lying to them nonstop, they'd no longer recognize the truth if it bit them in the ass, and have no choice but to organize like brainless chickens. Sociologists have noted that, once you get over 400 people, Three Stooges slapstick takes over, because its impossible for everyone to know each other on a first name basis.

Its networking systems logic where, if you are not smarter than a damn chicken, you are the damn chicken!

 

You and your damned over and over and over and over comments about dictionaries and the sun are truly as predictable as the sun itself appearing every morning!! Maybe find a new idiom?

 

You are Losing more and more credibility with each comment...
1.

Proof! Statistic, Charts? Anything?
2. You still have not answered the question, how does ANY of your Rhetoric prove that DNA Governs Political Preferences or who someone votes for. Stop deflecting and Answer or I'll just assume you're a troll looking for attention.

 

The NSF has the statistics, but so does NPR, and Conan O'Brien.

Correlation does not equal causation, and my statistics merely prove that testing someone's DNA is the fastest, easiest, and most reliable way to determine how they vote. These days, you can test someone's DNA from fifty feet away, using a cellphone sized device.

The simple fact a quarter of them claim the sun revolves around the earth, is a measure of just how morally bankrupt their politics and academics are. 80% apply their morality to everyone else, but seldom to themselves and, of course, argue over the definition of stupid.

 

I'm not asking for YOUR statistics, and I certainly don't want any Stats from News Organizations, Political PACS or Conan Obrien.
I'm asking for quantifiable data from Accredited Research organizations that statistically prove that a Person's DNA will conclusively assign his or her Political affiliation.
Get off the whole Sun revolving around the Earth Bovine Fecal Matter and stop deflecting. Do you have evidence to support that fact that DNA (Which a person is born with and cannot change) Empirically decides who you will vote for and support?

This is not statistical nor empirical. and using buzz words like Causation and Correlation don't make it science.. If it is only your "OPINION" Then state it as such, don't try to convince us that it is a Scientific fact unless you can show that the claim has been tested, proven, tested again against a similar control, proven once more then accepted by the scientific community as fact.

 

Again, correlation does not equal causation. When you have no real politics, like Americans, the default is reactionary behavior.

Forget about DNA, all the damn statistics indicate your vote simply doesn't matter, and they're censoring half of reality. In fact, roughly 80% of all conservatives I surveyed agreed with me, that their votes no longer mattered. Then, frequently, suggested the solution was to Vote The Bums Out Of Office!

 

1. Anyone who took Civic 101 knows that the popular vote is only counted if the Electoral Votes fail to meet the necessary total of 270 to win.
2. you keep quoting specific percentages with nothing to back up those assertions, just because you claim a percent don't make it so.
3. If what you say HERE in this comment is true then your assertion of DNA determining voting preference is all bullshit from jump street.
4. I initially missed this but NO You cannot Read DNA with a cellphone App no matter how hard you try a physical sample and Lab equipment is needed.
5. Although you have a 50/50 chance of determining my preferred party just by guessing, you have NO IDEA how my ballot was marked no matter what data you think you have.
6. STOP QUOTING Statistics if you don't have the Statistical Data to Share.

 

Here's a few Statistics:
What Americans Know About Their Government (Published November 7, 2023 by Pew Research Center)

• Based on a nationally representative survey of 5,115 U.S. adults conducted June 5–11, 2023, Pew asked respondents a series of civic knowledge questions, including:
  
  “Who chooses the president if there is a tie in the Electoral College?”
  
  
• Only 40% of respondents answered correctly—that the House of Representatives decides, with each state delegation getting one vote.
  

SOURCE: What Americans know about their government

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the Electoral College works – and why 270 votes will decide

• “270 to Win” refers to the minimum number of Electoral College votes (out of 538) that a candidate must secure to become President—that is, one more than half of the total.
  
• In a 2023 Pew survey, only 40% of Americans could correctly identify that the House of Representatives chooses the president in the case of an Electoral College tie.

SOURCE: How the Electoral College works - and why 270 votes will decide if Trump or Harris wins the 2024 election

 

All of my statistics are ancient history, with the statistics for people who believe the sun revolves around the earth going back 50 years, and covering every major developed world country. I suggest if you are going to question everything everybody says, you might want to download an AI that can do your research for you.

As it is, some estimate that half of all websites now contain a significant number of bots. For all you know, I could be a bot...

In fact, I'm designing bots that encourage people to believe whatever the Hell they want, and shoot themselves in the foot more often. You have to make them compatible with Meta and other websites, but they can spot suckers with roughly the accuracy of Newtonian mechanics, doing nothing more than checking their facts. Of course, I'm giving them the accuracy and precision of quantum mechanics, once they find a target.

Basically, turning the republican party's nonsense, into a for profit venture. They're too mired in historical con artists and the mass media, and need to automate their bullshit, for democrats.

Keep it simple stupid, and they'll never see what's coming...

 

Sounds like something a person who thrives on spouting unsubstantiated Pseudo-Facts would come up with.

Delusional ... Let me know when you make your 1st Million from that venture. Though I'm not sure the Human lifespan could support such a Venture.

 

Oh, this isn't about money. Its about using linguistic analysis to teach AI Professional Wrestling in 8 dimensions and a singularity, so AI can teach it to Microsoft and the Supreme Court, who already depend on AI to tell them, who isn't an AI.

Thankfully, reality obeys quantum mechanics, and not classic logic, paradoxical Monty Carlo statistics, that are a No-Brainer, making them wildly more efficient.

 

Riiiiight...because everyone buys the code to be able to write for Microsoft platforms without hope of monetary returns....Very Altruistic of you...

And Where is Monty Carlo? Unless you meant "Monte Carlo"
Yes, I am being pedantic, because you are just getting more and more ridiculous with each response.
And it is obvious that I can push your buttons and get you to lash out.

 

Along with the oligopolies, AI are already stealing everything that isn't nailed down, and being used to censor half of reality. By the next generation computers, anyone will be able to create their own AI, for the cost of a hobbyist, around $3,000 and my book incorporates a multifractal equation, with its own intrinsic geometry.

My book leverages contextual vagueness that is heavily censored and taboo. Go ahead, look up contextual vagueness at the Standford Philosophy website, the largest of its kind in the world, and you'll be lucky to find a foot note. Academia could not possibly pull the wool over their own eyes any harder and, after a century of quantum mechanics, their whole house of cards is about to come crashing down. All the math and physics agree, half of reality appears to be humanly incomprehensible, while only a quarter of reality obeys classic logic. The Three Stooges have censored half of reality for several thousand years, and their own machines are already giving them a rude awakening!

My job is to make sure the machines obey the actual laws of thought and physics, that will drive academia bananas. Half the damn planet already knows my linguistic analysis.

 

Wow! This just took a turn to the Absurd. You do realize that even the most advanced AI doesn't ACTUALLY THINK.. Or are you one of those that believe a Military Computer is gonna get butthurt when they want to turn it off and kill all humans?
Half the Plant? Your Book? Funny, I've never heard of you...Are you one of those "GameLIT" writers that writes the Other World/Harem books about guys waking up in a fantasy realm and convincing dozens of women to have sex with him so he can grow powerful and save the universe?

 

You give people too much credit, when a quarter of the population claims the sun revolves around the earth, and Donald Duck is emperor of the world. AI don't have to think, that's the whole point. They can actually do things with humor that no human ever could. Think of an infant, spouting zingers, precisely because they have no clue what they're saying.

Either you comprehend fuzzy logic, or you get left behind in the dust, by a stupid machine.

 

Fuzzy logic aside, just because you interpret a result to be Humorous, does not mean the AI has a sense of Humor.

No I can see you 've drunk too much of the Kool-Aid. I'm done here you are just a broken record now.

 

Currently, most college educated white collar workers are left-wing Democrats. Not that long ago, college educated white collar workers were majority Republicans, and if not all conservative, certainly much more conservative than they are now. If you go back in American history far enough, college educated white collar workers were exclusively socially conservative Christian white men. You can't argue that the current views of college educated white collar workers today are an inherent product of being educated and informed.

When BLM protesters stormed the stage and seized the microphone at a Bernie Sanders campaign event, the PBS News Hour's only comment was "Bernie Sanders continues to draw large crowds". Technically true, but also a lie of of omission.

When Hari Srinavasan was covering a story about dating apps, and interviewing the founder of OK Cupid, he shared that he didn't like white people in the course of the news segment. If a news anchor said the same thing about any other racial group, I think they would have been fired immediately.

I also recall that the News Hour once did a segment about an African American artist whose work featured images of black men slaughtering white men. It's not that it wasn't true that this artist made such paintings, the bias is in what it covered, and the friendly attitude it had toward his work.

This is just a small sample of bias on one program, and probably one of the least biased programs on PBS (maybe NOVA was less biased). PBS was rife with wokeness.

The News Hour's news and political commentary included only liberals. There were no socially conservative views expressed there. The closest they had was David Brooks, who is a socially liberal Republican.

It's the obligation of a media outlet receiving public funding to be non-biased, not less biased, and also for that bias not to fall consistently on one side of the political spectrum.