12
PApede1776 12 points ago +13 / -1

This is some smallestdenergy, we're beyond counting votes here

1
PApede1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's kind of what got us to this point. The constitution and bill of rights sets the standard for freedom and integrity. States made their decisions, and people left after the damage was done. California was first, NYC is next. If enough people leave these places and go somewhere like Texas, turning it blue, then we'll be at a point where the constitution and bill of rights are decided by those two states. Maybe it would be a lot different if we had a 100% reliable election system.

1
PApede1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's definitely scary, and it all comes down to who develops these self-evolving algorithms. Nothing stopped software (with a manual explaining how to manipulate votes, and likely used algorithms to switch votes to their preferred candidate) from being used in our elections. What's going to stop self driving cars from deciding who their preferred victim is?

2
PApede1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

I always fall back to the fact that if the car would avoid the pedestrian and kill the driver, it would be incredibly easy to kill someone just by jumping in front of their car. You also bring up a great point about the pedestrian being thrown into the road. That's the problem with AI, it can't make moral decisions on its own, and there's no way to prepare it for every possible scenario. Following traffic laws and making every effort to avoid an accident should be #1 priority, but not even humans are capable of that, because there are certainly evil fucks out there that would rather kill someone than damage their brakes.

1
PApede1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wouldn't pull the plug unless they had some way to clearly communicate to me that they wanted the plug pulled.

Hypothetical question - You are developing the AI for self-driving cars. You need to pick one option for the following situation. Someone jumps out in front of the car. Option 1, the car avoids the pedestrian and kills the person in the car. Option 2, the car continues on its path, killing the pedestrian and saving the person in the car.

1
PApede1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm also married to a redhead...finding some common ground, I like it. The way I see it is that you wouldn't boycott ritz for having a redhead in their commercial, even though redheads make up less % of the population than gay people. Your daughters are likely to see redheads as normal because their mom is a redhead. If some shithead kid makes fun of them for having a redheaded mom, are you going to say "yea well that shithead is right, being redheaded isn't normal?" Hopefully not, you're going to say that kids just a shithead don't listen to them. When it comes to people being gay, you are the shithead saying it isn't normal.

1
PApede1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

redheaded people make up less than 10% of the world, do you tell your daughters that redheaded people aren't normal?

1
PApede1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yea, 10% of the population not reproducing will result in extinction...and I'm the moron. If that's what you truly believe, then you should support gay people being together so that they wipe themselves out of the gene pool. Then you could live happily ever after and those pesky gays wouldn't be able to have such a drastic effect on your everyday life. You're no better than these communist fucks.

-4
PApede1776 -4 points ago +2 / -6

There's the problem. Two guys loving each other IS normal. If I have a son, I'd rather him be happily gay than miserable woman that he doesn't love. When ritz is showing commercials of boys chopping their wieners off because they played with a barbie one time, then I'll 100% agree with you.

-2
PApede1776 -2 points ago +1 / -3

LMFAO. I'd be glad to. "Only one of these things exists, men who love other men and not women, or a fat guy with flying reindeer that somehow finds enough time in one night to deliver presents to every single house in the world, undetected."

-1
PApede1776 -1 points ago +2 / -3

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/carlo-allegri-donald-trump-lgbt-flag-2016-presidential-election.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1600&h=900&crop=1

if you don't support someone's decision of who they want to spend their life with, then how can you say that you support freedom?

-11
PApede1776 -11 points ago +2 / -13

you boycotting ritz crackers over that commercial is gayer than they guys in the commercial

13
PApede1776 13 points ago +13 / -0

Rally's aren't a product of a tweet, they're the product of career politicians (like Feinstein and her chinese spy) selling off our freedom. Feinstein is asshoe

4
PApede1776 4 points ago +4 / -0

fake recount in georgia is true, legal team withdrawing is fake news

14
PApede1776 14 points ago +14 / -0

the war is already here, it started 4 years ago when they didn't cheat enough the first time

17
PApede1776 17 points ago +17 / -0

as far as im concerned the war has already been declared

by MDK2020
2
PApede1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

I stopped watching once they all noticed trump was going to beat hilldawg and they started tearing up

2
PApede1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

i'm from PA and i'll drive to OH for that

by elcn
1
PApede1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck that. There are plenty of patriots joining because, same as our country being the last opportunity for freedom, this is literally their last option for news. If there were patriots pounding on the door and a couple communists sprinkled in, you'd say "sorry we're closed"? You should be able to sniff out the communists. If that's not the issue, then you must be against the first amendment

view more: Next ›