Behavior rules:
Posting rules:
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
Also, when sharing art (comics etc.) please credit the creators.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
And their planes made with scrap parts are still flying around.
Edit: A lot of new .world users showing up with ChatGPT responses about how this was a conspiracy, reminds me of an article i read this week.
https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/657978/reddit-ai-experiment-banned
a lot of .world users say this was a conspiracy
Well. It is a conspiracy. A conspiracy theory, even! I have a very compelling theory that Boeing conspired to kill that guy.
Just because it's a conspiracy (we allege that people conspired to do something bad) theory (we don't have absolute, provable-before-a-judge-and-jury hard evidence) doesn't mean that it's false. Also daily reminder that the CIA purposefully adopted the term "conspiracy theory" to convince the public to dismiss allegations that they secretly did something bad by associating them with Bigfoot and aliens. At the same time as they were secretly drugging random members of the public with LSD and watching them freak out and fall out of windows.
Well I certainly won't be purchasing any Boeing products in the near future.
About a week before OOP's post the openAi whistleblower also died mysteriously https://apnews.com/article/openai-whistleblower-suchir-balaji-death-283e70b31d34ebb71b62e73aafb56a7d
I'd be more likely to believe that Boeing tried to kill him if he didn't die
That's one
But what about
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi
And we still deal with the Saudis like it never happened
who I do remember is Brock Turner, yes that guy.. the rapist Brock Turner. who now goes by the name of Allen Turner. that guy
You mean the pathetic rapist Brock Turner, who now goes by Allen Turner (also a pathetic rapist)?
There was a police investigation.
They just didn't investigate Boeing about it because the police investigation determined they weren't involved.
If you truly believe there should be investigations, you have to accept when the results of the investigations don't match your expectations. That's why we have investigations.
The military industrial company a person was whistleblowing against wasn't investigated in the mysterious death of that person.
Yeah that's called not doing a proper investigation.
I need to step in here with a major correction, John Barnett was not Whistleblowing. That's not what the court case was about at all.
No, the court case was for the wrongful termination, which was a result of his whistleblowing.
This is an important distinction, because the whistleblowing was done. John Barnett had nothing more to offer authorities, because he had already turned over all the evidence he collected. That particular case was a done deal years ago.
John Barnett then sued Boeing over his wrongful termination, and some apparent black balling. (i.e. retaliatory rumormongering to prevent John from working in aerospace).
John lost the lawsuit. He then appealed that decision, and it wasn't going well.
This is the situation that led to his suicide. Boeing 100% drove a man to kill himself. But no, they didn't fucking hire some guy to go kill John Barnett, that would be fucking stupid.
no, they didn't fucking hire some guy to go kill John Barnett, that would be fucking stupid.
The possibity will certainly frighten future whistle-blowers.
No.
What disincentivizes future whistleblowing is the prospect of never being able to work in your field ever again, because your boss, or rather his boss, talked to his counterpart at the other aerospace companies, so now no one will hire you.
You then drown in debt, and die penniless on the street, years or decades later. Depending on your luck.
Simply killing someone is messy. You might get caught. Ruining a man's life to the point where he kills himself? That's disturbingly easy.
Again, the lawsuit was not over John Barnett's whistleblowing. That case had concluded a few years earlier, with Boeing being found in violation of some safety standards. They got a fine and John Barnett got fired. Except Boeing didn't "Fire" him, they forced him to retire.
So John Barnett sues Boeing for wrongful termination, and loses. Boeing has some very expensive lawyers.
John appeals the loss, and that's what this court case was about. He was giving testimony about how Boeing retaliated against him. And he obviously thought that he was going to lose again.
Law enforcement would never lie.
If you won't accept the results of an investigation, then why call for one in the first place. You can do one or the other, but both is dumb. Don't move the goalposts, just admit that you think X happened and you are now rejecting any evidence you disagree with.
If you truly believe there should be investigations, you have to accept when the results of the investigations
That doesn't logically follow. It's like insisting OJ wasn't guilty of murder, because the criminal case didn't stick. But he was guilty of "wrongful death" because the civil suit did stick. What kind of conclusion do we draw when the police fumble the bag and private investigators continue to turn up incriminating evidence?
And even then, you can both have an investigation (even one that turns up culprits) and still have a cover-up.
There's even a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout
According to Victor Marchetti, a former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), a limited hangout is "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."[
It's a very plausible conspiracy theory. I think it warrants way more investigation than it got.
Sounds like suicide to me. I feel like Boeing is still largely at fault for bringing him to that point though.
I would hope that if I publicly proclaimed, "I have no intent to commit suicide," before my suicide then people would..
..at a minimum, state, "Brother that guy proclaimed he had no intent to commit suicide," every time it was brought up.
..then ideally that additional scrutiny would be applied at a law enforcement level and the case would be handled with extra scrutiny.
So lacking the ideal, I'm here to remind you that just before his suicide he proclaimed, "I'm not going to commit suicide."
I'm extremely puzzled how this isn't brought up every time, people need to remember.
yeah that’s what they said!
doesn’t look like anything to me
A lot of new .world users showing up with ChatGPT responses about how this was a conspiracy
Reminds me of the Epstein thing. It could be AI. But people do love their conspiracy theories, too.
Unless there’s actual evidence that it’s AI, I think this is an absolutely absurd assumption to make.
sounds like America