|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - cascoly
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 165
76
« on: February 02, 2024, 14:49 »
That looks a lot better. Thank you!
or positively identify the color - in recent session, i changed prompts from 'red and gold' to purple and silver' and all images were correctly colored'
77
« on: February 02, 2024, 14:43 »
I had a look at the mage page.
In the terms of service it says that everything created is public domain.
Not sure if that is ideal.
Everything created is public domain because AI can't be copyrighted. A machine is not a human mind.
not true - the basic law hasn't changed so images are copyrighted by their creators (humans using tools) and there are cases i n several jurisdictions pending - even there, a decision on one US circuit does not apply to others. and EU and th er countries may have differing standards. AI gen is not a 'machine' but software , the same as PS or others. the mind doesn't creates ideas, but it takes a tool/machine whether pencil or camera or computer to create the expression of that idea which is automatically grantved copyright
78
« on: January 31, 2024, 13:57 »
As I recall, you are not in the US. It seems this "revenue reduction" many of us are seeing (and is reflected in the poll results) is geographically dependent.
My best guess is that perhaps SS is spending its marketing dollars differently in different parts of the world.
Other agencies have been more or less on an "even keel", whereas SS has dropped like a rock for some (US based?) contributors.
and for others has stayed the same, but we still see these general statements claiming it's a disaster location of an artist has little effect, since we get global sales and one more time - the poll has been worthless for a long time -'self hosted' as really shot up to 4th over istock & SS?
79
« on: January 29, 2024, 15:35 »
This topic has been moved to new AI area.
80
« on: January 28, 2024, 13:42 »
...
But if you pick out special subjects, e.g. photorealistic wildlife shots of animals, of which there were obviously not that many used for the training, it sometimes happens (at least with Stable Diffusion) that you discover blurred copyright labels in the corner of the image.
So if the AI would generate complete new images than copyright symbols should not appear.
The AI image generators currently have no ability to abstract like a human and create new things by itself. It's only morphing of pictures. ...
one source of the copyright is not taken from 1 image but from the multiple copies of that image on free sites. once again, AI doesn't 'morph' pictures - the billions of images are each broken into many small matrices and transformed before being saved. then images are created de novo, starting with a completely randomized 'image' & making many thousands of passes as that new image slowly emerges. you can get an idea of how this proceeds by watching the midjourney cevelopment
81
« on: January 27, 2024, 14:48 »
Hahahahaha what is a "birther". I'm not going to even look that up it sounds annoying.
No the box experiment wasn't disingenuous at all and if you feel it was then you do 🤷 oh well. It showed exactly what the situation is. You a staunch stickler explained perfectly. Big Toe did as well .
...
thanks for a reasoned reply that addressed previous posts - as someone here would say "you must be inebriated"?!? if you don't know what a birther is, you're lucky - it's a US political meme
82
« on: January 27, 2024, 14:33 »
83
« on: January 27, 2024, 14:21 »
..
"Regulations" generally speaking only affect the little guy - and are used for anti-competitive behaviour. ...
And lol - the only reason "ai" tools have difficulty with hands - is because they didn't have massive amounts of images to steal it from. People don't generally take pictures of their hands or feet and post those to social media, or stock media accounts. So it's kind of hard for them to steal it when the number is limited.
right, why does the little guy need regulations to, provide them with transportation safety, 40 hr work week, ensuring drugs are safe, clean air, clean water, etc etc lets go back to Dickensian times hoist by your own petard winner this week: https://petapixel.com/2024/01/24/trump-shares-ai-image-of-himself-praying-with-six-fingers/as far as the hands problem, there are certainly enough hands & arms in the world image base, but the problem more likely lies in the fact that most pictures with people don't have hands, arms, etc as tags, so there's less to train by.
84
« on: January 27, 2024, 14:08 »
best for submitting: ...DT only allows 1 image at a time
Please explain? One image at a time? They have copy keywords and a kind of batch thing. I don't use it, because mostly nothing I do is the same, but there's some kind of populate from previous image. Or did you mean something else.
other agencies allow you to seect multiple images with the same catvegory, even when title, etc are different so you can submit 30-40 images at a ti me DT only lets you submit 1 at a time - even if you use autofill - it takes time & you often have to scroll down to get to the submit button. one of best features of canva is they dont /require you enter anything (categories are worthless - who uses them? ) so few clicks & 50 are done. of course, the minor downside is these days 95% are rejected - mostly immediately. still canva usually makes me more than AS
85
« on: January 26, 2024, 20:49 »
This is a photo of a box. As a layman's experiment tell me what I photographed.
What can science tell me about this box.
What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.
I photographed it, therefore its on earth and contains oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen.
I'm curious and have a purpose in this experiment. Nothing petty. I just want to see what you think.
not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons. without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box.
even the photographer's claim 'it's on earth' cannot be verified. it could also be ai generated
Precisely and this is unfortunately where we are with UAP.
Debunkers don't need to ask for more data.
Skeptics don't tend to ask for more data.
Science can't be given more data which it needs other than this photo which as you say shows nothing.
But you've excluded me from the equation.
...
Science would love to be given the freedom to examine UAP data. But it has to wait for it like
all the rest of us.
of COURSE science (and skeptics) need more data, as you admit in the final sentence, hence their tentative conclusion:
whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. - Wittgenstein
simply put, you don't matter - you asked about the photo and the replies emphasized the need for more data, not your CV - examining you would be the argument from authority --"they're a military genius, therefore they must be right" - look where that's gotten us in the past - lies about CIA intervention in Iran in the 5s, and a host of other countries, the bay of pigs, the cuban missile crisis and most damaging the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Right but we can't get to the point where science can have more data because:
There is no reliable repository therefore it all gets dumped on twitter, Facebook and utube. Once there it gets picked over by the Mick Wests and his ilk and tossed aside.
I wasn't offering a CV (slight exaggeration and neither was it about me but about witnesses)
and we don't need to place witness statements to the exclusion of all else, wr need to also have witness statements regardless of social position. All data is valid. Or none of it is. Witnesses give context. Witnesses correct assumptions. Witnesses may but only, may, be unreliable. Not all.
so your 'photo query' was disingenuous - you just used a pointless example to regurgitate your uninformed views of how science works and slime critics once more .
All data is valid. Or none of it is. - nonsense - are we supposed to include flat earthers, birthers, election or holocaust deniers in our considerations?
Your way is no longer working in this circumstance. If science knew anything, science would have built it already. It hasn't that we are aware of so any assumption it has is incorrect because that's all it is, is an assumption.
once again you expose your lack of understanding - it's not my way, altho my background in the sciences you don't get to make this silly declaration about science's end. according to you, since we didn't know about airplanes or telephones or computers we couldn't have made them. it's again the opposite - science explores areas to expand its knowledge& new technologies often results. science makes assumptions aka hypotheses, but that's only the beginning - it then performs experiments or looks for physical evidence to support or deny te hypothesis. UFOlogy has yet to creep up to this basic procedure
86
« on: January 26, 2024, 16:30 »
I asked in German groups and there are still producers with around the same sales as the years before.
Perhaps this is mostly a problem in the US markets?
How are the Europeans here doing?
and only few/some folk in the US - many of us have seen little decrease - and there's still copious anti-SS venom polluting the waters of discussion
87
« on: January 26, 2024, 16:17 »
This is a photo of a box. As a layman's experiment tell me what I photographed.
What can science tell me about this box.
What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.
I photographed it, therefore its on earth and contains oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen.
I'm curious and have a purpose in this experiment. Nothing petty. I just want to see what you think.
not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons. without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box.
even the photographer's claim 'it's on earth' cannot be verified. it could also be ai generated
Precisely and this is unfortunately where we are with UAP.
Debunkers don't need to ask for more data.
Skeptics don't tend to ask for more data.
Science can't be given more data which it needs other than this photo which as you say shows nothing.
But you've excluded me from the equation.
...
Science would love to be given the freedom to examine UAP data. But it has to wait for it like
all the rest of us.
of COURSE science (and skeptics) need more data, as you admit in the final sentence, hence their tentative conclusion: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. - Wittgenstein simply put, you don't matter - you asked about the photo and the replies emphasized the need for more data, not your CV - examining you would be the argument from authority --"they're a military genius, therefore they must be right" - look where that's gotten us in the past - lies about CIA intervention in Iran in the 5s, and a host of other countries, the bay of pigs, the cuban missile crisis and most damaging the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
88
« on: January 25, 2024, 14:50 »
Alright guys, I will write it once again. It's not about me and my portfolio.
Prolonging discussion about my portfolio doesn't make sense, because I wanted YOU to check if someone is not copying YOUR portfolio.
If you don't care - I'm fine with that.
If you create generic stock AI images you don't have to check.
If you have some creative and specific content and you are ok with other people stealing your images and using it as a reference for AI in order to copy your portfolio then I'm ok with that as well.
but you made the initial claim your work was stolen, but don't provide comparison images most of are images were likely scraped already multiple times - it's done, and nothing can reverse that - limits on future scraping are where the battle should be fought (in order to get tiny fractions of a penny for each mage scraped)
89
« on: January 25, 2024, 14:28 »
I guess what I'm looking for is one more website to constantly reload the contributor summary page on. Seems to me it's pretty clearly AS in first place, istock in a distant 2nd and SS is trying to win the race for last place (for photo and a little video). If I'm going to waste time submitting to SS maybe I can waste a little more at dreamstime or depositphoto or something? Seems dreamstime is the consensus 4th least worst? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Nope you're not wrong. The problem comes down to, what are your images and how many? Then how much time will you have to spend to drop those images into a black hole?  Yes, DT is probably the next best after the three, and maybe DP is next after that.
If there was a 4th I'd want to know that too.
My point of view is, there are only 3 right now. Yes I have a DT account, I'm trying to make it to $100 so I can close it. BUT... I have a friend or two that make payout there, every few months. I think there are others here who say they like the returns from DP. And there are people who have dropped SS when the reset and 10c commissions came in.
In the end, you'll have to try and see or depending on what your images are, see what your personal results are. Mine say, AS, SS and IS. All the rest that I hang on to, are dying or dead.
which best ? best in sales, setting SS at 100, Canva is 80, AS is 40-50, alamy 30, DT is 25 best for submitting: Canva easiest, SS slightly better than AS which has too many useless clicks, DT only allows 1 image at a time, alamy is terrible - 1 bad image and entire batch is rejected best for review's: DT & SS, AS was rejecting entire batches for 'quality' over last few months, but seems to have fixed it, Canva rejects most images as soon as they're submitted DP was 10-20 for sales before i canceled in January. but i accidentally found some of my images were still there - and a search for 'cascoly' as contributor says 57K images online- working with DP support but no solution yet. they were very fast to respond. when i try to login, it says my acct is blocked - as it should be as always -- YMMV
90
« on: January 25, 2024, 13:58 »
This is a photo of a box. As a layman's experiment tell me what I photographed.
What can science tell me about this box.
What can the scientific minds here tell me about the box I photographed.
I photographed it, therefore its on earth and contains oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen.
I'm curious and have a purpose in this experiment. Nothing petty. I just want to see what you think.
not much, too little evidence among unverifiable claims - it's a brown, blurry image and with no scale it's just a series of unfocused, brownish polygons. without photos from several sides, can't even verify the claim it's a box. even the photographer's claim ' it's on earth' cannot be verified. it could also be ai generated
91
« on: January 24, 2024, 21:07 »
But... did you generate your images with AI yourself? (it seems to be). If the case, you don't own any copyright and you should not even complain. 
In this case he have the rights to sell those images, the other no. A big difference.
this is still a fuzzy area & court rulings have been ambiguous. the copyright office 'opinion' doesn't change the 1976 LAW that automatically grants copyright to the creator
92
« on: January 24, 2024, 18:30 »
...
Pete and gang for advice and confirmation instead of experts military or otherwise
I'll believe Pete over the military any day!
That's an interesting stance. You must elaborate.
I was mostly joking but not completely. Pete seems to have a very balanced view of most things. I used to have a lot of respect (or at least an assumption of competency) about the military but after some of them were in a previous administration it appears otherwise (I'm thinking of one who should be in jail except for a pardon), plus I know of one who was in military intelligence who was a complete crackpot. Very nice guy but not who you would want in charge of anything, and I think he was a Colonel. The crackpots seem to mostly be in the Air Force so maybe the other branches are better. However, in my experience most military people have little background or abilities to make reasonable conclusions about scientific phenomena - I would leave that to the scientists and keep the military out of it. As for UAPs, I'll take the opinion of independent scientists over the military any day.
The military isn't the epicentre of crackpots but I do agree. Scientists tend ro default to being skeptics first in many circumstances no less in the subject of UAP and this is not scientific at all. All data must be considered. Instead they tend to approach using prosaic means and if that fails they claim lack of data but exclude that provided by witnesses of any stripe who, also can claim their share of crackpots also.
...
you don't understand how science works - skepticism is part of the method so it's no defect. you say ' all data must be considered' but that's the problem - there often IS NO DATA to be considered - just hearsay, claims to have confirming facts (even bodies spacecraft parts, non-terrestrial materials, etc) but not able to produce them, often claiming it's classified . So, once more if there are no actual facts, what you continue to fail to understand is their conclusion is there's nothing there NOW, it doesn't mean they reject the possibility confirming evidence will actually be presented - hopefully in a peer reviewed journal.- those who say their info is classified or otherwise unavailable may be correct, but a scientist can't make decisions about something they can't see so, back to basics - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. it's the claimants who are responsible for providing it,, not those who ask for such evidence - skeptics can't prove a negative.
93
« on: January 23, 2024, 14:57 »
Well, it was like someone took a dive off a steep cliff. But now they are slowly increasing.
Perhaps people didn't feel like working (and subsequently using their credits to get assets) for the first half of January...
also extreme weather in much of the US
94
« on: January 23, 2024, 14:23 »
Review time on Adobe is so ...random now?
It was really fast a week ago and now it has come to a full-stop for me. Not a single image reviewed in 5 days.
I can promise you, they are not reviewed in order of upload. I have waiting, 1 month, 17, 13,10, 4 days. And accepted from the same as the one month, and 10-13 days ago. That's one EPS, two AI illustrations. Not reviewed, one photo, one EPS, one AI illustration from a sample (with release), one 100% AI image.
Not any big complaint or anything, just pointing out that I have things of my own, uploaded and accepted, while others, of my own, are sitting longer, not reviewed. I can't come up with any order or conclusions from that.
same here - i have more than a hundred images that have waited a month or more, but had many approved recently in much less time - including 20+ ai images http://tinyurl.com/23z9uxkra few days ago, i uploaded about 40 ai images in 1 batch - 8 were rejected the next day for quality (from 1 prompt) but all the others remain in review
95
« on: January 23, 2024, 14:11 »
AS sales slightly up RPD usual .7
SS down about 60-70% mostly due to lack of non-subs shown as RPD .32 down from usual .7
income higher from AS than SS for first time in a year. my AS sales have been steady over last year so they only beat SS when SS sales decline. over last year, SS sales rose by about 10%
AS portfolio rose by 1000 images, slow because of continued batch rejects
for months last year.
SS portfolio rose by 4000 - higher number since about 1/3 of my images are SS editorial. (AS sometimes accepts these - eg when it's a barely visible skier or a crowd in background
96
« on: January 22, 2024, 13:39 »
...
Since you quote? Try Romans 8:25?
or Chiefs 27:24
97
« on: January 21, 2024, 14:16 »
... it was always humorous because one or two of my own images would always show up, on top. I don't know if that was an error or so we'd get excited that SS was actually promoting our work. It was just reading cookies from our own systems, and not what the rest of the world would see....
i had the same experience & always figured they were just finding my pix to mislead me into thinking that was a real result
98
« on: January 19, 2024, 21:11 »
An interesting analysis of the situation by Bernardo Kastrup:
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2024/01/uaps-and-non-human-intelligence-what-is.html
This the problem with articles. It's already out of date. While KirkPatrick did acknowledge that spheres are world wide and classified as UAP he has published an article of his own. If anything it helps prove he was a bad actor but still. Its certainly getting ugly out there. I mean lol its literally a hate letter to Grusch, Elizondo, Mellon and George Knapp and Corbell. The guy is unhinged. ... Jesus he is a real dodgy guy.
LDV81 ---thanks for the link, it's a very interesting & well thought out argument, with little actual discussion of extra-terrestials, concentrating more on the possible evolution of terrestrial non-human intelligences - no test will prove they don't exist, but it is possible to demonstrate evidence that they DO exist.
lowls:
Its a LONG article did you actually read it? Or just repeat your kneejerk denialist claims that all skeptics can be dismissed? The article doesnt say anything like you just claimed
whats good for the goose... department: Importantly, did you read his credentials? They are as good if not better than most of the folk you support and how can you, as an admitted layman, dare to challenge his veracity?!?
I mean lol its literally a hate letter to Grusch, Elizondo, Mellon and George Knapp and Corbell
'where's the beef?' should be simple to show the passages where he does this, but i doubt you can since in fact, he doesn't even mention Elizondo, Knapp or Corbell and his comment on Mellon is straightforward:
Christopher Mellon, who spent nearly twenty years in the US Intelligence Community and served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Intelligence, [has] lent credibility to the claim that there are active UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering programmes
quotes from the actual article
In my view, a significant portion of the published material could benefit from greater rigor, empirical grounding, theoretical clarity, and logical reasoning. This field often appears to diverge from the standards of intellectual precision and level-headed analysis that hold in academia. However, recent developments over the past six or seven years invite us to re-examine the subject from a more open and inquisitive perspective.
...
Enough has been officially acknowledged since 2017 that the topic is now undoubtedly deserving of serious treatment. After laying foundations for my argument, I will then proceed to elaborate on what I currently consider to be the most level-headed and plausible account of the phenomenon. And to anticipate a question you are bound to be already asking, no, I dont think it is aliens from Zeta Reticuli; the facts may be a lot more surprising and closer to home than that.
...
the names and credentials of the individuals mentioned above are not in doubt; they are who they say they are. And their ranks and roles put them in a position to plausibly know what they claim to know. These individuals are willing to testify under oath in public hearings and confidentially provide evidence to members of congress.
So.. no ad hominem attacks, and NO disparagement of those folk - instead he examines several hypotheses and describes methods that could actually prove them stating they found non-human biologics requires publication in a peer reviewed journal not just testimony from someone, who may sincerely believe it but has not presented any actual facts
Therefore, if the biologics in the freezers of the powers-that-be have the same biochemistry we do, I believe it is safe to assume that they are terrestrial; they are our older cousinslikely forever traumatised by earlier planetary cataclysmsand certainly not aliens.
Another prediction of the ultra-terrestrial hypothesis is this: the materialssay, the metalsused in the UAP craft should have isotope ratios compatible with an earthly origin, as opposed to one outside the solar system. If the powers-that-be are in possession of such craft, this shouldnt be a difficult test to perform.
Together, the two test results suggested above, if mutually consistent, should be conclusive.
Most of the article is a discussion of the possibility of non-human terrestrial intelligence
Notice that my claim here is not that it is likely that high-tech nonhuman civilisations have emerged on Earth before us; I cannot evaluate the probabilities involved. My claim is that, based on what we know, such civilisations are not impossible or inconsistent with the geological record. On the contrary: as Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Frank point out, the record shows several periods of global warming consistent with large-scale industrialization.
A side discussion maps the difficulties of translating the language of a species that doesnt share our cognitive space (whales, praying manti? ) great SF series by Adrian Tchaikovsky Children of Time & The 3 body problem trilogy by Cixin Liu about the difficulties of dealing with an intelligent group of spiders
His final caveat:
Notice, however, that the hypothesis proposed here presupposes the UAP data disclosed thus far to be authentic, and not the result of a sprawling disinformation campaign. In the latter case, the key motivations and empirical ground for the speculations in this essay would be void, and the hypothesis should be disregarded in its entirety
I did. I didn't bother reading all of what you wrote why would I? I've no interest in anything you have to say. Glad you've found something you enjoyed.
so you admit you didn't bother to read the article before condemning it! and now you can't respond not to my comments, but to the actual article that you slimed w/o actually knowing what it said? your response is the usual ad hominem attack against the poster rather than responding to the actual questions & your mis=-representation of its content. - i quoted from the actual article & you have no response to that actual content & lying about the article you didn't bother to read! prove me wrong!
99
« on: January 19, 2024, 19:09 »
An interesting analysis of the situation by Bernardo Kastrup:
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2024/01/uaps-and-non-human-intelligence-what-is.html
This the problem with articles. It's already out of date. While KirkPatrick did acknowledge that spheres are world wide and classified as UAP he has published an article of his own. If anything it helps prove he was a bad actor but still. Its certainly getting ugly out there. I mean lol its literally a hate letter to Grusch, Elizondo, Mellon and George Knapp and Corbell. The guy is unhinged. ... Jesus he is a real dodgy guy.
LDV81 ---thanks for the link, it's a very interesting & well thought out argument, with little actual discussion of extra-terrestials, concentrating more on the possible evolution of terrestrial non-human intelligences - no test will prove they don't exist, but it is possible to demonstrate evidence that they DO exist. lowls:Its a LONG article did you actually read it? Or just repeat your kneejerk denialist claims that all skeptics can be dismissed? The article doesnt say anything like you just claimed
whats good for the goose... department: Importantly, did you read his credentials? They are as good if not better than most of the folk you support and how can you, as an admitted layman, dare to challenge his veracity?!? I mean lol its literally a hate letter to Grusch, Elizondo, Mellon and George Knapp and Corbell
'where's the beef?' should be simple to show the passages where he does this, but i doubt you can since in fact, he doesn't even mention Elizondo, Knapp or Corbell and his comment on Mellon is straightforward: Christopher Mellon, who spent nearly twenty years in the US Intelligence Community and served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for Intelligence, [has] lent credibility to the claim that there are active UAP crash-retrieval and reverse-engineering programmes quotes from the actual article In my view, a significant portion of the published material could benefit from greater rigor, empirical grounding, theoretical clarity, and logical reasoning. This field often appears to diverge from the standards of intellectual precision and level-headed analysis that hold in academia. However, recent developments over the past six or seven years invite us to re-examine the subject from a more open and inquisitive perspective.... Enough has been officially acknowledged since 2017 that the topic is now undoubtedly deserving of serious treatment. After laying foundations for my argument, I will then proceed to elaborate on what I currently consider to be the most level-headed and plausible account of the phenomenon. And to anticipate a question you are bound to be already asking, no, I dont think it is aliens from Zeta Reticuli; the facts may be a lot more surprising and closer to home than that.... the names and credentials of the individuals mentioned above are not in doubt; they are who they say they are. And their ranks and roles put them in a position to plausibly know what they claim to know. These individuals are willing to testify under oath in public hearings and confidentially provide evidence to members of congress. So.. no ad hominem attacks, and NO disparagement of those folk - instead he examines several hypotheses and describes methods that could actually prove them stating they found non-human biologics requires publication in a peer reviewed journal not just testimony from someone, who may sincerely believe it but has not presented any actual facts
Therefore, if the biologics in the freezers of the powers-that-be have the same biochemistry we do, I believe it is safe to assume that they are terrestrial; they are our older cousinslikely forever traumatised by earlier planetary cataclysmsand certainly not aliens.
Another prediction of the ultra-terrestrial hypothesis is this: the materialssay, the metalsused in the UAP craft should have isotope ratios compatible with an earthly origin, as opposed to one outside the solar system. If the powers-that-be are in possession of such craft, this shouldnt be a difficult test to perform.
Together, the two test results suggested above, if mutually consistent, should be conclusive.
Most of the article is a discussion of the possibility of non-human terrestrial intelligence Notice that my claim here is not that it is likely that high-tech nonhuman civilisations have emerged on Earth before us; I cannot evaluate the probabilities involved. My claim is that, based on what we know, such civilisations are not impossible or inconsistent with the geological record. On the contrary: as Dr. Schmidt and Dr. Frank point out, the record shows several periods of global warming consistent with large-scale industrialization.
A side discussion maps the difficulties of translating the language of a species that doesnt share our cognitive space (whales, praying manti? ) great SF series by Adrian Tchaikovsky Children of Time & The 3 body problem trilogy by Cixin Liu about the difficulties of dealing with an intelligent group of spiders His final caveat: Notice, however, that the hypothesis proposed here presupposes the UAP data disclosed thus far to be authentic, and not the result of a sprawling disinformation campaign. In the latter case, the key motivations and empirical ground for the speculations in this essay would be void, and the hypothesis should be disregarded in its entirety
100
« on: January 19, 2024, 13:41 »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 165
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
