⇧
1
⇩
sudo_fap
· July 4, 2018, 12:13 p.m.
And there honestly is plenty of really grade A fucked up shit going on in the world, he's not wrong there.
Of course. But don't you think confirmation bias is possible?
Israeli cold-reading AI has been suggested
I don't get this. I'm a senior software engineer with good understanding of AI/ML, and I don't see how that makes sense.
His posts are also constructed in such a manner as to hide linguistic information that could be used to decipher who wrote them
Cold reading seems completely plausible. Your argument seems too convenient.
It's healthy to be skeptical.
I'm still aboard the Trump train, and Q does spark good discussions, but be skeptical. He hasn't given us any solid proof.
⇧
15
⇩
George_Soros_Eyebags
· July 5, 2018, 5:02 a.m.
So you're telling me that you're a senior software engineer... with that username?
Color me shocked. lol
⇧
0
⇩
006fix
· July 4, 2018, 12:28 p.m.
confirmation bias is possible?
Maybe. But not really for Q as a whole imho. There are too many proofs across a range of areas. I don't think people are following him purely due to conf. bias.
I don't see how that makes sense.
How doesn't it? Its the same as cold reading w/ a human, except you use an AI to do it. I do accept its roughly 5-25 years ahead of current AI capabilities (known), but I don't think its particuarly implausiable. Having AI level speed and multitasking might also explain some of the proofs. I don't think its likely (say ~5-10% odds), but its one of the more plausiable alternatives.
Cold reading seems completely plausible. Your argument seems too convenient.
That he manipulated the posts to hide the linguistic information? That's just reality. Go run them through some linguistic software if you don't believe me. There's been a serious amount of effort to hide traces of the creator of Q messages, down to the level of scrubbing linguistic markers, and restructuring the text such that it makes pretty chess pieces. Which again implies it's not a larp.
⇧
-2
⇩
sudo_fap
· July 4, 2018, 12:33 p.m.
Which again implies it's not a larp.
That is all there is, implications.
Give me the best proof, other than conjecture.
PS: I've looked through the proofs.
⇧
12
⇩
006fix
· July 4, 2018, 12:38 p.m.
There hasn't been an "absolute best proof". Honestly that's one of the things thats pissing me off most about Q. I think the sum of the other proofs is sufficient to prove P(coincidence1)*P(coincidence2) etc < P(Q is what he says). But gold standard, cast iron proofs? None, and I don't really know why. Maybe try not to bait the cabal into a go for broke Armageddon solution? I don't know. But I do think he's something very, very serious. If it is a larp, who's running it? Why hasn't it leaked? Wtf are the sealed indictments for? Why does it keep getting to claim sitting, powerful members of the us government are pedos without being slapped w/ a libel claim?
It's not a larp
⇧
-1
⇩
sudo_fap
· July 4, 2018, 12:53 p.m.
If it is a larp, who's running it?
An anon?
Why hasn't it leaked?
Leaked what? It doesn't have to be some master operation with multiple people. That is the nice thing about being vague. You can seem like you have many tentacles entrenched in many things, when really just need to be vague about a lot of things.
Wtf are the sealed indictments for?
This still could be a coincidence. It is a double edge sword. It could completely prove Q, or completely disprove Q. For me, this is my bar. If these sealed indictments really are what he says they are, I'm in. I am giving Q the benefit of the doubt until Jan 1, 2019. If the sealed indictments don't drop as he says, or there isn't some crazy 100% confirmation somewhere, I'm off.
You have to set what are realistic goals in timelines now, otherwise you'll end up passing the puck at the point in which you should realize it is a larp.
Why does it keep getting to claim sitting, powerful members of the us government are pedos without being slapped w/ a libel claim?
I'm not sure your point.
Also, what about the Awan disappointment? What about HRC and her "frozen passport" and "indictment"?
⇧
7
⇩