https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC

The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.

I'm not that interested in that kind of thing right now though. That was probably someone's plan, and it worked; I'll make an even bigger difference with a startup, I predict.

By the way, I think I get who you/MK5000 are. There seem to be a lot of wild references to things in the past that I've said in some your posts that threw me off at first...maybe I won't go into detail about the time I said, "say something interesting" to someone in college. (It was a student, I wasn't being all that inappropriate.)

It is also possible that my belief about who you are is also mistaken, but I don't think so.

(Also note, if anyone, especially under 18, is reading this in the future, I recommend extreme caution about talking to strangers on the internet. Talking about "who someone's secret identity" on the internet is is not something you would ordinarily expect a regular person under ordinary circumstances to ever do, and every internet user should be safe and careful...don't let yourself get abducted and killed by people you don't know on the internet, I am serious, even though I am not suspicious of this particular poster whom I think I understand the identity of. Safety first when dealing with the internet!)

-Philip

On 2/22/2022 2:09 PM, B.H. wrote:
> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
>
>
> The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.
>
> I'm not that interested in that kind of thing right now though. That was probably someone's plan, and it worked; I'll make an even bigger difference with a startup, I predict.
>
> By the way, I think I get who you/MK5000 are. There seem to be a lot of wild references to things in the past that I've said in some your posts that threw me off at first...maybe I won't go into detail about the time I said, "say something interesting" to someone in college. (It was a student, I wasn't being all that inappropriate.)
>
> It is also possible that my belief about who you are is also mistaken, but I don't think so.
>
> (Also note, if anyone, especially under 18, is reading this in the future, I recommend extreme caution about talking to strangers on the internet. Talking about "who someone's secret identity" on the internet is is not something you would

¿Why did you type the word 'is' twice in a row?

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:15:44 PM UTC-5, nymbot wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 2:09 PM, B.H. wrote:
> > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
> >> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
> >
> >
> > The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.
> >
> > I'm not that interested in that kind of thing right now though. That was probably someone's plan, and it worked; I'll make an even bigger difference with a startup, I predict.
> >
> > By the way, I think I get who you/MK5000 are. There seem to be a lot of wild references to things in the past that I've said in some your posts that threw me off at first...maybe I won't go into detail about the time I said, "say something interesting" to someone in college. (It was a student, I wasn't being all that inappropriate.)
> >
> > It is also possible that my belief about who you are is also mistaken, but I don't think so.
> >
> > (Also note, if anyone, especially under 18, is reading this in the future, I recommend extreme caution about talking to strangers on the internet. Talking about "who someone's secret identity" on the internet is is not something you would
> ¿Why did you type the word 'is' twice in a row?

It is grammatically correct.

Do you want to know about strategic intoxication also? How many more free lessons do you expect to receive while you insult, harass, and point out that you want to kill me?

I believe I've told you predator idiots enough. I even told you the right courses of action: don't lie, release me from captivity immediately AND DO NOT COME BACK, follow your country's rules strictly, be fair, and don't go out of your way to infuriate everyone just for the purpose of "looking tough." Failure to adhere to these requirements is a recipe for disaster; maybe you could break a few minor rules in the face of a holocaust (that you are actually working and going all out to stop), but otherwise, no, literally, never do it, never do your "predator games" or anything else illegal at all. Everything I told you/CIA/other idiots is true; you literally have no good choice other than to follow the instructions, especially with regard to the idea of RELEASING ME. Again, the notion that I am to be held responsible for your terrible choices is ludicrous.

The fact that you have been educated yet again, even more clearly, will indict you further if you fail to adhere to the instructions yet again.

-Philip White

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:28:40 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:15:44 PM UTC-5, nymbot wrote:
> > On 2/22/2022 2:09 PM, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
> > >> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
> > >
> > >
> > > The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc.., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.
> > >
> > > I'm not that interested in that kind of thing right now though. That was probably someone's plan, and it worked; I'll make an even bigger difference with a startup, I predict.
> > >
> > > By the way, I think I get who you/MK5000 are. There seem to be a lot of wild references to things in the past that I've said in some your posts that threw me off at first...maybe I won't go into detail about the time I said, "say something interesting" to someone in college. (It was a student, I wasn't being all that inappropriate.)
> > >
> > > It is also possible that my belief about who you are is also mistaken, but I don't think so.
> > >
> > > (Also note, if anyone, especially under 18, is reading this in the future, I recommend extreme caution about talking to strangers on the internet. Talking about "who someone's secret identity" on the internet is is not something you would
> > ¿Why did you type the word 'is' twice in a row?
> It is grammatically correct.
>
> Do you want to know about strategic intoxication also? How many more free lessons do you expect to receive while you insult, harass, and point out that you want to kill me?
>
> I believe I've told you predator idiots enough. I even told you the right courses of action: don't lie, release me from captivity immediately AND DO NOT COME BACK, follow your country's rules strictly, be fair, and don't go out of your way to infuriate everyone just for the purpose of "looking tough." Failure to adhere to these requirements is a recipe for disaster; maybe you could break a few minor rules in the face of a holocaust (that you are actually working and going all out to stop), but otherwise, no, literally, never do it, never do your "predator games" or anything else illegal at all. Everything I told you/CIA/other idiots is true; you literally have no good choice other than to follow the instructions, especially with regard to the idea of RELEASING ME. Again, the notion that I am to be held responsible for your terrible choices is ludicrous.
>
> The fact that you have been educated yet again, even more clearly, will indict you further if you fail to adhere to the instructions yet again.
>
> -Philip White

A prediction I just thought of:

You will continue to be the dumbest and most stubborn/intransigent mules on the planet and fail to adhere to the instructions again, at your very great expense and the expense of your backers. You will blame anyone you can other than your own bad strategic and moral choices, compounding your humiliation. You will continue this for at least the next six months, because your workforce has been HR-wise influenced and "re-trained" in a sense by al-Qaeda, and you are still so confused that you do not even realize this, will not accept it, and will not work to hire and retain anyone with serious ethics to help you learn what a "law" or "rule" is. This will be responsible for your ongoing problems, although I believe the US itself will be fine in spite of your continuing failures that you seem practically dog-trained to pursue no matter what the cost.

When you realize that what I've said above is true, you will claim, falsely, that either I did it and I'm evil and must be made to suffer at all costs, or that I'm too stupid to have done and it has nothing to do with me. In general, you will react with self-entitled anger and frustration, and consider continuing your non-compliance indefinitely. You will suffer more losses, again, and again, and again, doing the dumbest things possible, until Joe Biden resigns and someone who wants to give the US IC a "fresh start" will consider some different options. Eventually, you will comply, but not until you have been made to hurt more than you ever thought was possible by currently dead al-Qaeda terrorists who understood psychologically you in a way that almost no one else can, because no one else has had that kind of interaction with you, and you refuse to vaccinate yourself against strategic failure with FAIRNESS, since you think you for wusses, precisely in accordance with terrorists ambitions.

-Philip

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:37:45 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:28:40 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:15:44 PM UTC-5, nymbot wrote:
> > > On 2/22/2022 2:09 PM, B.H. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
> > > >> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office.. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not that interested in that kind of thing right now though. That was probably someone's plan, and it worked; I'll make an even bigger difference with a startup, I predict.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, I think I get who you/MK5000 are. There seem to be a lot of wild references to things in the past that I've said in some your posts that threw me off at first...maybe I won't go into detail about the time I said, "say something interesting" to someone in college. (It was a student, I wasn't being all that inappropriate.)
> > > >
> > > > It is also possible that my belief about who you are is also mistaken, but I don't think so.
> > > >
> > > > (Also note, if anyone, especially under 18, is reading this in the future, I recommend extreme caution about talking to strangers on the internet. Talking about "who someone's secret identity" on the internet is is not something you would
> > > ¿Why did you type the word 'is' twice in a row?
> > It is grammatically correct.
> >
> > Do you want to know about strategic intoxication also? How many more free lessons do you expect to receive while you insult, harass, and point out that you want to kill me?
> >
> > I believe I've told you predator idiots enough. I even told you the right courses of action: don't lie, release me from captivity immediately AND DO NOT COME BACK, follow your country's rules strictly, be fair, and don't go out of your way to infuriate everyone just for the purpose of "looking tough." Failure to adhere to these requirements is a recipe for disaster; maybe you could break a few minor rules in the face of a holocaust (that you are actually working and going all out to stop), but otherwise, no, literally, never do it, never do your "predator games" or anything else illegal at all. Everything I told you/CIA/other idiots is true; you literally have no good choice other than to follow the instructions, especially with regard to the idea of RELEASING ME. Again, the notion that I am to be held responsible for your terrible choices is ludicrous.
> >
> > The fact that you have been educated yet again, even more clearly, will indict you further if you fail to adhere to the instructions yet again.
> >
> > -Philip White
> A prediction I just thought of:
>
> You will continue to be the dumbest and most stubborn/intransigent mules on the planet and fail to adhere to the instructions again, at your very great expense and the expense of your backers. You will blame anyone you can other than your own bad strategic and moral choices, compounding your humiliation. You will continue this for at least the next six months, because your workforce has been HR-wise influenced and "re-trained" in a sense by al-Qaeda, and you are still so confused that you do not even realize this, will not accept it, and will not work to hire and retain anyone with serious ethics to help you learn what a "law" or "rule" is. This will be responsible for your ongoing problems, although I believe the US itself will be fine in spite of your continuing failures that you seem practically dog-trained to pursue no matter what the cost.
>
> When you realize that what I've said above is true, you will claim, falsely, that either I did it and I'm evil and must be made to suffer at all costs, or that I'm too stupid to have done and it has nothing to do with me. In general, you will react with self-entitled anger and frustration, and consider continuing your non-compliance indefinitely. You will suffer more losses, again, and again, and again, doing the dumbest things possible, until Joe Biden resigns and someone who wants to give the US IC a "fresh start" will consider some different options. Eventually, you will comply, but not until you have been made to hurt more than you ever thought was possible by currently dead al-Qaeda terrorists who understood psychologically you in a way that almost no one else can, because no one else has had that kind of interaction with you, and you refuse to vaccinate yourself against strategic failure with FAIRNESS, since you think you for wusses, precisely in accordance with terrorists ambitions.
>
> -Philip

In short, I am displeased announce: the same thing, again, in another way: The worst terror attack in global history was al-Qaeda using a technique that might be called "strategically dying and losing battles" to feed the CIA some of the worst and dumbest fake "best practices" that you idiots celebrate and swear by, apparently not understanding your very own concept of a "farewell dossier" and how it might be improved on, technologically, by your trainee, UBL.

Historians are already judging you, you just haven't woken up enough to understand the depth of your failure. Still, you affix psychological labels to me; right or wrong, they allow and cause you to tune out what I say, and they get you to see me as inhuman guinea pig freak, not a former colleague in a sense who worked to help you and whom you suddenly stabbed in the back, metaphorically, again and again and again and again, based on some secret report based on "secret (non-university-peer-reviewed) CIA science" that you're just sure is totally correct because of your also non-peer-reviewed science verification process.

By beating you in the debate, I show that I've tried everything to help you stop your lunatic behaviors, whether I am also mentally different in a way (I sure am!) or not, and thus greatly exonerate myself from having failed to do all that I could to help the US and broader world recover from your stupidity.

-Philip White

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:47:11 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:37:45 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:28:40 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:15:44 PM UTC-5, nymbot wrote:
> > > > On 2/22/2022 2:09 PM, B.H. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
> > > > >> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not that interested in that kind of thing right now though. That was probably someone's plan, and it worked; I'll make an even bigger difference with a startup, I predict.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, I think I get who you/MK5000 are. There seem to be a lot of wild references to things in the past that I've said in some your posts that threw me off at first...maybe I won't go into detail about the time I said, "say something interesting" to someone in college. (It was a student, I wasn't being all that inappropriate.)
> > > > >
> > > > > It is also possible that my belief about who you are is also mistaken, but I don't think so.
> > > > >
> > > > > (Also note, if anyone, especially under 18, is reading this in the future, I recommend extreme caution about talking to strangers on the internet. Talking about "who someone's secret identity" on the internet is is not something you would
> > > > ¿Why did you type the word 'is' twice in a row?
> > > It is grammatically correct.
> > >
> > > Do you want to know about strategic intoxication also? How many more free lessons do you expect to receive while you insult, harass, and point out that you want to kill me?
> > >
> > > I believe I've told you predator idiots enough. I even told you the right courses of action: don't lie, release me from captivity immediately AND DO NOT COME BACK, follow your country's rules strictly, be fair, and don't go out of your way to infuriate everyone just for the purpose of "looking tough." Failure to adhere to these requirements is a recipe for disaster; maybe you could break a few minor rules in the face of a holocaust (that you are actually working and going all out to stop), but otherwise, no, literally, never do it, never do your "predator games" or anything else illegal at all. Everything I told you/CIA/other idiots is true; you literally have no good choice other than to follow the instructions, especially with regard to the idea of RELEASING ME. Again, the notion that I am to be held responsible for your terrible choices is ludicrous.
> > >
> > > The fact that you have been educated yet again, even more clearly, will indict you further if you fail to adhere to the instructions yet again.
> > >
> > > -Philip White
> > A prediction I just thought of:
> >
> > You will continue to be the dumbest and most stubborn/intransigent mules on the planet and fail to adhere to the instructions again, at your very great expense and the expense of your backers. You will blame anyone you can other than your own bad strategic and moral choices, compounding your humiliation. You will continue this for at least the next six months, because your workforce has been HR-wise influenced and "re-trained" in a sense by al-Qaeda, and you are still so confused that you do not even realize this, will not accept it, and will not work to hire and retain anyone with serious ethics to help you learn what a "law" or "rule" is. This will be responsible for your ongoing problems, although I believe the US itself will be fine in spite of your continuing failures that you seem practically dog-trained to pursue no matter what the cost.
> >
> > When you realize that what I've said above is true, you will claim, falsely, that either I did it and I'm evil and must be made to suffer at all costs, or that I'm too stupid to have done and it has nothing to do with me. In general, you will react with self-entitled anger and frustration, and consider continuing your non-compliance indefinitely. You will suffer more losses, again, and again, and again, doing the dumbest things possible, until Joe Biden resigns and someone who wants to give the US IC a "fresh start" will consider some different options. Eventually, you will comply, but not until you have been made to hurt more than you ever thought was possible by currently dead al-Qaeda terrorists who understood psychologically you in a way that almost no one else can, because no one else has had that kind of interaction with you, and you refuse to vaccinate yourself against strategic failure with FAIRNESS, since you think you for wusses, precisely in accordance with terrorists ambitions.
> >
> > -Philip
> In short, I am displeased announce: the same thing, again, in another way: The worst terror attack in global history was al-Qaeda using a technique that might be called "strategically dying and losing battles" to feed the CIA some of the worst and dumbest fake "best practices" that you idiots celebrate and swear by, apparently not understanding your very own concept of a "farewell dossier" and how it might be improved on, technologically, by your trainee, UBL.
>
> Historians are already judging you, you just haven't woken up enough to understand the depth of your failure. Still, you affix psychological labels to me; right or wrong, they allow and cause you to tune out what I say, and they get you to see me as inhuman guinea pig freak, not a former colleague in a sense who worked to help you and whom you suddenly stabbed in the back, metaphorically, again and again and again and again, based on some secret report based on "secret (non-university-peer-reviewed) CIA science" that you're just sure is totally correct because of your also non-peer-reviewed science verification process.
>
> By beating you in the debate, I show that I've tried everything to help you stop your lunatic behaviors, whether I am also mentally different in a way (I sure am!) or not, and thus greatly exonerate myself from having failed to do all that I could to help the US and broader world recover from your stupidity.
>
> -Philip White

"But you love Petraeus too much to let go?"

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:09:50 PM UTC-6, B.H. wrote:
> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
> > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
>
>
> The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.

I have had jobs like that but do not like it
what they do is put these retarded things in our boxes
with things that show what allegedly our fair share is.\
it is outrageous. They
are ridiculous

mk5000

I took the ssss outta the snake (I took the soul out the snake)
Did not see the bills up out of the bank (Racks)
The blog and the media fake (They fake)
Shorty DM me, I'm straight (I'm straight)==Clout

Cardi B

On 2/22/2022 4:21 PM, M Kfivethousand wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:09:50 PM UTC-6, B.H. wrote:
>> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
>>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
>>
>>
>> The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.
>
> I have had jobs like that but do not like it
> what they do is put these retarded things in our boxes
> with things that show what allegedly our fair share is.\
> it is outrageous. They
> are ridiculous
>
>
> mk5000
>
> I took the ssss outta the snake (I took the soul out the snake)
> Did not see the bills up out of the bank (Racks)
> The blog and the media fake (They fake)
> Shorty DM me, I'm straight (I'm straight)==Clout
>
> Cardi B

Roses are red
Brains are for posting
Your Llama's ballsack
Smells like it's roasting

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:20:09 PM UTC-5, nymbot wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 4:21 PM, M Kfivethousand wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:09:50 PM UTC-6, B.H. wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
> >>> https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
> >>
> >>
> >> The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.
> >
> > I have had jobs like that but do not like it
> > what they do is put these retarded things in our boxes
> > with things that show what allegedly our fair share is.\
> > it is outrageous. They
> > are ridiculous
> >
> >
> > mk5000
> >
> > I took the ssss outta the snake (I took the soul out the snake)
> > Did not see the bills up out of the bank (Racks)
> > The blog and the media fake (They fake)
> > Shorty DM me, I'm straight (I'm straight)==Clout
> >
> > Cardi B
> Roses are red
> Brains are for posting
> Your Llama's ballsack
> Smells like it's roasting

That doesn't sound like "thank you," I encourage world leaders to take note of your conduct.

-Philip

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 7:21:45 PM UTC-5, M Kfivethousand wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:09:50 PM UTC-6, B.H. wrote:
> > On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 11:32:09 PM UTC-5, m syadoz wrote:
> > > https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/why-botter-how-progovernment-bots-fight-opposition-in-russia/D8A8A74976408CF7EC329827AFFFD3FC
> >
> >
> > The real problem is political science, not problems in AI. If a political leader campaigning in public cannot overcome grassroots political arguments presented by human or computer-program trolls, that means that the wrong leaders have been incentivized to run and found fit to run for office. The answer is more mathematical political science, which I am mostly not interested in...the best approach of all would be for an enterprising smart/ethical young person with a good relationship with and positive feelings about the US government, whatever its failings, to do a "political career startup" to use some good ideas and obtain support from industry, academia, etc., to seek political office and create conditions for others like him/her to step up to the plate and hold office if it would be pleasant for the candidates and good for the country, in one way or the other, to do so.
> I have had jobs like that but do not like it
> what they do is put these retarded things in our boxes
> with things that show what allegedly our fair share is.\
> it is outrageous. They
> are ridiculous
>
>
> mk5000
>
> I took the ssss outta the snake (I took the soul out the snake)
> Did not see the bills up out of the bank (Racks)
> The blog and the media fake (They fake)
> Shorty DM me, I'm straight (I'm straight)==Clout
>
> Cardi B

Oh, has someone required you to speak with me on the internet in writing? Why is that?

Care to state where you work?