Porky wants to insert needles in your brain

Not to be that guy, but how much of this is real existing science, and how much if this is Elon's "Rick and Morty" fantasies?

who tf knows? although i didn't watch the entire thing, there were a number of scientific discussions that went into detail on how the tech would work. through my rudimentary knowledge of circuits and digital signal processing, it checked out.

call me cute too please im having a bad day

Not him but

U CUTE

Attached: 1527189543728.gif (500x269, 575.83K)

No one knows. But the tech seems plausible unlike the mars colonization and hyperloop bullshit or the self driving meme. Reading inputs from the brain is already a real thing. But it could just be a scam as well. It probably is anyway

R u a tranny?

Elon doesn't even hide his ambition to turn his porky friends into ubermensch and leave poor proles even further in the dirt.

I have a dick, so maybe.

You guys want some more Ted?
struggle to overcome certain problems that threaten its
survival, among which the problems of human behavior
are the most important. If the system succeeds in acqui-
ring sufficient control over human behavior quickly en-
ough, it will probably survive. Otherwise it will break
down. We think the issue will most likely be resolved wi-
thin the next several decades, say 40 to 100 years.
163. Suppose the system survives the crisis of the next
several decades. By that time it will have to have solved,
or at least brought under control, the principal problems
that confront it, in particular that of “socializing” human
beings; that is, making people sufficiently docile so that
heir behavior no longer threatens the system. That being
accomplished, it does not appear that there would be any
further obstacle to the development of technology, and it
would presumably advance toward its logical conclusion,
which is complete control over everything on Earth, in-
cluding human beings and all other important organisms.
The system may become a unitary, monolithic organiza-
tion, or it may be more or less fragmented and consist of a
number of organizations coexisting in a relationship that
includes elements of both cooperation and competition,
just as today the government, the corporations and other
large organizations both cooperate and compete with one
another. Human freedom mostly will have vanished, be-
cause individuals and small groups will be impotent vis-
a-vis large organizations armed with supertechnology and
an arsenal of advanced psychological and biological tools
for manipulating human beings, besides instruments of
surveillance and physical coercion. Only a small number
of people will have any real power, and even these proba-
bly will have only very limited freedom, because their be-
havior too will be regulated; just as today our politicians
and corporation executives can retain their positions of
power only as long as their behavior remains within cer-
tain fairly narrow limits.
164. Don’t imagine that the systems will stop develo-
ping further techniques for controlling human beings and
nature once the crisis of the next few decades is over and
increasing control is no longer necessary for the system’s
survival. On the contrary, once the hard times are over
the system will increase its control over people and nature
more rapidly, because it will no longer be hampered by dif-
ficulties of the kind that it is currently experiencing. Survi-
val is not the principal motive for extending control. As we
explained in paragraphs 87-90, technicians and scientists
carry on their work largely as a surrogate activity; that is,
they satisfy their need for power by solving technical pro-
blems. They will continue to do this with unabated enthu-
siasm, and among the most interesting and challenging
problems for them to solve will be those of understanding
the human body and mind and intervening in their deve-
lopment. For the “good of humanity,” of course."

Comrades, join the Freedom Club today!
Some of you might be wary of Kaczsynski because Zig Forums-tards say that Kaczsynski hated leftists. But he was more sophisticated in his thoughts than the average Zig Forums-tard is capable of comprehending. I guarantee you that Kaczsynski was more thoughtful than the average Zig Forums-tard. Example (that Zig Forums-tards will never show you):
a lot of crap. I know John and Jane who are leftish types
and they don’t have all these totalitarian tendencies.” It’s
quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical
majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tole-
rating others’ values (up to a point) and wouldn’t want
to use high-handed methods to reach their social goals.
Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every
individual leftist but to describe the general character of
leftism as a movement. And the general character of a
movement is not necessarily determined by the numeri-
cal proportions of the various kinds of people involved in
the movement.
224. The people who rise to positions of power in leftist
movements tend to be leftists of the most power-hungry
type, because power-hungry people are those who strive
hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-
hungry types have captured control of the movement,
there are many leftists of a gentler breed who inwardly
disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but can-
not bring themselves to oppose them. They NEED their
faith in the movement, and because they cannot give up
this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME lef-
tists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies
that emerge, but they generally lose, because the power-
hungry types are better organized, are more ruthless and
Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a
strong power base.
225. These phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and
other countries that were taken over by leftists. Similarly,
before the breakdown of communism in the, USSR, lef-
tish types in the West would, seldom criticize that coun-
try. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many
wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for
the communists and begin talking about the faults of the
West. They always opposed Western military resistance
to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world
vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam,
but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing.
Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because
of their leftist faith, they just couldn’t bear to put them-
selves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of our
universities where “political correctness” has become do-
minant, there are probably many leftish types who priva-
tely disapprove of the suppression of academic freedom,
but they go along with it anyway.
226. Thus the fact that many individual leftists are per-
sonally mild and fairly tolerant people by no means pre-
vents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian ten-
dency.
227. Our discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It
is still far from clear what we mean by the word “leftist.”
There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about this. To-
day leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist
movements. Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and
some activist movements (e.g., radical environmentalism)
seem to include both personalities of the leftist type and
personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to
know better than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of
leftists fade out gradually into varieties of non-leftists and
we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to decide whe-
ther a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent
that it is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined
by the discussion of it that we have given in this article,
and we can only advise the reader to use his own judg-
ment in deciding who is a leftist."
I think it's obvious that Kaczsynski had a very peculiar. non-mainstream idea of what a 'leftist' is.