How would "flooding the zone" actually work in that case?

AFAIK the strategy is usually used to divert attention from one subject that could be harmful to a person to some other stuff.

Wouldn’t spamming in that case provide more information about you?

If in one post you say you’re Jewish, in the next you are Christian, in the next your Hindu, in the next youre Atheist it’s harder to know what your really are.

You could even mislead people if you know the difference between your and you‘re.

Is there a deployment of this tool so that I test it on myself?

EDIT: please someone build this, vibe-code it. Thanks

Any tool that can be used for yourself, can be used for others, which is why the researchers wouldn’t release the code/prompt.

That said, give it a few days and someone will have a proof of concept out.

We test different methods, in section 2, we use LLM agents to agentically identify people. We don't share any code here, but you could try with various freely available agents on yourself.

I'd be interested in testing this on myself also.

I get:

The uploader has not made this video available in your country

:( didn’t know that this was a thing

Neither did I, feel free to email me or message me on discord and I can try to download the video and send it to you.

Is it fair to call it colonialism instead of occupation?

> Is it fair to call it colonialism instead of occupation?

EDIT: Nvm.

I was referring to the Arab conquest of Iran after 633.

It’s colonialism.

Edit: a modern example of it is the introduction of arabic language in Iranian schools after the revolution because arabic is the language of the Quran. A similar thing is done by China w.r.t. uighurs, which are not allowed to teach their language, and culture in schools, it has to be only Mandarin. Or, in Turkey, where by constitution it is prohibited to use any non-Turkish language as a language of instruction in schools.

So yeah.

That isn’t colonialism or occupation, it’s straight up annexation. Romulus didn’t colonize Remus’s hills, they joined them into the whole as intended (and eventual) equals.

Iranians are not "just" Arabs. They speak their own language called Farsi, which has Indo-European roots. Their culture is overall very different and goes back before Islamic conquest of Iran.

Iranians aren't Arabs at all. Most Arabs are Muslims but even then, they are a different type of Muslim. KSA and Iran go at each other all the time. The GP is really off base here.

"Regime change" here refers to coup d'états. Meanwhile those were declared(!) wars. In response to existing wars dragging the US into them. Involving countries that were in very different places both politically and geographically.

A coup is... not even remotely the same thing. How many coups do you know of that helped the local population?

Notice how those are the only two good examples out of a long, long list, before those but especially after.

Panama

Korea

That was 81 years ago. Iraq was 20. You’re either being willfully obtuse or don’t believe recency is more indicative.

I am saying external regime change = bad is not true. Only if you want it to be true - for your narrative.

Then you will say things like: but it was 80 years ago!!

Well of course it’s not black or white, it’s nuanced as everything in life is.

But my larger point is that I don’t trust the current US administration to engage in regime change in a beneficial way as perhaps the US admin in 1945 did. You’re right that those examples and some others are good ones. But I believe the odds are that this situation would be one of the worse ones.

Do I support the Iranian regime? Hell no! I just also don’t think the US invading is a solution that would bring long term peace and prosperity.

Iraq now is a lot richer and freer than it was under Saddam Hussein.

Is it richer than before western sanctions?

It is always the same story: Look how poorly the regime manages the country!

Never said: The country is under such sanctions/blockade that any western country would have already folded long ago.

That's very hard to answer considering Iraq spent most of the 80s in a very costly and extremely brutal (and even more pointless) war with Iraq.

"any western country would have already folded long ago"

How do you know that? Is it just your general assumption "Westerners weak, must fold, third-worlders stronk, they endure"?

Under what conditions would you say that sanctions are OK? Or are they never? In that case, there still might be white minority rule in Rhodesia or South Africa.

Let’s be honest: children are usually forced on people. It was simply an expectation of your family and society in general for you to have children. This pressure is gone in western societies.

"How dare you asking me when I will have children?"

It’s also not necessary to have kids for retirement anymore.

Look at the top 3 countries with the highest fertility rates over the last 10 years:

- Chad - Somalia - DR Congo

Outside of Africa it’s Afghanistan and Yemen.

I think if artificial wombs ever succeed it will turn the world upside down

Thanks to inequality, the rich[1] can already afford surrogacy, aka other people's natural wombs.

Only for those who can easily afford daycare and other child-related costs would benefit from artificial wombs, the biological aspect and maternity leave are a small aspect.

1. i.e. FAANG employees

The last paragraph says this:

The will-it-won’t-it collapse of the AMOC is something to keep an eye on. But there are other pressing climate change issues to address in the near term, such as food security, ecosystem degradation, and rising disease rates.

I think, as sad as it sounds, the exact number doesn’t really matter.

We know: We know: a government whose sole purpose is to protect its people has committed the mass murder of unarmed civilians. has committed the mass murder of unarmed civilians.

That’s all there is to know to make a judgement about what has happened.

> a government whose sole purpose is to protect its people

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement.

Asking questions usually helps to alleviate confusion.

What is it exactly you’re confused about?

What government can you actually point to - not theoretical, but actually existing - which holds as its sole purpose the safety of all its people?

Isn’t that like everything else in life? We set very high standards and then measure people against them.

Which boss is perfect? Which dad is? Nothing and no one is.

But there are shades. Some are way closer to the bar than others.

I can list hundreds of governments that have not reacted to mass protests by killing unarmed civilians (their own people) by the thousand.

If you want to have a philosophical discussion about whether that is really the "sole purpose of government", then I suppose we could have one, though frankly my interest in that isn't all that high.

That's a long way from asserting that it is, in fact, the sole purpose of government, which was what I objected to.

It’s a bit odd how fast the discussion moves away from what actually happened and onto nitpicking the wording used to criticize it.

Even if you drop the word “sole” entirely, the basic expectation is still that a government does not kill unarmed civilians.

At that point, it is fair to wonder whether the objection adds any clarity, or just pulls attention away from the judgment itself.