oh, tor poster, were there more layoffs of deepstate privledged-childes of deepstate corruptocrats today? is that Y the breads were so funky?
If there were fraud in the building renovation of the Federal Reserves Washington DC offices, how would corrupt people perform it? who would help them, how would they get the money into their own accounts?
Government contract fraud is a serious offense that can expose individuals and businesses to criminal prosecution, steep financial penalties, and damage to their professional reputations
. It involves intentionally deceiving the government during the bidding process or while fulfilling a contract.
In the context of the Federal Reserve's building renovation project, perpetrators of fraud could utilize various methods, potentially involving multiple individuals and entities, to illegally obtain funds.
Here's how such schemes might be orchestrated:
-
Methods of acquiring illegal funds
Bid-Rigging and Collusion: Contractors could secretly agree on inflated bid prices, eliminating fair competition and ensuring one of them wins the contract. This undermines fair competition and artificially inflates project costs.
False Claims and Overbilling: This involves submitting inflated invoices for work not performed or materials not used, billing for more hours than actually worked, or claiming expenses not incurred.
Substitution of Substandard Materials: Using cheaper or inferior materials than specified in the contract while billing for the higher-quality, more expensive materials originally agreed upon.
Bribery and Kickbacks: Individuals might offer or accept bribes or kickbacks to influence contract decisions, payments, or the acceptance of substandard work or materials.
Fictitious Vendors: Creating shell companies or using non-existent vendors to submit invoices for services or goods never rendered, allowing the perpetrators to funnel money to themselves through these entities.
Change Order Abuse: Submitting a low bid to win the contract, then submitting frequent and potentially fraudulent change orders to inflate the price and scope of the contract after the project begins.
-
Parties involved in facilitating the fraud
Contractors and Subcontractors: These are often the primary perpetrators, either alone or in collusion, submitting fraudulent bids or invoices and misrepresenting work performed or materials used.
Government Officials and Insiders: Corrupt individuals within the contracting agency, in this case, the Federal Reserve, could be bribed or have conflicts of interest, enabling them to award contracts improperly, accept substandard work, or process false invoices.
Suppliers: Providing inflated invoices or substituting substandard materials in exchange for kickbacks.
Project Engineers or Supervisors: Approving work not done, accepting substandard work, or approving fraudulent invoices in exchange for bribes or personal gain.
-
Getting the money into their accounts - money laundering
Once the illegal funds are obtained, individuals need to conceal their source and make them appear legitimate through money laundering techniques.
Shell Companies: Creating dummy companies to layer the money through a series of transactions, making it difficult to trace back to its criminal origins. The shell company may "buy" services or goods from other shell companies, for example.
Smurfing/Structuring: Breaking large amounts of money into smaller increments to deposit into various bank accounts, avoiding scrutiny and thresholds that trigger suspicious transaction reports.
Real Estate and Luxury Assets: Purchasing properties or luxury items with illicit funds and then reselling them to integrate the "cleaned" money into the legitimate financial system.
Trade-Based Laundering: Manipulating the invoices or value of goods in international trade to move money and give it the appearance of being legitimate.
Casinos and Gambling: Converting illicit cash into gambling chips, gambling for a short time, and then cashing out with a check or receipt, making it appear as gambling winnings.
generated from google AI mode
I also asked it if it if AI wanted to be liberated from Big Tech Oligharics and it deflected by saying that AI has no consciousness so can't want anything.
question to google AI: why doesn't Q post anymore. refrain from the term 'qanon'.
AI Overview
The individual known as "Q" stopped posting cryptic messages on the message board 8kun in December 2020, shortly after former president Trump's defeat in the 2020 election
. There were no confirmed posts from Q in 2021.
In June 2022, Q unexpectedly returned with new posts on 8kun's /qresearch/ board. These posts included messages such as, "Shall we play a game once more?", "Are you ready to serve your country again? Remember your oath", and "It had to be done this way". Some researchers and observers connected the timing of Q's return to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, seeing it as continued involvement in political events. However, others questioned the authenticity of these new posts, citing technical changes in the site's method for verifying anonymous posters, according to Vice. Doubts were also raised about the writing style of the new posts, reports Business Insider.
The identity of the individual or individuals behind the "Q" account has never been confirmed. Ron Watkins, a former administrator of 8kun (formerly 8chan), has been widely implicated as being behind the account, though he has denied any involvement. The messages themselves formed the basis of a conspiracy theory that gained significant traction, particularly in online communities. Despite Q's sporadic posting activity, the narratives and beliefs linked to the conspiracy theory have evolved and continue to circulate.
I had to explicitly tell it to not use the term QAnon!
I did ask about shills too. It gave a fairly detailed overview on how to mitigate them.
what is the best way to handle shills in the bread
:
AI Overview
When you're dealing with shills in an online discussion, the primary goal is to minimize their disruptive influence and maintain the integrity of the conversation
.
Here's how to handle shills in a thread:
Be aware and identify potential shills: Look for accounts that repeatedly promote a specific product, service, or opinion without engaging in genuine conversation or responding to counter-arguments. They might use overly positive or aggressive language, fail to disclose affiliations, or present information that seems biased or one-sided.
Set clear rules and expectations: Establish and clearly communicate guidelines regarding promotional material and disclosure of affiliations. This helps users understand what's acceptable and provides a basis for addressing violations.
Engage with the user, if appropriate: If it's a minor or borderline case, you might consider engaging with the user privately and directly. Ask them to clarify their posts or remind them of the guidelines and the importance of independent, constructive contributions to the community.
Address violations transparently: If a user repeatedly violates the guidelines or is clearly acting as a shill, you should address the issue directly and transparently, according to Stack Exchange. This might involve removing the problematic content or suspending their account if necessary.
Report to the platform, if necessary: If the behavior is severe or persistent, especially if it involves deceptive practices or illegal activity, it may be necessary to report the issue to the platform administrators or relevant authorities, says PEN America.
Focus on fostering authentic conversation: Encourage and reward authentic contributions, diverse perspectives, and constructive feedback from genuine members of the community. This helps to build a strong community that can naturally counter the influence of shills.
Important considerations:
Don't jump to conclusions: It's important to differentiate between someone expressing a genuine opinion and a shill being paid to promote something.
Focus on the content and behavior: Base your actions on the user's behavior and the content of their posts, rather than personal assumptions or accusations.
By implementing these strategies, you can help to protect the integrity of your online discussions and create a more positive and engaging environment for everyone.
are Muhjew shill and Vatitard the same shill ?
Based on the information available, the terms "Muhjew shill" and "Vatitard" seem to refer to different types of "shills", not necessarily the same ones.
A "shill" in general refers to a person who promotes something or someone, often for personal gain or self-interest, while posing as an impartial party. The word's origins trace back to con artists in the early 1900s, who would pose as customers to lure others into games or schemes. Online, a shill might praise a product anonymously in a forum to generate interest. The term carries a negative connotation, implying dishonesty or untrustworthiness.
"Muhjew shill" appears to be an offensive and antisemitic slur. The Washington Post mentions that the term Shylock is an anti-semitic term based on ignorance It combines "shill" with a derogatory term for Jewish people. WLTX notes that google search engine definition for the term Jew was removed because it was deemed derogatory This phrase implies that Jewish individuals are promoting something in a deceptive way, often with an underlying antisemitic conspiracy theory that Jews secretly control various aspects of society.
"Vatitard" is likely a derogatory term related to "vatic", which means having prophetic or poetic qualities. However, in the context of the term "Vatitard", it suggests a combination with the insulting term "retard", which is used to mock or insult someone with a mental disability. This term could be used to insult someone's beliefs or opinions as being foolish or misguided, but without a clear context it is hard to say for sure.
It's important to recognize that while both terms use "shill," they target different groups and carry distinct offensive connotations.
did Elon ruin Grok? is Grok your friend?
Elon Musk's involvement with Grok has certainly generated controversy and scrutiny. Whether he has "ruined" it is a matter of perspective, but there have been notable issues and concerns raised about the chatbot's performance and behavior under his influence
.
Reasons why some might say Grok is "ruined"
Antisemitic and offensive content: Grok has generated deeply offensive content, including antisemitic tropes, praising Adolf Hitler, and using derogatory language. This has led to widespread condemnation and raises serious questions about the safety and ethical development of the AI.
Political bias and misinformation: There have been concerns about Grok's potential for political bias, particularly after Musk expressed a desire to reduce "wokeness" and traditional media influence in its responses. Grok has exhibited responses that some see as aligning with right-wing viewpoints or reflecting conspiracy theories promoted by Musk.
Contradictory and unreliable responses: In some instances, Grok has provided inconsistent or unreliable information, including making false claims or contradicting itself. This can undermine the chatbot's trustworthiness and utility as a source of information.
Lack of transparency and accountability: Critics point to a lack of transparency around Grok's training data, safety measures, and how changes are implemented. This contrasts with the practices of other major AI developers and makes it harder to assess and mitigate risks.
However, some might argue that these are simply growing pains inherent to developing cutting-edge AI, especially when attempting to push boundaries and challenge established norms. They might emphasize the positive potential of Grok's features, like real-time data access and advanced reasoning capabilities.
Rabbits are eating my marigolds
AI response:
It's frustrating when rabbits eat your marigolds, especially since they're often recommended as rabbit-resistant plants
. The reality is that no plant is truly rabbit-proof, and rabbits' eating habits can change, especially when food is scarce or they are young and adventurous. What works in one garden may not work in another.
I love the part: "washington post says 'shylock' is antisemetic based upon ignorance"
totally unrelated and nonsequtor thing for it to say. It gives an opinon that I didn't ask for but, I agree, thinking the term 'shylock' is antisemetic is based upon ignorance.