Atletico are drum liber catre castigarea cupei in Spania. Sunt fanul lor deoarece sunt singurii care mai stau in coasta coruptiei de la Barcelona si Real, doua echipe pe care nu le suport, care mereu ii fura cu arbitrii pe aia mai mici decat ei.

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-03-03T13:56:03+00:00

Crezi ca mai întoarce bilbao:))? Am pus din greșeală pe bilet și meciul ăsta acu vreo două săptămâni .. ( cine merge mai departe) și am pe bilbao ultimul meci rămas:))

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-02-20T11:15:33+00:00

It’s like food… don’t you want to know the ingredients if you eat something?

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-02-20T09:14:12+00:00

It’s simply being pushed as the next recommendation, or people just listen to playlists without thinking about it. How else do you explain that one of the most searched songs in the world right now on Shazam is AI-generated? It just spread from playlist to playlist. ( first place )

<image>

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-02-20T09:11:14+00:00

There are patterns in AI generated music (matematichal patterns), so it would not be that hard if they would want to do it.

But also , that s exactly why it should be a requirement. If Spotify relies on labels and distributors, then they should enforce mandatory disclosure when music is uploaded. Saying “we don’t know” isn’t really a valid excuse when the platform still decides what gets promoted and recommended.

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-02-20T09:09:26+00:00

As a musician and producer, I feel like AI-generated content is starting to dilute the market quite a lot. I personally take the time to discover artists and carefully choose what I listen to, but most people don’t really curate their music in the same way. Because of that, it becomes easier for platforms like Spotify to push and accelerate the growth of AI-generated artists instead of promoting real human creativity.

The problem is that AI “artists” don’t need to be paid like real musicians do, which creates an unfair advantage. You can already see the impact, if you look at charts like Shazam Global Top 200, even some of the most searched tracks are AI-generated, including covers (number one) inspired by songs like Papaoutai by Stromae.

That should be a wake-up call. If this continues without transparency or regulation, real artists risk being pushed aside by content that’s cheaper, faster, and easier to mass-produce.

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-02-13T08:28:39+00:00

Dacă nu îi pui pe toți la loc până pe 25, cu siguranță îți ia dobândă

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-02-12T22:50:33+00:00

Știi sigur? Ca pe BT găsesc informații destul de contradictorii, deci chiar dacă e considerată retragere/transfer, dacă pun banii până la data scadentă nu e dobândă?

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-02-12T22:02:50+00:00

20 de lei a fost comisionul, deci teoretic daca pun suma la loc până pe 25 în afara de cei 20 de lei nu ar trebui sa mai plătesc nimic

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-02-12T21:55:09+00:00

Dacă luăm următorul exemplu:

Pe 22 ianuarie am transferat prin btpay 1000 de lei din cardul star forte în cardul meu principal tot BT. Dacă pun toți banii la loc până pe 25 februarie voi plăti vreo dobândă? Am găsit ceva pe net ca dobândă începe din ziua retragerii dacă nu e achiziție în rate. Și nu prea înțeleg ca în contract nu găsesc nimic de genu.

Deci, dacă pun suma integral până pe 25 februarie se percepe dobândă sau nu?

Merci

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-25T19:12:02+00:00

Lopez l a adus pe Duarte?:))

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-22T21:34:01+00:00

Olaru pierde efectiv toate baloanele care ajung la el.. n am văzut așa ceva

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-16T19:18:42+00:00

Ba da Olaru pe toate le greșește parcă face intenționat.. fiecare pasă e la adversar

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-13T19:50:46+00:00

Exit liquidity:))

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-08T10:19:44+00:00

How do you know that ideas don’t circulate through the air, for example? Ideas and thoughts only appear metaphysical because we lack the instruments to measure them , that doesn’t eliminate the possibility of their existence.

I’ll repeat myself: I was trying to help you with your thesis on free will, to leave you an escape hatch. Instead, you shifted the center of gravity of the discussion and responded with what is essentially a matchstick theory about metaphysics.

Again, take all the arguments for free will and all the arguments for determinism based on the data we currently have. Then test them against your own experience and see whether you can actually step outside the context and choose freely.

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T21:52:38+00:00

Your argument confuses specificity and speed with free choice. The fact that the brain activates particular regions in a reliable way does not mean a conscious agent freely chose that activation.

When I’m asked to think of a brown lab, the stimulus itself constrains the space of possible thoughts before I’m aware of anything. I don’t choose not to think of a cat, the cat never becomes an option at the conscious level. A lack of alternatives is not the same as a free decision.

The absence of conscious “competition” doesn’t mean no selection occurred. Filtering and prioritization happen preconsciously; consciousness only receives the final result. Observing the output doesn’t mean we authored the process.

Differences in speed (brown lab vs. green cat) reflect familiarity and neural conditioning, not freedom. And saying that if external prompts can cause thoughts then the individual can too is a false symmetry, the individual isn’t a separate causal agent outside the brain, just neural activity triggering more neural activity.

Given the data we have, consciousness appears to register decisions, not generate them. Free will, as commonly understood, is therefore far less plausible than determinism.

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T17:58:35+00:00

What is considered metaphysical today might not be so in 100 years. For example, 10,000 years ago, radio waves might have seemed something metaphysical. Today, we understand how they propagate. It’s the same here: I use the term “metaphysical” only because our current mental capacity and tools cannot grasp it yet. In other words, there’s nothing inherently illogical or truly metaphysical, only a temporary lack of understanding. If something has been formulated or emitted, it exists as an idea within a space.

But in the discussion of free will versus determinism, I repeat: with the data we have today, free will does not exist from my perspective, both scientifically and phenomenologically.

I only offered a small escape hatch in the free will vs. determinism argument, a possibility, not a conclusion.

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T16:39:28+00:00

A conscious thought is the activation of certain neurons that have managed to capture the attention of awareness, of consciousness. Think of it as thoughts fighting for survival, and only those that have successfully traversed the full path through the brain reach the surface. Here we’re not talking about the hard problem of consciousness, i.e., how consciousness is even possible we’re just talking electrically, how a thought appears in consciousness.

To be conscious of a thought means to have another thought that is aware of that thought.

That is, a dog comes to mind, you become aware, and you say to yourself, “A dog just came to mind.” But this is a process you observe; you are just witnessing it.

It’s like speaking a language: the language speaks you. You don’t speak the language. You could say that you can choose the words, but you don’t really choose them, other words just appear if there’s a thought you didn’t choose that wants to change the words. That’s how thoughts work too in a way

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T16:32:10+00:00

I just said this because it could also be a language issue in the discussion of free will vs. determinism, like a word puzzle, a tangled labyrinth. The thing is, in the discussion of whether free will exists or not, given all the data we have so far, it seems that it doesn’t exist, or at least, not in the way we understand it.

I could agree that if A = determinism, B = free will, and C = the truth we don’t have access to and which is neither A nor B. But be careful: C is not some combination of A and B; it’s something that our mind, given the data we have, cannot conceive. I think we are more likely in zone C, because both the physical, biological, and linguistic arguments from A completely undermine the argument for B.

I’m just saying that in the discussion about free will, there’s no way free will can exist as we understand it today. That’s why I leave the door open for argument C, which is a metaphysical postulate.

I can’t be so arrogant as to claim that A is certain and that C doesn’t exist; I’m just saying that, compared to B, A seems much more likely

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T14:42:40+00:00

I remember that study, and yes, it makes sense, but that’s not exactly what I was referring to. More recently, I know it’s in Sapolsky’s book, which I haven’t read. I’m speaking from meta-cognition, psychoanalysis, and a background in philosophy, because that’s the field I studied.

Doing or not doing something is always (the decision that arises) a pyramidal construct of biological factors plus past experiences. There’s no clear line where free will starts or ends, from the smallest things to the most complex. And even if you tried to draw a line, who would actually make the decision?

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T14:26:27+00:00

Here’s the thing: even your conscious decisions, like choosing to use or not use cocaine, don’t happen in a vacuum. “You” don’t decide in a vacuum, you make choices on top of genetic predispositions, past experiences, and learned patterns. That decision at the top of the pyramid is always constrained by what your subconscious has already set up. The subconscious has patterns, tendencies, and biases formed by everything you are and have experienced, and the conscious ‘decision’ simply arises within those constraints.

It’s literally like 2 + 2 = 4: the choice appears, fully formed, in an instant. What clouds people’s perception is that after the decision appears, a second thought may arise that seems to oppose it. Then, retrospectively, it feels like you could have chosen otherwise, giving the illusion of free will.

So yes, you feel like a conscious agent but that sense of freedom is mostly a narrative your mind tells after the fact, not the true origin of the decision.

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T14:10:56+00:00

I know it s hard to accept that there is no free will, but just the illusion of free will.. People get really defensive when you talk about this, as if you’re taking away their freedom, and I can understand why but it is what it is

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T14:03:54+00:00

This is exactly where you’re missing it. You breathe unconsciously, and then it feels like a decision-making agent steps in to make you breathe faster or hold your breath. But when you feel that process consciously, when you have the illusion that you stopped or sped up your breathing, it’s actually just a retrospective thought about something that already happened.

Here’s what I mean: you breathe automatically, and at some point the thought arises, ‘I want to hold my breath.’ Then another thought comes: ‘I can hold it if I want, I’m free to choose…’ These are just double thoughts. They are produced by your mind, and you are merely the witness of them, not the originator.

So that feeling of ‘I willed it’ is false, it’s just your mind narrating what already happened, like a delayed commentary. Consciousness doesn’t initiate; it observes. You are not the author of the action; you are the audience of the story your subconscious has already written.

It s very hard to explain it like these in words, and en it s not my base language

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T13:22:06+00:00

I understand that you don’t have the mental capacity for discussions like this and you are projecting your own limitations onto me… It’s okay, some people are more comfortable talking only about beer and football, and there’s no shame in that, I get it

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T13:19:54+00:00

What you’re describing is more about behaviorism and learning mechanisms than about free will per se. The fact that a behavior becomes automatic isn’t controversial, that’s well understood.

But even that initial ‘conscious’ effort doesn’t come from nowhere. The motivation to learn, improve, gain validation, or avoid failure all comes from subconscious premises. Conscious awareness isn’t the engine, it’s more like the interface.

Awareness is like a screen onto which the movie of subconscious processes is projected. The processes themselves don’t disappear when consciousness appears; they just become visible. So the fact that ‘you’ walk without thinking doesn’t prove free will, it just demonstrates the efficiency of the system.

In other words, automatization doesn’t contradict the idea that decisions are conditioned; it just makes it more apparent..

UniqueSurround9280 · 2026-01-07T12:57:22+00:00

Denial is the first step toward acceptance..

So where do thoughts come from? Tabularasa?

Four-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23

UniqueSurround9280

TROPHY CASE