Ha, no, fuck off, OpenAI.

And how many times have you flagged someone for “furtherance of violent activities” that DIDN’T go forward to shoot up a school, or do much of anything you should intervene in? ChatGPT can’t even brainstorm multiple choice questions on a short story without hallucinating bullshit, and you want us to believe it’d be effective as the thought police?

This is a cherry-picked argument being used to begin legitimizing AI for more serious uses, such as making legal decisions. This is not Minority Report; AI can fuck off with charging people with pre-crime.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Y’know, Yog, it’s not very often I see a post by you and happily read it, let alone upvote it, but I’m glad we can both be happy to see world leaders telling Trump’s government to go fuck itself.

Insinuating that everyone always performs perfectly at the Olympics? I just watched a woman cry because she only landed a double-spin instead of a triple during the figure skating competiton. I supposed she didn’t land her jump on purpose too?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe he accidentally touched the rock, but I am shocked you find it so unbelievable that someone could be so focused on where their rock is going that they didn’t pay enough attention to how their hand was positioned after they let go of the rock. High pressure situations create surprising mistakes.

Fair enough. I realize now that I spoke with more confidence on the reality of the situation than I intended. Any avid curler I’ve spoken with regarding this in the last couple days swears up and down that the level of interaction that supposidly occurred between the curler and the rock is genuinely a non-factor. I do not know from any level of personal experience, hence why I stated that I trust whatever Olympic panel exists. I merely wanted to counter the poor argument that “the rule wouldn’t exist if it can’t impact the rock,” as the rule can absolutely exist for the purpose of more clear cut cases.

Armchair analysis is rarely worth taking seriously. I suspect that neither of us actually know from experience, but maybe you’re a professional curler.

Because extreme cases can impact the rock. Barely touching the rock in the way caught on film realistically isn’t impacting the rock, but the rule needs to exist to prevent someone from actively pushing the rock after letting go.

But again, these guys know better and have had the time and resources to train better.

I mean, fuck Hexbear, but this is in fact all over the news. I’m sure it’s posted there in an anti-west bias, but that doesn’t make it untrue, and I absolutely demand better from my country than to cheat at the Olympics.

I trust whatever committee they have at the Olympics to make the judgement on this, but if our team is cheating, fuck those guys.

Yes, there’s some redactionist arguments about how it “doesn’t actually impact the rock,” but fuck that. We have a codified rule that specifically says you can’t do it, and these athletes are playing at literally the highest level that exists. They know better and have had time to practice better. If they’re cheating at the Olympics, I hope it follows them forever.

No one else has called me anything, but okay. Enjoy winning imaginary arguments against straw men.

Oof. The retroactive “it was just a joke, bro” defense. Nevermind, I guess. Even I thought too highly of you. Honestly, that’s just too sad.

Evidence of what? That 4 years and a government change is evidence of things changing? The other guy made the claim that there has been a standing policy since the 2022 incident, which is something you’ve never claimed. If they’re right, then they’re right, and that’s a different conversation altogether. With regards to you, all I’ve done is point out that nothing you’ve claimed is evidence of anything. I don’t need to prove whatever straw man you’ve built for me, because you have presented no argument other than “Canada is hypocritical because it’s mean to Russia and let Nathanyahu fly through its airspace” which, again, is a non-starter. It’s a completely invalid logical progression, and doesn’t even meet the starting point for an argument.

Sure, man. Think what you want. Unfortunately for you, I genuinely have better things to do than continue to engage with your bad faith nonsense. Tell yourself that means you “win,” or whatever helps you feel smug, I guess.

I mean, you literally said before that you were going to turn to Deepseek to deal with me, so, something about “crying wolf,” I guess.

And, real question, what humor? Like, genuinely, political shit slinging aside, what has been said that’s supposed to be funny? Surely you don’t mean your tirade of childish insults. You’re not actually trying to make a “this is just a joke to me” point, are you? Even I think you’re better than that.

See, this is actually a good argument.

Aren’t NOTAMs specific per-flight? I’ve heard the term from two pilots in my life, but I’m not personally familiar with them. I was under the impression that they do not function as standing orders, meaning the specific 2022 incident was, well, specific to that incident. If there’s a continuous no-fly rule for all Russian aircraft in effect, that’d have been a much more useful point than calling the one specific event.

And, for the record, I’d love to see the policy regarding Israel’s flights in Canadian airspace changed. I just fail to see the hypocrisy in one event 4 years ago under a different government. If there has been a standing no-fly order since, well, that does in fact change things.

Oh look, a handful of the exact vibes-based “he said mean things about Russia” content that I pre-empted. Wonderful. Admittedly, I opened two and decided you’re not worth any more of my time, so maybe your super secret point regarding air-space legislation that you swear you’ve repeated up and down is hidden halfway through the third article. But even giving you 15 minutes today was more than you deserve, so it’s time to move on.

Reversing my points isn’t clever. And probably look up the word “fantastical” before you start using it, particularly when I’m not the one who’s weaving a tale.

EDIT - See, this is a real argument. Using, you know, consistent logic and relevant points, rather than ad hominem attacks and tangential gibberish.

You haven’t explained anything. All you’ve done is make ad hominem after ad hominem.

If you want to make some argument that Carney is playing favorites with Israel - which, again, fuck Nathanyahu and the politics of the state of Israel - you’re going to have to demonstrate that Carney has been tough on Russia while being kind to Israel. Calling up that one time 4 years ago when Trudeau told Russia to fuck off isn’t “evidence,” it’s dishonesty. Can you point to anything, genuinely, where Carney held a double standard to Russia and Israel? Or is your argument genuinely this purely vibes based take of “well he said mean things about Russia in an interview and then let Nethanyahu fly through Canadian air space”?

I don’t think you’re stupid enough to think that passes as evidence. What’s insulting is that you seem to think that we are, and when you get called out on it, you start childishly belittling, and attacking the character of, the people speaking to you.

But, let’s be clear: your only purpose here is to spread pro-China, pro-Russia, anti-Canada propaganda, so none of this matters to you. I’ll continue to happily “play hall monitor;” call me whatever names you’d like.

I’ve been suspicious of Yog throwing shit into an LLM a few times now. The changing writing style between posts definitely feels like multiple people, but it could be one person throwing a conversation into an LLM whenever they feel the need to pretend to win an Internet argument. There are quick, poorly articulated insults coming out, and then suddenly you’ll get these random, long-winded tirades of the exact same thought and language patterns over and over again.

It certainly doesn’t help that they’ve explicitly said “I should start throwing your responses into deepspeak to see if I can leave you arguing with a bot” to me once.

Literally nobody here is making the argument that Carneys government isn’t responsible for what Trudeau’s government did in 2022.

I am. I am making the argument that Carney doesn’t need to be consistent with Trudeau’s politics. Your post relies on the readers to forget that Carney wasn’t in charge in 2022. Once this fact is made clear, the only feasible defense is that he has to to be consistent with his predecessors politics, else he is a hypocrit. This is untrue and dishonest, and you continue to provide nothing but personal insults in defense of that.

Get childish and defensive all you want. This is not about driving you out. This is about making sure the lies you spread have a top level comment that highlights the lies and demonstrates the truth instead. I’ve happily been quite successful in that, and your attempts to belittle me only demonstrates how bothersome this is to you.

Continue to try and bully me all you want. This is not your instance, and you cannot silence the truth with insults, nor attacks on my character. This truely demonstrates why other instances rely so heavily on banning people with dissenting opinions: you have no argument, just lies, propaganda, and bully tactics.

What part of “Carneys government isn’t responsible for what Trudeau’s government did in 2022” is hard to understand? Two different governments following two different standards with a 4 year gap between events is not hypocrisy.

The argument you are posting is incorrect, and intentionally dishonest. Belittle me all you want; a smug sense of superiority won’t make you correct. Fuck off with your thinly veiled anti-Canada propaganda, and your childish attempts to legitimize it with infantilizing language.

Sorry, was Carney Prime Minister in 2022? What kind of idiot take for a hypocritical gotcha is this?

Fuck Netanhyahu, but talk about poor reading comprehension and posting in bad faith.

Why the fuck my man getting downvoted for actually doing the legwork. Thanks for all this.

How strange to dredge up a multiple day old comment to try and take some kind of win-loss stance. There’s no competition to win or lose. Yog spams Canadian communities with pro-China propoganda, and I call it out as I see fit. If you want to take some strange subjective approach on whether I won or lost a given argument, that’s your prerogative.