Re: [crazy] spams on dal’s blog

[Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many]

the video says Miss Hampigs was with the “silver lap[dog]” when it !

The daily dot is publishing it today!

judging by the attitude of sharing i get the sense the thing to do is to
run the material through a knowledge scraper and make inferences from it. i
don’t have one but there are likely a lot running out there!
uhhhhhhhh [mist—

information lots lots lots of information

ummmmmm

let’s paste a little into chatgpt maybe, burn some neighbor souls or whatnot

slowtoload
it took me 3-4 runs by accident, so the results may be reduced quality
https://chat.openai.com/share/9be38c17-d329-4569-9849-f60de99200b7

dal said this: “Local lawyer Jim Hudson’s proposal for independent and
possibly pro bono counsel and the idea of asking the Department of Justice
for help are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Hudson’s idea, while
nebulous to some ears, at best would allow those most affected by the
intrusions—Coffee voters—to participate in a bottom-up inquiry into all
aspects of the breach and its aftermath, aided by the independent counsel
and able to notify the Justice Department of any criminality discovered.
The Department of Justice, by contrast, boasts multistate range and federal
muscle, but without a strong defense of the local public interest in place,
they would risk being seen, fairly or not, as just another set of
politicized outsiders, at worst sparking more resentment than repair.” wtf
is he saying?


ChatGPT

Dal is discussing two different approaches to addressing a breach (likely a
legal or ethical breach) that has impacted voters in Coffee, a local area.
Let's break down the key points:

   - Jim Hudson's Proposal for Independent Counsel: This suggests
   appointing an independent lawyer or legal team, possibly working for free
   (pro bono), to investigate the breach. This approach is local and focuses
   on involving the people most affected – the voters in Coffee. The idea is
   that this bottom-up approach, driven by local interests, would allow a
   thorough investigation into the breach and its consequences.
   - Asking the Department of Justice for Help: This is a more top-down
   approach, involving a powerful federal agency with resources and authority
   that extend across state lines. The DOJ would bring significant
   investigative power and legal muscle to the situation.

Dal is saying that these two approaches aren't mutually exclusive; they
could potentially be used together. However, he points out some concerns:

   - Hudson's idea, while it resonates with local empowerment, might seem
   vague or insufficiently defined to some. It relies heavily on local
   participation and may lack the broader reach and resources of a federal
   agency.
   - The Department of Justice, while powerful, might be perceived as an
   external, politicized force. Without a strong local element in the
   investigation, their involvement could be seen as intrusive or overbearing
   by the local community, potentially causing resentment rather than helping.

In summary, Dal is highlighting the potential benefits and drawbacks of
both local and federal involvement in investigating a breach that affects
local voters. He suggests that a combination of local, independent
investigation with the option to involve the DOJ if necessary could be a
balanced approach, allowing thorough local involvement and scrutiny while
retaining the option to escalate the matter to a federal level if serious
criminality is uncovered.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 6054 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20231219/bb55693e/attachment.txt>