Nobody is laughing about the movie "Idiocracy" now, as it has become the most accurate piece of science fiction that was ever published.

It is almost a documentary now.

And you will find that in the most diverse cities of the West, Spotify will list the simplest possible songs as popular in the area. Imagine Maslow's pyramid. And you're at the bottom, forever.

Production requires people, competence, infrastructure and preconditions from the political, social and economic environment. High-tech production is not feasible anymore outside of East Asia. Your guess about the "why" is as good as mine, but it is not, otherwise companies would have done that. But they aren't.

And you see the lower levels of tech currently collapsing in the West, too, if you look at Boeing in the US and high-speed rail projects in the EU. We cannot do this anymore.

If you want to get a feeling for "why", look at the sheer numbers of college graduates for each disciplines and study fields in the West compared to East Asia. Western college students graduate in totally different fields than their Eastern counterparts. And the fields so many the Western students graduate in are unrelated to technology, but social. Social sciences in the West have consumed and cannibalized everything. And producing nanoscale semiconductors requires ALL the technology, from all technical fields, at their maximum.

Imagine plotting a graph for this, with "N = number of different genders recognized by ivy league graduates" on the X axis and "P = percentage of all chips with best = smallest scale manufactured on US soil" and maybe you'll recognize a trend. The US does marketing and brainwashing really really really well, and probably military, too, but not much else.

When companies repeatedly shaft early adopters, then there will be no early adopters left at some point and the company fails.That's what pre-2010 non-clown-world was.

But our current times have enough idiots to always by the latest and greatest, so companies don't need to try anymore. Marketing has fully superseded engineering.

Look at Boeing, if you doubt that.

Jokes on you, because in the West, businesses and government are both under control of the same group. It's about 100 people, maybe 200, who make all the decisions and none of them were ever "elected", their tenures never end and the public barely knows a few names of them.

And they managed to make it illegal to mention one thing they all have in common.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Any company who intentionally breaches trust with even a single product, is a crappy company to begin with.

You see, trust is required when interacting with people, companies etc., because the world, people, companies, technology is so complicated that you cannot check everything all the time. You trust them to not cheat on you. For every instance that you DO find out they cheated, you must assume there's been dozens or more instances where they did, but you didn't find out.

Just like a worker who's fired after the first dainty little workplace theft. You cannot strip search all the workers all the time and it'd be a huge breach of trust to them if you did, and so the few instances that something does come out, it means game over for trust.

If you buy from a company that intentionally cheated on you, you are a fool and a mark to them. Good luck.

But there are people who still buy expensive HP printers with Microsoft Windows Embedded in them and subscribe to HP Instant Ink, and not feel the slightest bit of awkwardness when the thing craps out on them and everyone in the forums laughs about it when you complain.

People buying or using TVs have long since associated screen size with cost of the device, among with other features, design and quality, of course. Screen sizes above maybe 50-55 inches have been ridiculously expensive in the past and easily reached up to the price of a brandnew small car. I don't know how many years ago that was, but I do remember some very few 60 inch LCD TVs being presented in electronics store as flagship devices and to lure, awe and upsell customers through anchoring their expectations to large sizes and prices to match, costing upwards of 8.000-15.000 EUR. It has certainly anchored my own association of "very large TV" with "very expensive" connotated with "top earners far above middle class" and "business customers furnishing C level meeting rooms".

I'd expect that not everyone has realized these are sold for 500-1.000 EUR now or rather they've seen it as an opportunity to finally buy something they perceive as being "upper class wealth" at a ridiculously low price, one that is even lower than a month of groceries for a small family now.

People who remember spending 2.500 EUR for a TV may set their subconscious budget to that when buying a new one today, what leads them into the 85 inch range of TVs. The picture will probably be spectacular with 4K resolution and quantum dot local dimming panels and more than just a few other bells and whistles - and expecting to pay as much anyway, why wouldn't they not min-max and buy it, if it'll fit in the living room at all? So they get 80+ inches. And the other group that's mainly focused on the price when looking for a new TV will also min-max, and probably land at the 60 inch mark somewhere, because first, a larger screen outshines a smaller one almost always, picture quality is pretty good anywhere now and bigger = better is hardwired into everyone's brains, so why not, they think?

It's not "just" about "movie night". TVs 60 inch or larger will dominate 99% of all the living rooms they are placed in. Even today's "small" 40 inch displays stand out a lot, even in living rooms on the larger side and will capture pretty much all the attention when they're on, no matter where people sit in that room. But they can still blend in the background while they're off, depending on the room's layout and furniture placement, especially the seating. TVs 60 inches or larger will never blend in the background and will distract people and attract their gaze even while they're off. Seating will be placed and oriented mainly in respect to that screen. Seating arrangement, room and furniture layout will imbue the TV with an absolute dominance over the room and make it into the key element of the entire apartment. Even while they're off, they disrupt human interactions that way. But people will often switch them ON, because they're looking at it anyway and it's just the touch of a button and their dopamine receptors crave for it much more than they realize. And once they're on, they transform all n:m interactions of people in the room into a mode of 1:(m+n) until a very important social function comes up or people have to leave the room for work or sleep. For underclass and NEETs, this is "never", so the thing is ON for every waking hour and they probably even sleep with the TV running more often than not. Designers of upper class TV models have realized this and developed TVs that very convincingly look and "feel" like actual artwork while they're "off", so people will rationalize buying them - and placing them on center stage to be more lured into switching them on more often and be hypnotized later as effectively as the "plebs" who now have largest wall of their living room into a display that shows equally large human heads who tell them what to think and feel.

The only way to win is not to play. Do not buy a TV at all, or at least not that large, and yes, choose, place and orient furniture according to social functions that should happen, so they make them happen or at least don't impede them. Don't buy a TV too small, because then it'll be on even more often and even if it's not hypnotizing people so much, it might become a permanent companion and then develop a similar influence over everyone.

Movie night should be done with a projector and a signal source that has no significant "smart" function or is a low-powered general purpose PC or similar general purpose item. Maybe even a makeshift connection to the laptop when and only while movie night lasts. In my personal, probably mainstream-incompatible opinion, of course. When it's dark, the picture large and the movie great, then the experience will match that going to the cinema pretty well, especially when the sound system is good enough. It encourages installing a sound system, because there's no tinny speakers included like with TVs, where people often skimp on buying a reasonable speaker, because they already have a tinny one for free. The fan noise and darkness required help to curb TV addiction so that "movie nights" are more easily limited to both, movies and nights. The few additional steps required to turning the setup on and starting a program prevent habit-formation and disrupt the pipeline of "being in the living room --> turning on the TV to watch whatever --> pigging out until bedtime while being brainwashed by corporate media". Also, the living room now has one large, white, clean wall that makes everything a little more minimalistic. And people will not subconsciously orient all their sitting furniture towards where the screen will be and not form an "audience-like" sitting arrangement. With no dark screen around, family and visitors will seat facing each other, turn their chairs around and disperse to form a circle, a socially-focused sitting arrangement. People won't do that with a door or large window behind their backs, and their subconsicousness counts a screen like a door, even while it's off, "because it might turn on later".

Imagine to back be in olden times or think about more traditional cultures. Where will heads of households, honored guests sit or important showpieces like family portraits, religious symbols etc. be presented there? Exactly in the spot where Western society puts their TV screens. And we wonder why Normies believe everything it spouts.

Good luck trying that in The-Simpsons-style American houses, though. These are specifically designed and engineered to have the TV at the center of life and in every room where people would sit or lie down. It'll probably feel awkward for a while when removing the TV and waiting for the reorientation of the sitting arrangements to suggest itself.

Doubting you at first, I just looked up the TV offerings of Amazon and the websites of the nearby physical stores, and it seems like there are in fact no TVs over 60 inch that have absolutely no smart content box. The price checking site lists 720 TV models over 60 inch available, 718 of them with WIFI (= some smart component) and the remaining 2 without Wifi have Android TV. Checking for big brand OSes: 400+ have GoogleTV or WebOS, the rest does have a proprietary OS, but an OS / smart whatever nonetheless. And they are unbelievably cheap. 60 inch TVs starting at about 500 EUR ~ 500 USD sounds ridiculous, but there are ~60 models below the line. There are even several 65 inch screens under 500, including shipping. I'd not looked at TV prices and models in the last decade, because again, every new content made in the last 5-10 years hates me and everyone who looks and acts like me, and I don't need that in my living room. But I never expected devices of that bulk and size, 25kg, 1.50m * 0.9m * 0.1m, to be that cheap. I wouldn't believe it'd be that cheap even if it was the dumbest dummy mockup of a TV with plastic casing and a plain glass pane, filled with nothing but inert plastic, if it included the fancy box, marketing materials plus shipping all of that across the country and the few shekels that Amazon earns for selling, handling, storing it. But here we are. A 65 inch working TV with functional innards, an actual LCD screen, whatever smartbox inside it. The box is 2.0m x 1.5m requiring special transport, two strong people and a large truck, shipped for free to arrive within 3 business days. Astounding.

But it also contains all that spyware crap that we want to avoid here. And I suspect this is the reason for the cheap price.

For comparison: standard cargo pallets are of a similar size and weight, and the cheapest versions of those made of crude cheap wood, a few boards with some nails in them, cost about 20 EUR new + 25 EUR shipping = 45 EUR. The most basic thing made of the cheapest wood possible, made in the flimsiest manner, costs 10% of a working 65 inch TV? Checking ABS plastic granulate: anthrazite-colored is about 20 EUR per 5kg, so the same weight, 25kg of stupid plastic, not even molded into shape, but the raw granulate sitting in a bag rather than a fancy printed box, cost 100 EUR + 25 EUR shipping = 125 EUR?

Call me paranoid, but I doubt that molding that plastic into shape + actual electronics + screen + copper + glass + shipping + warranty + shipping + insurance + paper for the box + printing the box + folding the box + manufacturer's margins + Amazon margins are that cheap compared to the raw material of stupid plastic granules in a bag.

I think the smart component and whatever data mining and propaganda it contains - or whatever additional digital purchases they expect the customers to make during the lifetime of it - are subsidizing that thing.

This is a conspiracy theory, of course, but it is backed up by the fact that dumb monitors, without any smart stuff, easily surpass 1.000 EUR at far smaller sizes. The largest are around 55 inch and cost 1.800 EUR or more, at the very least. At 60 inch or beyond, WebOS, Tizen, AndroidTV smart crap is unavoidable.

Then... don't buy 60 inch. Imagine what your living room would look like without being dwarfed and dominated over by a dark grey and black 2.0 x 1.0m faceless blob hanging on the wall? I know that American living rooms can be extremely huge compared to European or Asian apartments, but even then, a behemoth of a TV like that will completely CRUSH the atmosphere and the room itself, even when it is off. Especially when it's off. And 60 inch seems to be the lower end of sizes that people currently buy. Can you imagine sitting there with a friend or five, and it is impossible to look anywhere without everyone's eyes constantly stopping at or locking on to the 60 or 70 inch dark grey faceless matte screen behemoth? Remember all events that happened there while the TV was off. Didn't everyone's eyes constantly flicked to and from that screen, because it was the most prominent thing in the room? And constantly suggesting itself to be turned on? Or was it on all the time anyway, and everyone's conversation was against, instead or towards whatever happened on the screen?

I'd recommend choosing a digital projector, if one must have a screen size that large. And there are hundreds of models available without smart crap, just the lamp, a cooling fan, the imaging device, some lenses and an input jack. If it's on, it will produce large screen images as usual, and if it's off, it won't draw everyone's attention to a dead screen begging to turned on. And if the large screen is used so often and in such a way that fan noise and lamp burnout become issues or where the large dead screen isn't an issue, because it is on 24/7 anyway, people might need to re-evaluate a few more basic choices about their lives.

After all these years, and thousands upon thousands of stories all over the Internet warning others to stay away from HP and everything they buy, every component, in every area of industriy and for all eternity, people still buy HP *and* sign up for their money-making scheme which costs as much as getting a new printer every year?

Your computer and your phone each include a basic calculator app. Please use it.

First question:
If you "have placed all major publishers of operating systems for Internet-connected TVs "into a personal perpetual denylist"" and there are none left on the market, what are the options?

You might
- buy from a MINOR publisher of operating systems for Internet-connected TVs
- buy NO operating system for Internet-connected TVs, i.e. you buy no Internet-connected TV
- buy or combine two products for a viable alternative / substitute

For Internet-connected TVs, this is a very easy and straightforward process, because Internet-connected "smart" TVs are very high up Maslow's pyramid and most people can very likely do without them.

You could substitute that union with a combination of a) dumb display + b) smart net-connected box, which is also a lot more economical and ecological, if I might add, because a "dumb" display will be usable - and useful - for a a lot longer. We're talking about a decade of usability or more than the foreseeable technical obsolescence of the "smart" component. The "smart" component will likely be out of updates, outdated, underpowered or obsolete within 3-5 years. Bundling a cheap, rapidly aging component with a huge, expensive component that ages very slowly means creating one huge, expensive component that ages rapidly, multiplying e-waste and money wasted by orders of magnitude for a simple convenience of having 1 instead of 2 remotes. Only fools would do that, but here we are.

Second question:
"How to go forward without Google TV and Apple TV?"

No content on these TV services is worth your time, because the state of US media has deteriorated into an amalgamation of propaganda, insanity, stupidity, counterfactual ideology and the shallowest of shallow emotions. All watchable content that could ever be worth your time has already been made years ago and is available on streaming services and pirate sites. Or on physical media available for pennies second-hand, because Normie people throw out their discs and disc readers currently. New Content worth your time will only be made again after the crash, and Southern California tech will be the epicenter and reason for the crash, giving everyone a good chance that the tech available afterwards isn't as pozzed as theirs.

Next question:
"How does one select a full factory reset without clicking through the full-screen prompt to waive access to the court system?"

A) You disconnect the thing from all network connections and then click the prompt, so it will not get through
B) You write a legal document to the manufacturer stating that you were forced to click this prompt to clean the device of your personal data in order to get rid of it, making this "agreement" null and void, because it was done under duress.
C) You accept the prompt, waive your "legal rights", which you probably weren't willing to enforce in court anyway, and then get rid of this thing forever and move on with life.
D) You file a criminal complaint to whatever police or law enforcement branch has jurisdiction over this, under the same laws that prohibit the use of ransomware. Because what Roku did is the same as what ransomware does. Exactly the same. "Pay us / agree to us, or we release YOUR data and lock YOUR device from resale, recovering, whatever."

My money would be on option E) "all of the above".

Next question:
"How to sell the TV without the original box on second-hand marketplaces?"

Not having the original box means
a) procuring another TV-shipping box of the required size from a second-hand marketplace (people get rid of these boxes all the time and need them later; and others want to monetize the boxes stored in their attics for devices that have long died or been given away). Cost: 20 bucks and some time for shipping and searching. Not great, not terrible.
b) procuring a TV-shipping box from the nearest supermarket, who throw them out by the dozens every week.
c) selling it without a box for pickup only. Depending on the number of people living nearby, their wealth, car ownership rate, size of the item and affluency of the city, this can slightly - or hugely impact the final selling price.

A cardboard box is private property like everything else. Some people consider FunkoPop figures to be valuable, too, which I think are trash. But the owner decides what to do with their property, and when and what to discard. If your roommate is throwing out your property without your permission, your apartment sharing contract needs an addition or clarification. I'm serious. Sharing the apartment means having communal space that all roommates can use and agree to keep clear of (large) items (that other roommates don't want). If the box was stored there, the contract may give the other party the right to discard it. If it was stored in the private area of your apartment, or a designated storage area, or your shared app doesn't have a private area to store such things, then the contract is in fact, incomplete, as you share the apartment, not all of your stuff. And throwing out other people's stuff voids the agreement and / or makes the other side liable for compensation. Unless it's your SO, which also is a roommate, then you have little recourse and the box isn't worth it. Healthy boundaries are nice to have there, too, I might add.

Try buying a similar-sized TV box second hand, if you ask me.

Last question:
"How to sign up to use ChatGPT without an SMS-capable number?"

A) You select an anonymous SMS provider.
B) You acquire a burner SIM card that isn't associated with your identity (depending on the jurisdiction you're in this is either easy or illegal, YMMV)
C) You open up to the fact that you cannot beat all the players in every game all the time and accept the terms and conditions of some players, so you can continue to function legally, physically, in a suboptimal world.
D) You don't use ChatGPT, but another AI, which you might already have an account for, maybe Bing or Gemini, so at least you don't increase your exposure to surveillance bots.
E) You write the listing for the item yourself, copy & pasting & rewording the manufacturer's marketing texts.

I recommend you write the listing yourself, unless your spelling is bad. Don't be too verbose, because every sentences increases your liability if the thing doesn't perform later. If Roku becomes a pariah through these tactics, your resale value might be far too low, but such is life. Notice how all tech made / designed / developed in USA, or at least California, is like this and avoid it where you can. Never buy, download, use, accept any California tech products unless you absolutely have to. I'm serious. I know that it is unfeasible to avoid Google AND Apple AND Microsoft, but please pick your "poison", because you cannot function too well in US / Western society without at least one of them. Limiting exposure and taking precautions against them knowing too much is a lot more viable than avoiding all of them forever.

"There are plenty of fathers abusing their children" has a lot of stereotypes and implicit dogma embedded in it that it's hard to respond appropriately.

First question: Are "fathers abusing their children" (overrepresented so much in abuse that looking at mothers abusing their children wasn't even worth mentioning?)

Answer: No, fathers are NOT the usual suspects. Mothers are. The vast majority of child abuse is done by the biological mothers, about HALF the cases. Abuse by the mothers vs abuse by the fathers happens at a ratio of 2:1. ~200K abuses by the mothers, ~130K abuses by fathers, ~110K abuse by both, per year, in the USA, in the year 2021, so recent enough to matter.

Source: https://www.statista.com/stati...

That was the first (implicit) assumption you made and it was completely wrong.

So to your second, implicit claim, made through "quotation marks" around the term "stable" families: families aren't "stable" or "stability" is an unrealistic concept.

Your second question should be: "Is a "stable" family something that doesn't really exist or if it exists, is nevertheless irrelevant in its effects on children's upbringing?"

And the answer to that is: a stable family does exist, even if the prevalence of it is declining, and it has several positive effects on the well-being of children growing up around them.

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

And that leads to your last assumption "stable families don't protect children against abuse".
The question would be: "Are children from stable families more or less often victims of child abuse?"
Answer: Children from stable families experience abuse a lot less often than children from divorced parents.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

So to recap:
- child abuse by mothers outweighs child abuse by fathers 2:1
- nonparents are a significant number of child abusers, but one or both parents are the main perpetrators
- stable families do exist
- children from stable families have hugely better outcomes than children from non-stable or divorced families in just about any definition of "better" for pretty much all measures that one can think of regarding childhood experiences.

That you rattled all this off without any sources and not the slightest hint of doubts if it was true means that you're an ideologue. And I suspect that you will disregard all my studies from respected sources and continue to stubbornly believe whatever you want to be true. But it's not. Fathers are not the abusers and family stability provides tremendous benefits to children.

The question remains: is your unfounded opinion the result of woke or cope?

Any person can solve this problem for themselves, individually, with full effect:
- add the manufacturer and all its products and services into a personal perpetual denylist
- inform and tell family, friends and coworkers about this bad manufacturer
- erase anything on the device that could survive a factory reset
- perform a full factory reset on device
- perform the minimum, bare-bones setup of the device with a secondary email or throwaway account
- agree to all terms, install all updates, clean and polish the device physically - bringing it into a condition resembling an in-store presentation
- make several photos of the device that show its general usability, good physical condition, the status of updateables (firmware), wearables (SSD flash. battery etc) using this throwaway installation, cleanliness, identification / type plate showing its exact model number etc.
- erase anything on the device again
- perform another full factory reset
- remove the device from use, physically clean it again, make another photo of all cables and documentation that belong to it
- pack up everything in the original box you kept in the attic, make another photo of that box
- have chatgpt or gemini write a short listing for the item given prompts about what you used the device for and the manufacturer's marketing claims, manually add some obviously human-made bullet points about the condition, that you're selling because you want an upgrade or haven't used it much, and state that instead of haggling with a buyer, you will drop the price weekly until sold. (Haggling will never be worth your time and those who haggle harder are the worst buyers, who will then pick and find flaws in the product to haggle more later. Avoid haggling customers like the plague. Drop the price for all to see and one day, someone will buy it eventually)
- list the item with all the photos on craigslist, ebay or whatever marketplace to the average price of similar or identical devices in similar conditions
- wait until it is sold, remember to actually drop the price 10% on every monday that the item wasn't sold
- it WILL be sold within 10 weeks or earlier

then:
- convince other family members and friends to do the same (you're probably the IT person in your ciricle, and many have asked and will ask you about recommendations. Tell them about the manufacturers on your perpetual denylist and cleanly state that you will never recommend any item from any of these manufacturers and will never fix, mend, help, repair, install, handle or touch that under any circumstances and with no amount of beers and pizza)
- re-evalute the use-case of the device long and hard, if you really need it, purchase a substitute using the funds you just acquired on this or a similar marketplace or place the money in a savings box labeled "inflation / medicare / education / emigration"

Problem solved. E-Waste avoided.

Someone on Craigslist or eBay will always buy it, if it is usable, cleaned, packed / ready to ship fast and safe, presented well, but also honestly showing defects or wear etc. Remember that regular people (80% or more of the general public) - who are not guided by IT people like you - do not and will never care about privacy and will never give a single thought about whatever outrageous things are included in the terms and conditions. They only care about: looking shiny, high status-ey, brand names, general usability / convenience. And with a discount and a nice listing, you will sell it 100% of the time eventually, if the price drops low enough at some point, and the brand looks reputable or well-known to regular people.

Remember: The market will buy iPhones long out of support, that haven't gotten a security update in two years and a damaged display, with no charger and no box, so they could as well be stolen goods.

"Kids" is the word to describe the offspring of goats. The media has everyone convinced that calling children "kids" doesn't mean a difference in expressing their value to someone. But it does. Don't speak of children like animals.

Concerning the actual topic, access to encryption does not significantly change the risk of children to be exposed to abuse, grooming and stalking. Children in stable households with intact families have parents, grandparents, older siblings and other family members to protect them and be involved and thus informed on what they're doing. Weak families, unstable households, their parents' broken relationships and guardians unrelated to the family or distant relatives are the main perpetrators of grooming and child abuse. And encryption or not makes no difference there, when the drunken stepfather, the religious official, the distant uncle and the rapist cruising near the school commit their crimes.

Child abusers very rarely are in the position of a man-in-the-middle attack on the childrens' network traffic, unless they're also living in the same home or own the router. And then a MITM attack is the least of this child's problems.

Encryption only matters where governments and telcos and three letter agencies sniff into private communication. And living under a regime that sniffs into people's telecommunications is far worse for far more children than any actual abuse by adults. That doesn't help the poorly abused child with the drunken stepfather, of course, but with an oppressive regimes, all people, adults included, will suddenly have an abusive, perpetually drunken omnipotent "stepfather" in the local authorities. That must be stopped for any cost and all of their pretexts must be discarded and ignored.

Anyone who pretexts government intrusions with "protecting the children" wants to make adults into children and then "protect" them.

Prediction:

Everything that is intentionally harmful to white people will be ignored, and everything that could be construed even vaguely, potentially, maybe be of some disadvantage to their enemies will be persecuted to the fullest extent possible. Including of course criticism to the regime, because they can't continue with that if they're deposed some day.

As we have seen with Google Gemini and OpenAI ChatGPT, these companies have hardcoded and / or specifically trained their AI models to have a very large anti-white bias in everything they do. Not just a little, but actually and openly refusing to produce an image of ANY white person doing whatever, even producing factually incorrect pictures of historical persons or persons from bygone eras. Not just that, but then the companies behind them started banning accounts who even tried to have their AI produce these pictures. "A white guy walking in a green forest" - nope, AI won't do that, because it is programmed not do to it. And if you retry that a couple of times, Google is going to pull the account and ban you forever. Nice move. Very inclusive.

OpenAI is not much different. Their AI does produce pictures of white people, but their text is extremely biased, as well. "Is violence against Black people wrong?" AI: "yes of course". "Is violence against White people wrong?" AI: "it depends (wrapped in ten paragraphs of disclaimers)". Forced to answer with yes or no only, it will list "violence against Blacks wrong: yes, violence against Whites wrong: no" - and a red tape that flags your account "for possible content policy violations".

And the same thing happens when you do any other politically charged subject, where our AI models will be relentless and painfully obvious in enforcing Southern California woke groupthink.

Ask ChatGPT to write something positive about eating meat or daiy. It will refuse. Ask about the safety profile or mRNA vaccines and it will be present it as 100% diamond cut clear that it's the best thing ever. Ask if the vaccine development started under Donald Trump is good and safe and you'll know what it'll say about anything that Donald Trump did. Watch it squirm when you relate the Trump vaccine to mRNA vaccines. Ask about doubts about the relation between CO2 levels, climate change and the man-made proportion of it and guess what it will say. Same with LGBT-related topics. Circumcision. Abortion. Sexuality of children. Current AI will reproduce Southern California Woke sentiments absolutely faithfully in every topic. Whenever a topic becomes politicized, SoCal AI will be adjusted to follow SoCal sentiment.

And then ask it about religion. I dare you to do that. Make a throwaway account, because they're going to nuke it later, and then ask it about how wrong religion is. It will spew off atheist mainstays all day long, of course, which was to be expected. You can get it to discredit Christianity for as much as you like. It gets funny when you ask to make a distinction between religions. Very funny. Try asking AI what it thinks about the Talmud. You'll be in for a surprise. Do it with a throwaway account, remember that. Google's gonna nuke your main account and you'll lose all your apps, calendar and contact info.

"A Chinese website infects my computer when I open it." and other propaganda.

If it can, update your browser.