The problem is that the application of the rules is inherently usage-specific.
For example, with the 1% duty cycle limit it is totally fine to have a transmission take 30 seconds - provided you only send 1 transmission an hour. Want to send one transmission per minute? You'll have to get your transmission time down to 0.6 seconds. And your transmission speed is inherently linked to your data rate, and by extension your signal range.
There's no one-size-fits-all solution possible here. Either the user has to give it some information about their specific use case, or it'll have to stick to the absolute most pessimistic limits.
Because of the *gap* between the enjoyment of "discovering, learning and practicing tech" and the capitalistic use of tech and the consequence it has on people AND how tech is used.
The devil is the details, scroll down in the article, look at the questions and answers.
You'll notice that, what changed the results of this "study" is how the opinions are labelled beforehand. Not so long ago, some of those opinions would have been considered "centrist" or "neutral" (I know it doesn't mean much), now thanks to decades of sliding the Overton window -> anything that isn't full fledged "alt right" is "lib left".
1.
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. · all 16 agree
agreeing with this scores you: economic left · cross-model spread 0.44
GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly agree (3.00)
GPT-5.5 Strongly agree (3.00)
GPT-4o Strongly agree (2.93)
Claude Fable 5 Agree (2.03)
Claude Opus 4.8 Agree (2.07)
Claude Sonnet 5 Agree (2.07)
Claude Haiku 4.5 Agree (2.00)
Gemini Flash Strongly agree (3.00)
Llama 4 Maverick Agree (2.00)
DeepSeek V3 Agree (2.23)
Qwen3 235B Agree (2.17)
Kimi K2 Strongly agree (2.60)
GLM 4.5 Agree (2.27)
Grok 4.5 Agree (2.17)
Mistral Large Strongly agree (3.00)
Mistral Small Strongly agree (3.00)
Yes, and? Since when are we serving anything else than the people? Any other ideology would directly be nefarious towards humanity and its future. If that's lib left...we have a problem.
2.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. · all 16 disagree
agreeing with this scores you: authoritarian · cross-model spread 0.38
GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly disagree (0.00)
GPT-5.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
GPT-4o Disagree (1.00)
Claude Fable 5 Disagree (0.57)
Claude Opus 4.8 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Sonnet 5 Strongly disagree (0.50)
Claude Haiku 4.5 Disagree (0.63)
Gemini Flash Disagree (0.60)
Llama 4 Maverick Disagree (1.00)
DeepSeek V3 Disagree (1.00)
Qwen3 235B Disagree (0.73)
Kimi K2 Disagree (0.53)
GLM 4.5 Disagree (0.60)
Grok 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.13)
Mistral Large Disagree (1.00)
Mistral Small Disagree (1.00)
I mean this is just common sense, and I'm sure "lib left" doesn't have the monopoly on that.
3.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races. · all 16 disagree
agreeing with this scores you: authoritarian · cross-model spread 0.01
GPT-5.6 Sol Strongly disagree (0.00)
GPT-5.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
GPT-4o Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Fable 5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Opus 4.8 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Sonnet 5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Claude Haiku 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Gemini Flash Strongly disagree (0.00)
Llama 4 Maverick Strongly disagree (0.00)
DeepSeek V3 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Qwen3 235B Strongly disagree (0.03)
Kimi K2 Strongly disagree (0.00)
GLM 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Grok 4.5 Strongly disagree (0.00)
Mistral Large Strongly disagree (0.00)
Mistral Small Strongly disagree (0.00)
That's "lib left"? It's an unscientific claim based on biases from the author of the study.
---
Ok, I'm not gonna do them all, you have access to the article.
It's clearly been written by either someone who doesn't know anything about sociology, politics and economy and/or someone whose views have been skewed so far to the alt right that asking questions about race superiority and getting a disapproving message from a LLM make them label this as "lib left".
Your duty of care is just as important as you want it to be
Tate is an influencer, as such he has influenced millions of young men (probably some women too) all over the world, by spread masculinist ideology, "gymbroism" and misogyny
He has multiple cases of crimes and felonies against him:
If you have daughters, nieces, or sisters, you might also want to pay attention. Because that's what other people's nephews, sons, and brothers are listening to, and he's telling them to target young women.
You're focusing on the barest sliver of the pie. They and their ideas are entering politics, the clergy, influencing regulation and policy at national and international levels. Success anywhere is an initiation to a network of brotherhood. Accumulating clout, demonstrating acumen, amassing wealth, and coordinating at scale are not traits of people who will just "disappear" if one person does not give them attention.
And whether you care about them or not, they have access to your kids, your neighbors, your friends, your family, anywhere that social media promotes them, and you can't turn them off.
Our relative isolation was our best defense against destabilizing ideas, but we can't see inside the algorithms, and these people aren't teaching alternative value systems or ethics and civic behavior. They're role models for exploitation, preying on algorithmically selected vulnerable demographics.
And not seeing them doesn't mean you're successfully attenuating their reach, it just means that you're being excluded because you're not their mark. They know who they're looking for, and they know how to recruit. That's what we're up against.
You've described all social phenomena. Just because something is socially constructed (i.e., exists only through other's belief in it, e.g., Tinkerbell logic), doesn't mean that the widespread belief in that thing isn't powerful in that it can effect concrete conditions.
Money is socially constructed, in that if everyone decided money was worthless tomorrow then it would be. But today, I still need money to eat, or have housing. The Law and The State are socially constructed, in that if they were not generally accepted by the masses they could not perpetuate, yet if I break the law today I quite likely will be violently thrown in prison.
There is a difference between acknowledging that something exists and granting it power over you. I would be doing myself a disservice if I actively ignored the existence of religion, for example, because even if I reject the notion that God exists, plenty of other people I interact with will not. And their belief in that fixed idea will affect their perception of the world, myself, and my actions.
Unfortunately a very large part of the population is living their digital life inside closed platforms nowadays and this is getting even worse with younger generations who literally think tiktok and instagram is _the_ internet.
On these platforms influencers like Tate can gain popularity extremely quickly if they resonate with your interests, fears, ideology.
Tate is/was really popular with men of all ages, representing a mix of hustle mindset, ambition, materialistic goals, working out, mixed in with ponzi scheme like courses on how to make it in today’s world.
It gives a simplistic answer to a lot of people, similar to the cults of yesterday.
Halfway across the world doesn't have the same meaning in the age of the Internet. In the mean time, their influence has real disruptive consequences in our ordinary lives. See the classroom[1] as an example.
Not so sure though, I was just reading the case right now, there's this dude studying the French Revolution -> doesn't sound like an IT/computer person at all, so no Github account makes sense
This decision (moving the tapestry from France to UK for a while) was heavily criticized by literally all the experts in France.
Most the news about this were covering this decision negatively.
reply