To be fair, the conspiracy nuts are probably being targeted by a Russian psyop, with the goal of sabotaging infrastructure, increase costs etc etc

“nice shoes, wanna fuck?”

Gotta say, if you are a bit spicy and they are too, if your shirt matches their shoes this might result in a date.

pass by phone

That’s a ticket I would go and overnight mail a pre configured IP KVM

You are wrong on the point that essential decisions can be made without history. You don’t know the first thing about what knowledge actually is, and I asked you that because I didn’t think you could answer and it confirmed for me that you are uneducated.

You didn’t do the barest minimum of work on this, your opinion is uneducated and you are being disrespectful.

Can? How? Go read any intro book on epistemology. You are talking out of your ass and it’s disrespectful to everyone that actually takes knowledge and human progress seriously.

Nah. Define your axioms like I said. If you won’t, you can’t.

You apparently have no idea

Define “tainted”, “wrong”(your word I never used that word) and how the context of history is not required to detect such things.

Define what we know in a way that doesn’t have a historical basis.

That’s a very uneducated take, and shows that you don’t understand how access to information can be changed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

Alright, thanks for confirming my opinion.

Things don’t happen that way. “Can, may, could” means that there will be pockets of people that don’t subscribe to the ideology and undermine it.

That “could” is doing a lot of work for that premise. We are currently structured as an amalgam of disparate chains of systems interacting with each other in loosely defined ways.

If you want to take the ability of sovereign entities to self determine, then sure we “could” organize in this other way.

But we don’t have a god emperor of earth, so we will need to rely on this loose consensus instead of a dictated one.

Wikipedia citing sources is exactly what keeps it accurate. Conflicting primary sources are both considered, and the discrepancies discussed.

That’s a very uneducated take, and shows that you don’t understand how access to information can be changed, and modeled to elicit certain outcomes.

Unbiased, well cited repositories of information are essential.

That’s probably just to compensate for grip strength or range of motion with the knife.

By backwards do you mean point near the elbow? If so you can get more leverage that way.

We recently received a response from the Chair UZH Faculty of Arts and Sciences Ethics Commission which:

Informed us that the University of Zurich takes these issues very seriously. Clarified that the commission does not have legal authority to compel non-publication of research.

I don’t think they can prevent publication, at least they are saying they can’t

We’re all agreeing he’s an idiot from many different angles

Ooof the response from the ethics commission is very neutered.

Maybe they can’t comment on discipline matters outside of what they said, it’s really surprising if they stopped at a warning about this.

Absolutely op is trash either way.

You are using an AI tool to check if things are AI generated without considering that PUBLIC AND HISTORICAL IMAGES ARE USED IN THE TRAINING DATA.

I hate AI as much as the next guy, your lack of critical thinking is more of a blight on humanity.