Why, is losing your money any less painful if the bad decisions were made by 50 or 60 year oldfags like the management of Lehman Brothers back then?

It is really far-fetched to call the LLMs and their front-ends "AI", yes.

This drone flew at altitude of 20km back in the late 80s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That NASA sun-powered drone, Helios, beat the one above by a km or two and flew for weeks, IIRC.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-conten...

Of course there is. https://wair.ac.cn/about

Why would "it" launch nuclear warheads when a nuclear war will destroy "it" more certainly than it would the people who built "it"?

Ah, the "AI Genocide".

We used to call it "masturbation" back when the Ceiling Cat was still around.

There's a button labeled "2D" somewhere around the zoom slider, does exactly that.

There was a time when people thought google was a good thing, but that was on account of not knowing enough about it.

Raises hand... Computational physics, quantum chemistry and particle physics research.

Hardware is completely impossible to buy now (unless perhaps one does weapons research).

One million optimuses in the Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers by the end of 2026?

What "wall mart security room"?

The "DEF CON" itself is taking place at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Apparently it has a spy camera system that puts your average British Telescreen-enabled city to shame.

The "ban" on glasses is just dumb grandstanding by corporate sleaze that poses as "hackers" at the "DEF CON".

It used to be different, but that was so many years ago that even the memories of it are now vague.

An elegant retreat, if there ever was one, LOL.

Which part is "untrue", the important, decision-making part of MAGA being white? Or that their most distinctive demographic traits are being white and "christian"?

LOL, buddy, you're not even trying. There are like 2-3% token non-whites in this admin, and these are as corrupt as the white MAGAts, Kashyap being, of course, the most iconic example of this lot. And they create constant tension among the unwashed MAGAts, who don't like rich Indians any more than they like "uppity Negroes".

Why, yes. Certainly the penniless proletariat doesn't buy too many media outfits. Or perhaps you have a counterexample that establishes a pattern flash?

Because I sure can show a pattern of capitalists purchasing media to influence politics in "capitalist democracies" and I sure can demonstrate this is a major failure mode of the "capitalist democracy" in principle :)))

So, they don't buy it and my "assumption" - actually an observation - stands. This mode of failure is unique to capitalism :)

No, not the same thing at all. But you're too dumb to understand the concept of subversion of democracy by capitalist "democracy", as the LLM expounded for your benefit, which you failed to cash on. :)))

Whenever you open your mouth logic leaves the room. Case in point: I've not used "billionaire" even once, yet you, the functionally illiterate moron, keep mentioning this word in relation to my comment. Why?

Because, like every other moron you like your strawmen. They are so easy to build and defeat that you naturally run away from a real argument into a fight with your own demons. So dumb, you can't see the topic or stay on it. Sad, tommy, low IQ. Strawmen are a logical fallacy, not logical reasoning :)

Note in passing that the "serious" Gemini expansion of my original point also doesn't mention "billionaires". Why? Because, tony, the LLM is smarter than you and unlike you he can stay on topic. Unlike you ;)

What "logical arguments"? You don't understand logic. Let me remind you how dumb you are.

You asked this:

" how, exactly, are you able to tie this particular corruption, to capitalism specifically , as opposed to ordinary corruption?", "this particular" being the purchases of mass media by billionaires in order to manipulate public opinion.

The answer was already in the comment you replied to, but since I know you're not the sharpest tool in the shed and can't read well, I asked the LLM to expand on the explanation I had already provided. It did a stellar job, precisely because it stayed within the bounds of your question and my comment and because the data it is trained on confirm my answer.

So, again, your question was answered three times - by me, preemptively, and by the LLM in two ways.

And you still failed to understand that

1. Your question was answered before you asked it
2. It was answered three times
3. You still didn't get that it is the answer you asked for

What can I tell you except to repeat - you're dumb as fuck.