I understand your point but it is a piece of relevant information when Elon is considered
"These pollutants are proven to have adverse effects on the health of the people living within a five-mile radius of the source, and census data showed that the residents living in the affected area are predominantly black. "
If you watch Errol Musk's interview about non white people in US, combine it with the knowledge of the type of similar asshole Elon is, it is not at all surprising that he knew the effects of such turbines and selected this location on purpose. It is not at all surprising that Elon would have an agenda where he tried to reduce non-white population because he thinks he is saving humanity by doing so. Ofcourse you can't put in the headine something like "Elon, being a racist asshole, placed turbines near black communities" that is too biased and too speculative for news reporting. You can only present facts that are associated to this and let the reader decide. It is still biased and leading but atleast you allow the reader to form their own opinion to a much greater extend.
In the off chance you get fined for completely dismantling democracy and helping place a crook in presidency, they will make you pay 1/1000th of your yearly bonuses. Monstrous, such barbaric measures.
Lets assume AI can produce production ready code without any problems (this is what these CEOs likely believe anyway). Something that can produce thousands of lines of code per minute is not enough for these greedy fucks that now they want prompts given by speaking so that things move even faster?
That is fine, just telling you my opinion that it does not hold up. I agree they are on the aggressive ideology edge side but not on the fact fabricating side (and definitely not the fact we have been discussing).
The very fact that they are audited by a media ombudsman however goes on to prove that your previous statement
“Flamman” however is closer to Alex Jones Info Wars
does not hold up. I agree with the ethical violations here but your reaction is clearly guided by "socialist news paper" as no one would discredit an entire newspaper just based on two audited violations (and to admit bad reactions to the audits). And the fact that nothing they have said in the previous article (i.e "parasites" or the donations) was fabricated remains.
Because “korben” said so? And their “source” that they list. Does not support their claim. Doesnt even mention it.
So… where are you getting this “parasite” comment from?
This message cries "denial reflex" all over it. I mean look at it you have like everything: triple double quotations, the "So...". If you can't relay your intent in your messages correctly, that is on you not me. But you sure did give a very emotional reply for someone who does not care much about the topic. It doesn't have to be that you like or care about this party. Maybe you like Mullvad and don't like the idea of bearing the emotional responsibility of using it after these news. Maybe you don't like the fact that every month someone/some entity claiming to be pro privacy and pro human rights turn out to be connected in some way to a white supremacist right wing scum. I would not know why, that is for you to understand.
But i have far better things to do.
If you just skimmed through the topic, it would have taken you less time to find the other sources that I or someone else put here than to write this very emotional comment. Your snarky comment really has no foundation to stand on. If you are lazy and don't like to read or do research on your own terms, then you should perhaps learn to communicate to people. If you are so disinterested in the topic you have spent far more time talking about it than it would have taken you to find other links in this topic or on the internet. If your intent is to
In any case, I am sure most people will be willing to provide resources if you ask nicely. However if your default reflex is to try to shit on someone's comment, most times the answer you will get is "fuck you find your own resources".
I understand your point but it is a piece of relevant information when Elon is considered
"These pollutants are proven to have adverse effects on the health of the people living within a five-mile radius of the source, and census data showed that the residents living in the affected area are predominantly black. "
If you watch Errol Musk's interview about non white people in US, combine it with the knowledge of the type of similar asshole Elon is, it is not at all surprising that he knew the effects of such turbines and selected this location on purpose. It is not at all surprising that Elon would have an agenda where he tried to reduce non-white population because he thinks he is saving humanity by doing so. Ofcourse you can't put in the headine something like "Elon, being a racist asshole, placed turbines near black communities" that is too biased and too speculative for news reporting. You can only present facts that are associated to this and let the reader decide. It is still biased and leading but atleast you allow the reader to form their own opinion to a much greater extend.