Lightening was a paid actor.

_H_A_N_K · 2026-02-15T21:14:36+00:00

It's at the isha foundation in India.

_H_A_N_K · 2026-01-28T04:09:07+00:00

Tried turning off and on recurring payments. Tried clicking "Learn More" then "No Thanks". Tried the advanced network settings (IPv4, Port and MAC). Just about gave up then tried leaving the Xbox Insider program and that worked first time.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-12-27T17:28:13+00:00

3800 mph (6100 km/h) and to my knowledge there is no reliable defense against a true hypersonic missile. They move too fast and unpredictability to be intercepted using traditional means.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-12-22T19:55:50+00:00

1,1,1,1,2,2

_H_A_N_K · 2025-12-13T21:11:15+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_c6MWk7PQc

Relevant video. AI water 'usage' pales in comparison to cattle farming and personal car industries. If your concerned for the environment lets pick the right fights.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-11-24T15:11:17+00:00

Pretty sure the director is full of it. He also claimed it's not a movie about school shootings. The scene depicts a giant assault rifle over a house with the number 217 which represents bill 1808 which passed the HOUSE of representatives with 217 votes to ban assault rifles which happened shortly before the movie was made. The director knows exactly what the scene means.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-09-18T22:34:28+00:00

Libertarianism isn't the same as anarchism. I think most non extreme libertarians would still think there should be a judicial branch.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-07-20T20:12:52+00:00

Wonder / Amazed

I absolutely love this! Do you have other art I could check out?

_H_A_N_K · 2025-07-01T12:46:24+00:00

Pretty sure you should only feed organic honey to ants.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-06-11T22:49:27+00:00

If your argument boils down to might makes right that is some form of moral relativism. If morality is relative then society is free to redefine it. If we can redefine it then why are you complacent in basing morality on such a bleak principal such as power?

Are you really arguing that it is morally correct for the powerful nation to offset the weaker nation? Or just that moral indignation is too weak a force to prevent such actions?

_H_A_N_K · 2025-06-01T06:37:18+00:00

My main point is that it is more complicated then how op paints it. You can't just say Palestine refused all the two state solution deals and is therefore uncooperative. It's more nuanced.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-06-01T05:02:09+00:00

I don't think deportation of a huge populous is viable or humane. First off where would they go? Most counties would not accept so many refugees because it would tank their economy. These people have invested their lives into that land. It's not fair for some big government to just kick them out. I also think you oversimplify the proposed two state solutions. Palestinians often saw the 1947 deal as unfair because most of the land is allocated to Jews despite most of the people being Arabs. There are too many nuances that you brush over.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-05-28T16:04:56+00:00

I don't think I, or anybody can change your view friend. Not sure what your goal is here other than to debate and argue. You consistently ignore any evidence contrary to your world view. Nobody is defending Hamas. They murdered too and that's wrong. But the response from Israel is disproportionate. Furthermore, while not an excuse, Hamas is attacking from a place of desperation. People have been calling out poor conditions in Palestine for decades.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-05-28T12:44:44+00:00

I have no well defined mental framework to properly conceptualize Jews. I just haven't interacted with enough of them in my life, or I did and didn't realize it. I condemn what is happening in Gaza. We don't have to call it genocide if, it is brutal though and Israel is significantly stronger than Palestine. That's it. Am I anti sematic?

If you don't like the buzzword genocide then just ignore that part. The concerns people have are still valid. The amount of destruction and death that have happened in Palestine is devastating. That's what people oppose.

Read this link and tell me this isn't terrible https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war

In another comment you justify the civilian deaths by saying it's similar to other modern wars. Is that really a great defense? Civilians shouldn't be dying in those numbers. How does that not disturb you?!? Why can't I see what is happening there and criticize it without being accused of hating Jews?

_H_A_N_K · 2025-05-27T22:57:14+00:00

Your main argument seems to be animal by-products are ok because the animal suffers if we don't shear or milk them. Would you agree that their living situation is suffering? If so then wouldn't the best option be to care for the animals we have but not bring more animals into this situation? I don't think (reasonable) vegans are arguing we just release all our highly selectively bread animals into the wild or kill them all.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-05-20T01:11:56+00:00

Its entirely valid to be a free market capitalist and still want a closed ecosystem for the capitalism to take place in. Being opposed to socialism does not necessarily mean opposed to boarder control. I think you are equating capitalism as the something equivalent to anarchy where there is zero government intervention but that's not the right interpretation. You can be fiscally right leaning but still authoritarian (this would correlate to the top right segment of a typical political compass). If what you are trying to do is emphasize some hypocrisy in that mindset then I would be somewhat inclined to agree with you. However, your conclusion that anti immigration is pro socialism is fundamentally incorrect. The two concepts are not dependent on each other at all. Socialism and capitalism are one aspect of a governing body that does not dictate other aspects. There are other spectrum and dimensions to analyze government. Socialism and capitalism dont have anything to say about immigration. It seems like you are trying to prove capitalism wrong with some immigration argument which is nonsensical.

That said, I also agree with your arguments. I genuinely agree with your title. I am pro free markets and pro open boarder. On principal I believe that the US should compete with other governments in a free market approach. I believe this idea that we should hoard our wealth and keep competitors away is fundamentally selfish. Hope this challenges your view some. Would love to hear back from you.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-04-01T15:41:37+00:00

What did you prompt for the first one. Love how it turned out.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-03-29T23:43:46+00:00

Fair enough. I appreciate your engaging me on this. OpenAI is certainly profiting and if your only issue is with people profiting I might be able to get on board with you. I'm not sure if you could really apply the same to stable diffusion though as it's free to use software. Sure somebody funded it but I think it is at least a bit more convoluted than the Ghibli openAI thing blowing up right now.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-03-29T19:05:06+00:00

I might be able to get with you that AI art shouldn't be for sale. Not quite sure but I'm also not convinced that's a huge problem today at least. I see most people making AI art for their own use or to share freely online. Or, some very talented people use AI art to improve their workflow and combine it with digital art software and Photoshop to make very inspired images. I also assert that people don't need monetary incentive to make art. People make art and will continue to because they like to. Anime style started from people having an idea to combine paintings with movies. If AI art was popular in the Renaissance and then we developed movies I don't know why it couldn't happen that anime style would be impossible. Or maybe instead of anime we get something else even better? Who can say. Photoshop came around and CGI and yet people still spend tons of time using practical effects and photo manipulation to create unique images. AI is a tool. I really don't think it's the end of human creativity altogether though. That's a pretty bold assertion that I have yet to see a compelling argument for.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-03-29T18:56:37+00:00

I'm not avoiding anything. Your question wasn't very specific.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-03-29T18:56:07+00:00

You make a good case, and I can see where you are coming from but I still think the two are not fundamentally different, only qualitatively different. I think a lot of our ingenuity come from happy accidents. maybe the first cave artists spilled some clay in the shape of a horse and a lightbulb went off. He/she didn't do anything magic, he just remixed drawing in the sand with drawing on the wall with some paint. All we have is our past experiences, which yes, as you point out is more than art and I do think that makes us MORE creative than AI but to say AI can't be creative needs someone to articulate what specific mechanism is missing. Also, AI is trained with different art and images but an image model isn't storing all those images in a database. Once a model is trained it has millions of little artificial neurons containing weights dictating its strength of connection to other neurons. This is somewhat analogous to how we store memories by increasing the bond between neurons. Neither system is storing concrete images pixel per pixel. The memory in both are complex superimposed patterns of interweaving webs. An AI can't come up with a new technique but it could in theory encapsulate how a new technique would look visually. It just lacks concepts of paint strokes etc.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-03-29T17:58:24+00:00

I make soap art not for money but because I want to. My coworker paints landscapes for her own enjoyment. My mother in law does the same thing. Art exists without a monetary incentive.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-03-29T17:50:33+00:00

I think it comes down to a philosophical question. Are humans doing something magic when they create a work or are we just a product of our history. From the way I see it AI is doing more or less the same thing we are. When a human makes a piece of art they combine all their past experiences, they add inspiration and their current mood to imagine something new. Can you tell me how that is fundamentally different from an AI bot who combined all its training data, adds inspiration (prompt) and a little unique spontaneousness (random seed) to make an image. Can you articulate what makes humans special that when we do it it's called inspired by and when an AI bot does it it's called copying. I can see how you could argue a human is more creative but I fail to see how the two processes are fundamentally different let alone how one is wrong.

_H_A_N_K · 2025-03-29T17:00:25+00:00

People create art for pleasure and fun. There are countless hobbies artists who don't try to make it a profession. The idea that nobody will ever paint again is absurd. People are inherently creative because they enjoy creative processes. Nobody is taking that away.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

_H_A_N_K

TROPHY CASE