They turned a disarmed country, which had no army, no air force & had been badly humiliated, into a military powerhouse in just 6 yrs that conquered much of Europe. Indian liberals are utterly idiotic to even compare this unmatched iq, aura & aesthetics to an organization full of potbellied boomers with no meaningful achievements so far & whenever open their mouths, u can be sure they'll say something stupid.
Tumhari sadi hui bhasha mein tumko jawab De sakta hun lekin mere Baba ne tamiz sikhai.
Tum jaise man baap hi badtamiz bacchon ki parvarish karte Hain.
I am sure you would not like this answer.
Please think before you write
Porn is free but not healthcare why modi? Is it cuz u want to ruin Indian youth? But when they abuse u, u feel bad n cry meri maa ko gaali di hai, but u've given free access to porn not education or healthcare and then u say youth sabhya samajh nahi hai, are you an idiot mr modi?
m not using stupid AI analysis to lie about her age, job, or to get FIR registered against her, or to justify sending r4pe threats, or to unleash nationwide lynch mob of s*xually frstrted sanghis to t*rrorize her family n force her into a tearful apology video in a police station
Tumhari sadi hui bhasha mein tumko jawab De sakta hun lekin mere Baba ne tamiz sikhai.
Tum jaise man baap hi badtamiz bacchon ki parvarish karte Hain.
I am sure you would not like this answer.
Please think before you write
abey jaahil anpadh gawar even if u feed it a picture of a moongfali and a picture of your unused dick, AI will generate a long list of similarities and differences, that's its entire fucking function buddhe.
#RuchikaSingh Lets understand what is happening. It seems that there are two #RuchikaSinghs.
I have simply taken Two photographs Which were available On the Internet. I then asked the AI to generate similarities and differences between the two images.
The following are the results #MEDIA AND @noidapolice .
1. Estimated Age & Proportions (Assessment)
Subject A (Image 12, Left): Shows full adult skeletal maturity. Features are developed and defined. There is clear facial definition and skeletal structure.
Estimated Age Range: Mid-to-Late 20s.
Subject B (Image 13, Right): Shows pedomorphic (child-like) features, consistent with a pre-pubertal or early-pubertal stage. Features are softer, rounder, and have significant soft-tissue fullness, especially in the mid-face/cheeks. The jaw is not yet fully developed and defined.
Estimated Age Range: Early Adolescence (approx. 10–13 years).
The visualization effectively separates these two distinct developmental stages, showing that Subject A cannot be an older version of Subject B due to fundamental structural growth patterns, even over time.
Point-by-Point Difference Analysis (Anatomical Detail)
The visualizations in this section use illustrative metrics and tracing to compare stable features directly. These points are not explained by age or makeup.
2. The Ocular Region (Eyes & Sockets)
Subject A: Displays almond-shaped eyes that are set deeper. Subject A shows full adult bone development of the brow ridge, providing structure.
Subject B: Display rounder, closer-set eyes. Subject B shows less development in the orbital bone structure, consistent with young age.
Key Visible Difference: The distance between the inner corners of the eyes (intercanthal distance) is fundamentally different, and the bone structure of the orbital socket itself shows a different shape and projection.
3. The Nasal Morphology
Subject A: Displays a defined nasal bridge with a specific, narrower width. The nostril flare has specific definition and shape.
Subject B: Displays a wider nasal bridge and less defined nostril structure, consistent with less mature skeletal structure.
Key Visible Difference: The width of the nasal bridge and the shape/definition of the nostrils cannot be accounted for by maturation or simple variance.
4. The Auricular Morphology (Ears)
This is a critical area, as ears do not significantly change structure after early childhood and are a highly persistent feature.
Subject A: Displays prominent ears with significant lateral projection (flare) from the head. The structure of the helical rim and the ear lobe is distinct, showing a 'detached' or free lobe structure. (See Ear Detail in Image 10 analysis for a parallel).
Subject B: Displays ears that lie flatter and appear attached. The structure and orientation of the folds are fundamentally different.
Key Visible Difference: The structure and attachment of the ear lobes are not a result of development. Subjects display fundamentally different ear morphology.
5. Dental/Oral Formation
Subject A: Displays unique teeth formation and alignment. The visualization in Image 14 points to specific patterns, including crowding or rotation in the maxillary arch. These unique markers provide a high-confidence identifying signature.
Subject B: Displays a smooth dental arch with no complex visible features.
This is not a key differentiator for different people because B could have later dental work, but the highly distinct formation of Subject A is a potent identifier signature.
@ravishndtv@dhruv_rathee@NitishRajput@TheLallantop@ajitanjum@abhisar_sharma@BDUTT@ShekharGupta@TheDeshBhakt@ppbajpai@AajTak@ndtv@IndiaToday@ABPNews@ZeeNews@republic@TimesNow@News18India@indiatvnews@news24tvchannel@ANI@PTI_News@ians_india@NewsX
Guy A : Got called racist at Mc'Donalds today
Guy B : Tell us what happened lad
Guy A : I got called racist in a Mc'Donalds
Guy B : ye but why
Guy A : I was being racist
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Muji : I was called a cock sucker at work
Guy A : Got called racist at Mc'Donalds today
Guy B : Tell us what happened lad
Guy A : I got called racist in a Mc'Donalds
Guy B : ye but why
Guy A : I was being racist
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Muji : I was called a cock sucker at work