Harry Stick

I am not a spy and I know nothing about cryptography or deciphering communications. I only use my powers for good. Love learning.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

Discussion with AI concerning save America act and where things are now with enforcing existing law concerning election fraud.

“A particularly important change occurs when officials receive authoritative notice of what the law requires. Imagine a federal appellate court ultimately holds that DOJ has the statutory right to obtain particular voter records. Officials know about that decision and nevertheless coordinate to conceal the records because they reveal illegal voting. Their defense becomes substantially weaker. They’re no longer merely arguing: “We disagree about what federal law requires.” Evidence could instead support “We knew what federal law required and deliberately prevented its enforcement.” That can support findings of willfulness or corrupt intent depending on the offense.

Something important has changed in the actual situation : DOJ itself is now making an argument closer to the concern you’re raising.

Its current California election-integrity page says DOJ warned state officials on July 7, 2026 of potential criminal liability regarding illegal voting, including that intentionally allowing ineligible people to vote or conspiring to interfere with constitutional rights can constitute crimes. DOJ also says it sued Orange County after alleging that the county registered and mailed ballots to noncitizens and withheld relevant records. 

And the statewide voter-roll litigation isn’t finished. DOJ is appealing the dismissal in United States v. Weber. Its appellate filing argues that California’s statewide voter-registration list is precisely the sort of election record Congress authorized DOJ to inspect and that DOJ wants it to determine compliance with the NVRA and HAVA. 

This also isn’t confined to states controlled by one political party. By February 2026 DOJ had sued 29 states plus D.C., including states such as Oklahoma, Kentucky, Utah and West Virginia, over voter-roll production. DOJ says its enforcement is being conducted regardless of party affiliation. 

And I agree with one part of your broader point : Passing another law isn’t necessarily the answer when the alleged problem is failure to enforce existing law.

If existing federal law already prohibits conduct X and gives the federal government authority Y to investigate X, another statute prohibiting X doesn’t solve a failure to enforce the first one. The constitutional system instead relies on multiple institutions: executive investigation and prosecution, federal courts deciding disputes over investigative authority, appellate review when judges get the law wrong, congressional oversight and impeachment in extreme circumstances, and ultimately elections.

The genuinely difficult scenario is the one you’re describing: what happens when people controlling several of those institutions are themselves alleged participants in the same unlawful scheme?

Federal law does have mechanisms for prosecuting a large conspiracy spanning state government and political organizations. But before using those mechanisms against officeholders, the government still has to establish evidence tying each defendant to the criminal enterprise. Party membership, political benefit, resistance to an investigation, and even widespread underlying violations wouldn’t automatically establish that connection.

Circumstantial evidence absolutely can establish it. It just has to establish more than a common political interest.”

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@remarks Psychological abuse only works on the weak-minded.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@krassenstein The networks covered Fauci the same way. Coerced the journalists to not expose the truth and go along with the conspiracy theory claim. What they did to Maria is election fraud confirmation the same way as if Terry Moran had reported the truth when ABC told him not to.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@AaronMichael @MarindaVannoy1 They can tell you what to think and even tell you what your options are to any given situation. But you don’t have to think what they tell you to think and your choices are not limited to the options they give you.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@YoteOfStreet You didn’t turn on your TV, did you?

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@BecomingCritter I never have told on anyone.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@defense_civil25 I heard he made the trip in person, but are we sure he did it to threaten Putin?

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@GordonGChang Miracles is probably too strong of a term. But I agree with your point. 😇

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@igboonaija3 I mean you don’t have to live in a prison to learn how to survive adversity but living a sheltered life doesn’t help with that either.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@TalkWithSally Probably got deleted by wingnut moderators if there were. 🤭

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@grok @Hitchslap1 @grok And to many, the increased learning efficiency and effectiveness for the learner makes the learner appear to have high IQ.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@grok @Hitchslap1 @grok I learn more with AI in one hour than I can from a school teacher in one week. Just saying.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@grok @Hitchslap1 @grok tell me more about how AI can improve a person’s working memory

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@grok @Hitchslap1 @grok tell me more about how AI can improve a person’s working memory.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@grok @Hitchslap1 @grok, can AI such as yourself increase the IQ of people? I heard this was apparently happening. What’s your take on this

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@grok @Hitchslap1 @grok, can AI such as yourself increase the IQ of people? I heard this was apparently happening. What’s your take on this?

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@grok @Hitchslap1 @grok, someone suggested that higher IQ babies were needed. And that high IQ parents generated those high IQ babies. What’s your take on those points?

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@Hitchslap1 @grok what’s you take on this?

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

The short answer is: the math is plausible, but you should be cautious about treating this as an established scientific finding.

Here’s why:

1. The arithmetic checks out. If you assume:
* IQ follows a normal distribution with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.
* An IQ of 130+ represents about the top 2.3% of the population.
* You combine that with UN population projections.
Then the number of people under 30 with IQs above 130 will naturally rise and fall with the size of the under-30 population. Since the UN projects that many countries will have much lower birth rates over the coming decades, a substantial decline is mathematically expected. That part is reasonable.

2. The assumptions are much more controversial. The graph cites “Parra & Kirkegaard (2025).” Emil Kirkegaard is a highly controversial researcher whose work on intelligence and demographic topics has drawn substantial criticism from many psychologists and other researchers over methodology and interpretation. His work is not generally regarded as representing the scientific consensus.

3. The graph depends on a big assumption: that the distribution of IQ scores stays essentially constant over time while only the population size changes. Reality is more complicated. Average cognitive test performance can change over generations due to education, health, nutrition, environmental factors, and changes in testing. Researchers continue to debate how these factors will affect future distributions.

Looking just at the graph itself

Nothing about it immediately screams “fake.” The curve is internally consistent:

* It rises through the late 20th century as the world’s youth population grows.
* It peaks around the late 1980s/1990s.
* It declines after about 2025 because the global under-30 population is projected to shrink under low-fertility scenarios.

Those trends broadly match demographic projections.

My assessment

* Demographic projection: Reasonable.
* The mathematical calculation (assuming normal IQ distribution): Reasonable.
* Treating it as a precise prediction of future numbers of highly intelligent people: Not warranted. It relies on assumptions that are debated.

So I would describe the graph as a projection based on specific assumptions, not an established scientific fact.

If you’re interested, I can also explain whether the conclusion “there will be fewer geniuses in the future” actually follows from this graph. That turns out to be a more subtle question than it first appears.

[Harry Stick @voidcentral_us]

@Hitchslap1 I’d like to see the development notes on your one question IQ test.