I still don't know if this satire or not

Pic unrelated bc I didn't know what to add for this

I'm going to be honest, I'm not confident in the future of AI and think it would've been ultimately better if it weren't invented to begin with.

I know that it can have genuinely incredible applications that would benefit humanity as a whole, namely healthcare, accident prevention (like with airplanes, ships, shuttles, workplace related, etc.), and weather/natural disaster predictions. I'd love if that were all that it could do.

But I've also seen AI in warfare, surveillance, and policing used to seriously harm innocent people. Employers are already using AI to unfairly filter people out of jobs, and I believe black rock also uses AI to buy up properties. Not to mention that jobs like illustrators, writers, musicians, etc will all inevitably be replaced by their employers looking to consolidate workplace power from unions and increase profit margins.

Boycotting AI art is one way to slow down its growth that I can think of, but what else can be done?

It needs to be regulated and curbed before it's too late.

Firstly:

Okay now for the post.

When Palestine is liberated, I think the vast majority of settlers will either be [redacted] or forced out of the region. There is no way that any Arab in the region will accept having a settler in their land, and the settlers know this. The plan will have to be a mass exodus for the west, both for their safety and livelihood (I can see many going into ghoul industries like defense, tech, and police training).

That being said, how would you react if your country decides to accept settlers? Would you support the move? If they were going to live in your community/ neighborhoods how would you feel?

I'm almost convinced that people don't become ultraleft; they end up ultraleft. What type of confusion, abuse, bigotry, whatever- it doesn't matter- turns someone into an ultraleft?

I'm at my wits end, are they just neoliberals that haven't accepted that fact?

What's stopping us? Not all of us have to, obviously, but at least some of us can live that way.

If our antiquated predecessors could sometimes manage it, I'm sure we can too. Maybe even better.

I don't post, like, comment or even go on Twitter. I just made one a long time ago so I could look up some tweets (twitch streamer controversy) one time. All of a sudden I got suspended and I don't know why?

Also what is this subscriber thing? I can only see a few posts at a time unless I subscribe? I don't use the site period, so this is all new for me.

The comments are so bleak, I genuinely feel bad for some Americans.

What is it?

French President Emmanuel Macron said last month that he “cannot exclude” the possibility of Western soldiers being sent to aid Kiev in its fight against Moscow, branding Russia an “adversary” while denying Paris was “waging war” against it.

Russia’s military and top officials have repeatedly pointed to the presence of French mercenaries already fighting for Kiev on the ground.

In the statement on Tuesday, the SVR chief said the French Armed Forces had become “concerned” about the rising number of French nationals dying in Ukraine.

The casualty level has supposedly surpassed a “psychological threshold” and could trigger protests, the statement said, adding that Macron’s government was concealing this information and “delaying” the moment it would have to be revealed.

The claims come as the chief of staff of the French Army, Gen. Pierre Schill, said in an interview on Tuesday that France is prepared to take part in the “toughest engagements” militarily, and is ready to face any international developments. He added that Paris could assemble a division of 20,000 troops within 30 days and an army of 60,000 by joining with divisions from other NATO allies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also claimed this week that Western mercenaries, including French nationals, are dying in Ukraine “in large numbers.” Commenting on a potential NATO deployment to Ukraine, the president also warned that this would be “one step shy of a full-scale World War III.”

Cross posted this from lemmygrad

What I'm imagining is one currency ("foreign currency", let's call it) is used mainly for other countries to buy goods from the 2-currency country; this one would be "cheap" relative to other countries in order to encourage trade. That currency would be similar to an export country's currency (like China).

So let's say our hypothetical country wants to trade lumber, they'll price the lumber according to the foreign currency for other countries to buy.

The other currency ("domestic currency") is earned and used by the citizens of said country to be able to purchase goods (domestic and imported). This currency would be "strong" and could allow citizens to sustain a quality of life that allows them to comfortably afford a home, education, groceries, etc.

So the hypothetical exchange rate of "domestic currency" (DC$) for the "foreign currency" (FC$) would look something like this:

1DC$ = 100FC$

Another condition: Domestic goods for domestic purchase are not priced according to the domestic currency, they're priced at the foreign currency and can be bought using the domestic currency (by citizens).

So going back to the lumber example: a citizen wants to buy lumber. That citizen will purchase lumbar using the domestic currency, but the price of the lumber will be set according to the foreign currency (which is it's price during trade).