No, that is a misrepresentation of the source you provided. Back in the time when (early) modern political science was invented, republic was indeed a catch-all term which did mean that some kind of representative government was involved, because the role of head of state was not heritable, ie. it was not a monarchy. So the role of head of state must necessarily be through some form of representation, usually election (although the group of electors was mostly not very representative of the general populace).

That is why in the 17th and 18th centuries republic was used as a slogan of opposition to monarchy (and oppression in general). Because having a system where the role of head of state wasn’t heritable was the opposite of what was the majority type of political system at the time, regardless of what the rest of the political system of that country was.

But throughout the 19th century and especially 20th century, monarchies lost their majority position, and a host of other political systems appeared. Not least the appearance of representative democracies in the Western world.

At that point republic does symbolically still mean some kind of representation, the republics of Saddam’s Iraq, or China, or even North Korea, still involves voting, even though they are dictatorships in practice. On the other hand several Western democracies are not republics, but constituional monarchies. That is because the juxtaposition of republic/monarchy is virtually meaningless for most countries now, it defines nothing at all about the actual political system of the country.

The US is indeed a republic, because the role of head of state isn’t heritable. But that is all that the term means in connection to the American constitution. Back in the 18th century republic was the term they used, because of the aformentioned reasons, most of the founding fathers did not set out to create a democracy, and the radical democratic faction was also pushed aside when it came to writing a constitution. However through the following centuries, the American political system was slowly changed towards democratic institutions, lastly in 1964 with the Civil Rights act which finally introduced universal suffrage. Of course a lot of the democratic development has since been undermined again, especially this last decade, and of course mostly this last year.

But in modern political scientific terms, the US is a republic and a representative democracy still (even though the constitution is meaningless with the current govermnent), and the most defining part of it is the representative democracy part.

Also you seem to have missed this part in the link you provided:

Despite its democratic implications, the term was claimed in the 20th century by states whose leadership enjoyed more power than most traditional monarchs, including military dictatorships such as the Republic of Chile under Augusto Pinochet and totalitarian regimes such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Yeah. The thing is that it is a distraction from the Epstein files. But it is also distraction from all of his previous crimes, because that is how he has always functioned. He is a barrage of shitshows to distract from any individual shitshow. That was his previous adminstration as well. So even without the existence of the Epstein files, he would still be doing all this shit, it is just what he does. He normalises his crimes and his fascism by constantly doing new crimes and fascism.

And yes, the military deployment in the capital is pretty ominous to put it mildly.

I didn’t know it was a racial trait.

Republic just means a country isn’t a monarchy. Lots and lots of dictatorships are republics.

It is more like this is how a (nominal) democracy becomes a dictatorship.

Unfortunately that is not how the figures really are. Way too many of those 8 billions will willingly simp and fight the rest of us in the name of those billionaires.

Every Western democracy votes for representatives, direct democracy isn’t really a thing (except for partially in Switzerland). But many countries actually manages to represent the voters with their representatives, the US system definitely doesn’t.

We only saw the part of the appeasement process which was meant to be public. We have no way of knowing what is included in the non-public part.

I finally figured out what’s annoying about y’all. Y’all don’t hate the tech for the legitimate reasons to hate it, y’all hate it blindly without understanding it and now start to witch hunt on anything you think is AI,

Urgh, there’s nothing worse than AI techbros strawmannnig the shit out of their beloved slop.

You are correct that it is a modern typography. It stems from a 2007 Daily Mail article. If the original exists (and we definitely can’t trust Daily Mail on that account), it would have looked completely different in typography.

deleted by creator

The typography in the picture is not from 1913. It is modern. The text may be transcribed from a 1913 text, but it would not have looked like that in the slightest.

Edit: Someone posted the link, it is from a 2007 edition of The Daily Mail.

You are correct. The typograhpy in the picture is completely modern. It may be a transscription from a 1913 text, but the picture doesn’t show a 1913 text, and there is no source given, so you are right to be suspicious.

Trump isn’t doing this alone. He can only do this with the blessing of the Republicans and their oligarch masters. And they are all making unimaginable fortunes from doing it, which seems to me to be more of an incentive for them doing it.

Tankies just can’t stop simping for dictators with pathetic disingenous strawmen.

Plenty of websites are AI created, with more being created every hour, which I gather is what OP is talking about.

And there isn’t really any useful wait to filer those out, with only lots of profitable reasons for people to create more of them, and they will shortly be the complete death of the internet as we knew it.

AI and the News Industry: How The Guardian’s OpenAI Deal Signals a New Era.

The Guardian Media Group has entered into a strategic partnership with OpenAI, integrating its journalism into ChatGPT and rolling out AI-powered tools across its operations.

Completely non-biased on this subject I am sure.

No it won’t. There are plenty of people who will keep putting money into it because it is very profitable for them to do so. LLMs can create disinformation more convincing and at a rate no human can compete with. So scammers, political interests and other wealthy organisations will only keep funding it more and more.

The regular consumer is not the one who is going to decide whether this is a fad or not. It is being used, and will be used to a much higher degree in the future, whether we want it to or not.

And that is just one side of it. The other, and arguably even worse, is that the content being uploaded to the internet will become largely AI generated. AI generated content can be created at rates no humans can compete with, and there are plenty of incentives, economical as well as political, for malicious interests to flood any human made content with AI created disinformation.

That is also why the people hoping that AI is a bubble which will burst are wrong. There are plenty of interested parties which will keep it alive for very profitable reasons, even if it is the opposite of what LLMs were originally claimed to be created for.

That is not a good excuse in the slightest. Stop using that fascist shithole.

“Newspaper which uses AI to write its articles concocts derogatory term for people who doesn’t use AI”