That’s fair. There are some available in other markets but they’re definitely fewer and further between.

Some phones do have built in radio receivers. If that’s genuinely a feature you want, they’re available.

They got like 3% of their funding from the Gates Foundation, not exactly like they’re fully beholden to them.

It is, has been for almost 2 years. I’ve had mine in the US since Oct 2024.

It’s not compatible with some NA networks, but it is available for use with providers that it is compatible with.

Fairphone.

Loopholes are a problem with a standard. But a problem that probably needs revision rather than just scraping the standards.

1. I said nothing about souls. If I’m talking about souls (without direct prompting), I’m deep in a psychotic episode.

2. I don’t really get what you mean by the gestures broadly thing? I’m very open to an expansion on that thought, but have no current sense of what that means.

3. It’s not just the vague idea of quantum hootnannies, it is the fact that intentionally inducing extra quantum hootnannies in the brain structure of animals has a noticeable impact on the effects of various anesthesia, i.e. the “anti-conciousness drugs”.

I’m not claiming there is definitive proof, I’m simply stating there is some real, empirical evidence that supports the notion that consciousness is an emergent property reliant upon a maybe narrow range of emergent effects from quantum mechanics that are inherently absent from Turing machine computational models.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374724769_Quantum_Consciousness_Empirical_Evidence_for_Quantum_Mechanisms_in_Human_Cognition_and_Consciousness

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12871-025-02956-9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85673-w

There is some limited empirical evidence to support the hypothesis, yes.

For example:

Through state-of-the-art spectroscopic techniques, specifically two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy (2DES), we’ve detected quantum coherent processes in the microtubules within neural structures. This provides empirical support to our hypothesis about the role of quantum mechanisms in cognition. Furthermore, we provide substantial empirical evidence for quantum mechanisms underlying cognitive processes, including decision-making and memory recall, and present a quantum model of consciousness.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374724769_Quantum_Consciousness_Empirical_Evidence_for_Quantum_Mechanisms_in_Human_Cognition_and_Consciousness

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2025.1676585/full

Quantum effects are literally one of the things that computers are designed specifically to avoid. We’re bumping up against the point where we can make conventional computer chips more dense the same ways we have previously since quantum tunneling causes some noticeable errors in computing when things get too much closer together.

The difference of scale is in the grey area of the difference of scale of quantum and classical mechanics, though. Conciousness very much could be something that depends on the emergent properties of quantum mechanics and doesn’t reach classical mechanics.

There may not be proof that LLMs aren’t sentient, but there is some evidence and reason to believe that consciousness is an emergent property of quantum effects, whereas turing machines are relegated to classical mechanics. The same evidence would indicate it is unlikely that a turing machine could replicate the human brain since it uses fundamentally different layers of reality to calculate/think.

CSAM numbers (intentional viewers, not incidental stumbling upon it) are probably closer to 1/3-1/2 of that.

16% is the same amount that approved of Trumps stupid birthday bash, though. And the same percentage that say the economy is doing great currently. And the same as people who have invested in bitcoin. I’d expect a high rate of overlap in those 16%s.

Who gives a flying fuck what terms one asshole is sick of? Fuck him, fuck vibe coding and trying to enforce language that appeals to what “elite” dipshits like.

Depends. If the tax is based on jobs replaced, not the abstractly defined number of robots that exist, it would have an impact. Also, monolithic solutions tend to be inherently less efficient than similarly developed defined ones, so limiting the robot models for a tax benefit would have another limit on their efficiency.

It’s an issue that could be accounted for, if there were sufficient political will. If taxes from automation were committed to public good, there would likely be pretty widespread acceptance.

This gets close to an idea I heard long ago that I think has some merit.

Hire an employee? You must not only pay them, but cover taxes to have them there. Buy a robot to replace them? It’s a business expense, no taxes!

Okay, pay taxes for your robot usage. Use that money to fund UBI, social programs and/or retraining people for other jobs.

It’s also just not true, the villain/killer/etc has iPhones in many shows and movies already, including multiple AppleTV shows.

So much this. You can fix blatant bugs sometimes and have people whine because it breaks their flow to have it work correctly.

What do you mean you made it so it no longer freezes for 20 seconds after clicking the Q-button?! I count on that pause to ensure my J-Flame comes at the right time! How dare you?!

A significant number of his best investments were based upon fuckery that the rest of us aren’t really able to enact, so “spite buy entire companies” or whatever isn’t really any sort of opinion I’d listen to, either.

TBF, an investor could make a thousand good investments and I’d still regard their opinion as worthless (here’s lookin’ at you, Buffet.) Being “good” at figuring out which stocks and companies you can exploit the most from the actually productive economy doesn’t make you smart or in anyway good.