Comments by "Perhaps" (@NoEgg4u) on "Forbes Breaking News" channel.

  1. 17
  2. 10
  3. 4
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. @1:28 "...so that they can just slip in line..." That is called "Line Cutting". No one is allowed to reserve public parking spots (which is akin to reserving a spot in a public line for your car). When your car gets there, then that is when you have your spot in the line. Do the affluent get to have others save public spots for themselves? Imagine you are in a full parking lot, waiting for 15 minutes for someone to pull out, and then someone just drives in and takes the spot of a friend that was sitting there, parked. They do not get to exchange spots. When someone pulls out, then the person who was there first, waiting the longest, gets that spot. The person pulling out (the person leaving) does not get to choose who is next. I have seen family members stand in parking spots in Manhattan, "reserving" the spot for their spouse or parent. So you drive up to that available spot (the only available spot), and someone is standing in it, waiting for a vehicle that is not there. So those with someone that can stand in the spot gets to reserve spots? It is absurd. it is selfish. It is illegal. It is not a matter of who gets there first. Rather, it is a matter of who gets their car there first. If I were on the line, waiting to charge my EV, and someone tried to cut the line (such as what Jennifer Granholm did), there is no way that they would get in front of me. By the way, those charging stations are powered by fossil fuels, making Jennifer Granholm's propaganda event all the more absurd. That's right. Fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity that powers those charging stations.
    2
  8. 1
  9. 1
  10. 1) When AI uses closed source code, that should be disclosed. A warning that the AI is programmed by people that might have an agenda, and the output from the AI might reflect such an agenda. Ergo, the output from the AI should not be trusted, implicitly. The output from an AI will likely contain the biases of the people that programmed the AI. 2) If an AI is used to impersonate a public official ("deep fake"), or a person running for public office, a public service warning must be included with that impersonation, unless the impersonation is clearly obvious and intended for satire. 3) If an AI is used to impersonate a public official, for the purpose of issuing a public announcement that is deemed to be from that actual public official, then any harm that is a result of that impersonation will be a violation of the law. This would be the same as someone wearing make-up, or a mask, and portraying themselves in an official capacity. For example, it is illegal to impersonate a police officer. So if you use an AI to create a deep fake of the Police Commissioner making a public announcement, that would be illegal -- assuming it was not clearly for satire. 4) If you use an AI to impersonate the CEO of a company (or any executive of a company), then any harm that falls upon the company, as a result of the AI's impersonation, will hold the creator liable. For example, we can't have a deep fake of a CEO of a food distribution plant making an announcement that baby formula is contaminated with botulism. Anyone creating such a deep fake would be in violation of the law, as well as financial losses of the company, and financial losses of the public for discarding safe food, and chaos that would overwhelm hospitals, etc. The above goes for impersonating a doctor, a lawyer, or any person that the AI can impersonate and bring harm to the public. We must not have an AI of the President announcing that missiles were launched, or that biological agents were released in major cities, or that banks are defaulting, etc. We also must not have AIs spreading fake news, unless the criteria for #1, above, is established. We should strive for all AIs to make their source code available to the public, and to distrust any AIs whose developers refuse to have their source code examined by the public.
    1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. @1:51 "...an assailant..." Mazie Hirono did not say that the assailant was white. So based on her record of hatred towards white people, and especially white men, we know that the assailant was not white. If the assailant was white, then Mazie Hirono would have done a cartwheel. @2:21 "These disturbing and horrifying acts..." and she does mental gymnastics to tie COVID-19 into those attacks, and wins the Olympic Gold for twisting her hatred into concluding that the attacks were racist, with zero evidence of the attacks being racist. In fact, someone needs to confirm that she did not lie about the attacks taking place. We cannot trust anything that comes out of her mouth. Perhaps there are elements of truth to her lies. Even habitual liars do not lie 100% of the time. @3:11 "Over the past two weeks, I worked with senators in both parties..." Flat out lie. Mazie Hirono dictated terms to republicans. How do I know? If anything that any republican asked for was agreed to by Mazie Hirono, she would have bragged to show examples of her being reasonable. So when Mazei Hirono says that she "worked" with people that she disagrees with, remember that her definition of "worked" is not in the dictionary. Her definition of "worked" is that she exerted intolerance and forced 100% of her agenda on her republican colleagues. @3:24 "...for her (Senator Collins) good faith efforts to amend this bill..." This is a textbook example of Mazie Hirono lying. Did Senator Collins make a good faith effort to amend the bill? Yes. Did Mazei Hirono accept those amendements? No. So, yes, Senaotor Collins made good faith efforts, and her efforts fell on Mazie Hirono's deaf ears. @4:42 "We are in this together" Flat out lie. Mazei Hirono permits no inclusion from republicans. Mazei Hirono is part of the swamp. She is one of the keepers of the swamp. Mazei Hirono is a degenerate.
    1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. He spewed off titles of bills, talking points, and a list of generalities. Raise your hand if you can name one thing that his radical, leftist party did that improved anything. Saying that his party passed "this or that" means zero, without the specifics of the wording contained withing the "this and that". Radical leftists use titles, all the time, that are clown-world language. They call the Deficit Reduction Act with that name, even though it inflates deficit spending more than any other time in history. They call lawless cities "sanctuary" cities, when they house countless fugitives from the law. So now "sanctuary" mean protecting criminals, instead of meaning protecting those being persecuted by their governments. "Fugitive" cities are called "sanctuary" cities in clown-world. They call those breaking the law (burning down buildings, taking over city blocks, routinely blocking roads, etc) "protesters" and "activists". So what used to be standing on the sidewalk, holding up signs, making speeches, all done civilly and lawfully (known as protesting) has become any illegal activity. The constitutionally protected right to protest is now (according to Warnock and his radical leftist party) the right to break the law -- which is clown-world language for "protesting". The next time you get pulled over for speeding, tell the officer you were exercising your right to protest the climate by speeding. See how that goes. Warnock is a keeper of the Washington swamp. There are those that live in the swamp (the countless government peons that do the bidding of Warnock and his ilk) and then there are the swamp keepers that rule over the swamp dwellers (Warnock, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, AOC, Waters, Jeffries, Schiff, Lee, Jayapal, Nadler, etc). Again, raise your hand if you can name one thing that Warnock said that helped anyone or helped our country. Do not name the title of some act you know nothing about. But name one thing that a typical American would understand. You can't. Because he said a mouth full of Washington, slimy used car salesman, mumbo jumbo, BS. Warnock and the rest of his party's radical leftists are degenerates.
    1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1) There will always be suffering around the world. If the United States spent 100% of its revenue on ending suffering in other countries, hardly a dent in that suffering would be made. We would not end suffering in a single country. Just look at our own country, and then ask yourself if we would magically fix the suffering in foreign lands. As long as those foreign countries retain their current form of government, the United States cannot stop the damage that their own governments create for their own people. 2) The stronger the United States is, the more we could do for people around the world. By creating huge deficits for ourselves, our power declines, making our effort less and less effective, even within our own borders. 3) Regardless of the amendment being debated, the United States is already sending countless $billions to foreign countries. Raise your hand if you can follow the trail of where any of those $billions end up. 4) Corruption is like nothing the world has ever seen. Our tax dollars are being pocketed by criminals all over the world. In every case where we send $billions (or even $millions), much of it falls into the hands of criminals. No one watches and traces the funds that we send. No one in congress an testify that the X $billions dollars we sent to this place or that place actually went to this place or that place. The best a congressperson could do is state that this or that watchdog group put out this or that report. Anyone reading those reports? And no one knows whether or not this or that report is credible. The watchdog groups are probably rife with corruption. 5) We have massive corruption within our own government. Can you imagine what goes on in foreign lands, when we send them $billions? American families are struggling to pay their bills, have shelter, and feed themselves. Millions of Americans are on welfare. Millions of Americans live in the street. And Barbara Lee wants to send $billions (that we have to borrow from China) to foreign lands where much of it will fall into the pockets of thieves.
    1
  31. 1
  32. 1