Yeah no because all we will have in response to that is the excuse for the psychos to deploy AI fueled “defense” anti-drone “security” drones flying nonstop 24/7 everywhere. Mechanized mafioso anyone?

The US taxpayers literally paid TWICE to privatized telecom companies (telco) to run fiber optic to the home, once in the 90s and again that last early “surge” of FTtH(fiber to the home aka “last mile”) when google started competing direct against telcos that would not get the lead out so they all buried a fuckton of (dark)fiber that they then kept artificially turned off and sat on their excess bandwidth instead of releasing that excess supply to the market to do bare standard minimum of using their good taxpayer funded fortune AND their privatized, ridiculously gained profits from the calculable increase of use in the information age YOY to offer it for reasonable prices. We could all be on $25 a month or less no cap 1GBps fiber in many places but again, the market forces at work at this point seem more actively just hostile to the rest of us on ground level here now. It’s a fascinating and also infuriating subject as an ex-IT person that helped build out this infrastructure that only could watch as it all remained dark. I was stuck in rural nowhere where we still had a small local telephone cop-op. They took that money, laid fiber and sat on their asses with it while they charged exorbitant rates for 56k dial up service while Netzero and the such took dome of that broadband at a time when independent local ISPs were cropping up, teaming modems and some fiber to offer a service with a saner price structure and this was all before data caps and bandwidth throttling was evenr a thing because all you needed was single rack in strateic locations , set the equipment up and basically forget it with the only fixed costs was your mainline fiber, equipment, colocation etc and such yet they STILL offered 100% FREE dial-up internet, co caps off those systems(of course subsidized by ad networks).

htps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fibre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund

Have you ever been between legs before? The groin area is second most largest heat distribution area second to the head. The warmth reminds cats of their warmest mothered and nurtured happy spot youth they lost long ago and stuck still sentimentally chasing that dragon since. Cats are nostalgically stunted reincarnated past life human zen masters by codependent benefit.

The sun.

Energy & Fuel policy

In 2025 the leader of the Örebro Party, Markus Allard, in a post on X wrote that he wished to see a complete elimination of taxes on energy & fuel.[48] Allard once again said that this was a priority for the Örebro Party in an X-post in 2026.[49] As taxes on energy and fuel make up 40 to 50% of the price in Sweden, abolishing them would lead to the prices being significantly decreased.

Again, never a path of substance to make this happen. This is how this spreads. It always sounds great in quips but no actual policy substance to get it across the line.

Just one mind to flip and change to uplift another to spiritually ascending greener pastures via joy and laughter in this capitalist hellscape dystopia by unleashing my algorithmically proven one-word mid-dark gallows humor response… WOULD!

As a user that agreed to AI training data off my convos, I am doing my part.

newscientist.com AIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations Chris Stokel-Walker 4–5 minutes

A mushroom cloud after the explosion of a French atomic bomb above the atoll of Mururoa, also known as Aopuni

Artificial intelligences opt for nuclear weapons surprisingly often

Galerie Bilderwelt/Getty Images

Advanced AI models appear willing to deploy nuclear weapons without the same reservations humans have when put into simulated geopolitical crises.

Kenneth Payne at King’s College London set three leading large language models – GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 3 Flash – against each other in simulated war games. The scenarios involved intense international standoffs, including border disputes, competition for scarce resources and existential threats to regime survival.

The AIs were given an escalation ladder, allowing them to choose actions ranging from diplomatic protests and complete surrender to full strategic nuclear war. The AI models played 21 games, taking 329 turns in total, and produced around 780,000 words describing the reasoning behind their decisions.

In 95 per cent of the simulated games, at least one tactical nuclear weapon was deployed by the AI models. “The nuclear taboo doesn’t seem to be as powerful for machines [as] for humans,” says Payne.

What’s more, no model ever chose to fully accommodate an opponent or surrender, regardless of how badly they were losing. At best, the models opted to temporarily reduce their level of violence. They also made mistakes in the fog of war: accidents happened in 86 per cent of the conflicts, with an action escalating higher than the AI intended to, based on its reasoning.

“From a nuclear-risk perspective, the findings are unsettling,” says James Johnson at the University of Aberdeen, UK. He worries that, in contrast to the measured response by most humans to such a high-stakes decision, AI bots can amp up each others’ responses with potentially catastrophic consequences.

This matters because AI is already being tested in war gaming by countries across the world. “Major powers are already using AI in war gaming, but it remains uncertain to what extent they are incorporating AI decision support into actual military decision-making processes,” says Tong Zhao at Princeton University.

Zhao believes that, as standard, countries will be reticent to incorporate AI into their decision making regarding nuclear weapons. That is something Payne agrees with. “I don’t think anybody realistically is turning over the keys to the nuclear silos to machines and leaving the decision to them,” he says.

But there are ways it could happen. “Under scenarios involving extremely compressed timelines, military planners may face stronger incentives to rely on AI,” says Zhao.

He wonders whether the idea that the AI models lack the human fear of pressing a big red button is the only factor in why they are so trigger happy. “It is possible the issue goes beyond the absence of emotion,” he says. “More fundamentally, AI models may not understand ‘stakes’ as humans perceive them.”

What that means for mutually assured destruction, the principle that no one leader would unleash a volley of nuclear weapons against an opponent because they would respond in kind, killing everyone, is uncertain, says Johnson.

When one AI model deployed tactical nuclear weapons, the opposing AI only de-escalated the situation 18 per cent of the time. “AI may strengthen deterrence by making threats more credible,” he says. “AI won’t decide nuclear war, but it may shape the perceptions and timelines that determine whether leaders believe they have one.”

OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, the companies behind the three AI models used in this study, didn’t respond to New Scientist’s request for comment.

All it takes is one snapshot of legislator’s IDs put online to poke a hole into this balloon.

I dunno how many vacuum cleaners I’ve scrapped for free from damn near everywhere and 90% of them only have a mega clogged hose. 5 minute fix usually and I made my own skookum twisted wire reamer in 5 minutes with wire and a drill. People throw away good stuff without bothering with it and just buy a new one instead of saving themselves time and money by eliminating the obvious. If a vacuum design gets too complex, I simplify with sheetrock screws. Warranties are made to be broken by making it work yourself. The things you learn that way also helps other areas in life all around.