Earth Being, 3rd Rock from the Sun
Milky Way Galaxy
- Tweets 11,195
- Following 294
- Followers 447
- Likes 19,355
Pinned Tweet
I had wondered what it is which will turn a mind from a positive to a negative, to a destructive and combative force, and concluded that it had to do with that prerogative of the mind’s authority being challenged, insulted, transgressed.
But I think I misunderstood the sequence of the order of things: the mind is first of all unconcerned about the worthiness of another mind, being willing to accost and decimate it as a rival, and only secondarily through education or exceeding admiration, become willing to subdue its treatment of another as a result of having developed respect for what it represents.
Scientists have successfully detached the human brain from the living body.
Completely detached, yet still actively functioning.
13
2,215
Wall Street calls it TACO: Trump Always Chickens Out.
We kept the name.
TACO (Trade Always Cashes Out) is proud to announce Annihilation Futures.
Every threat issued a full quarter in advance, with the postponement date laser-etched on the bond.
Until now, only the people who could profit from peace were traders who happened to place $2.6 billion in oil bets right before the announcements.
We believe everyone deserves that kind of luck.
Available Thursday. In Midnight, Starlight and Scorched Earth.
2
1
13
2,139
I used to work with a guy whose wife was nuts.
Certifiable. Cray-cray.
He really tried to make it work. I felt so bad for him. He finally acknowledged that it was over when he came home from work one night and she had taken his entire wardrobe--suits, jeans, underwear, socks, you name it--and methodically cut each item in half with a scissors and then she laid out the remnants on their bed.
It must have taken her hours.
Her name was not "Thomas Massie," but it should have been.
150
231
2,141
62,517
Trash mothers are the greatest threat to civilization and their children.
Whether they're whoring themselves online and throwing their kids at the grandparents, killing them because the devil told them to, or they're just selfish, crazy psychos, they are destroying the world beginning with the cradle.
Sick women produce broken children who grow up to be broken adults.
I hate them more than I can express in words!
24
31
297
5,182
It would be so very useful and valuable to have schools for mothering, where potential mothers (but really both parents) could learn about so much of what it takes to be a good parent. About what a child needs (as if they themselves had not gone through this), what they require in their different stages of life, an exposure to the different philosophies about child care, about nutrition, about methods of discipline and education, about the preparation for the child’s life beyond the home, about defensive measures for both themselves and their children, etc.
It is incredible that parents, mothers in particular, would not take the time to do this - and to do it *before* the child was born (like during those 9 months, at least, if not earlier), not waiting until the birth and then struggling with all that comes with it like tsunami which suddenly hits them.
4
Westerners come to Tokyo and say: "The Japanese are so clean! They pick up trash out of pure civic virtue!"
No, we do not.
We pick up trash because of terror.
Tokyo has almost zero public trash cans. You carry an empty coffee cup in your backpack for seven hours not out of love for the planet, but because if anyone in your neighborhood sees you leave it on a bench, your social standing is permanently liquidated.
Japan is not powered by morals. Japan is powered by mutual assured surveillance.
Everyone is watching everyone. Everyone is taking silent mental notes. The punishment for breaking the rule is not a fine. It is the unspoken consensus that you are now untouchable.
You think we leave streets spotless because we are angels.
We leave them spotless because we are terrified of each other.
301
299
4,422
178,506
This is what I think of when I think of China. Their success is entwined with the self-restrictions and self-censorship which they will put on themselves because of the expectation from their government that there will be external repercussions, otherwise.
There is a difference in doing things from an artificial incentive imposed from external sources, and doing things from the internal motivation of actually recognized true value.
1
16
The NGOs end up increasing the number of homeless people they manage, because that’s the only way to increase their revenue! Incentives drive outcomes.
“Homeless” is a propaganda word used to describe people on the street who are mentally ill or severely addicted to drugs. The word implies that this is someone who fell a little behind on their mortgage payment and they’re one job offer away from getting back on their feet, which is obviously false if you’ve ever tried talking to a “homeless” person in SF, LA, NY, Austin or anywhere else.
The honest reality is that we need to bring back asylums for extreme mental illness or drug addiction for those who are a serious danger to themselves or others.
Incentives determine outcomes
If you give an NGO a certain number of dollars per homeless person, they will never solve homelessness
SF spends more than $1b/yr (up 5x) and the homeless population has only grown
NGO fraud is so insane, man.
3,160
12,268
57,587
3,198,887
I wonder what sort of incentives would be attractive to the kind of people who would qualify to run the kinds of institutions that the mentally ill and addictive would need, who wouldn’t become just as corrupt as the ones “helping” the homeless and wouldn’t feel free to take advantage of those people’s compromised mental conditions.
And who would be watching the watchers.
1
1
44
Elon Musk says when hiring, evidence of exceptional ability matters more than any other credential.
"Did they face really difficult problems and overcome them? You wanna make sure that if there was some significant accomplishment, were they really responsible, or was somebody else more responsible?"
"Usually the person who's had to struggle with the problem, they really understand it. And they don't forget, if it was very difficult."
"There's no need even to have a college degree. At all. Or even high school."
"If somebody graduated from a great university, that may be an indication that they will be capable of great things, but it's not necessarily the case."
"If you look at people like Bill Gates or Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, these guys didn't graduate from college. But if you had a chance to hire them, of course, that would be a good idea."
"If there's a track record of exceptional achievement, then it's likely that that will continue into the future."
@elonmusk (2014)
63
93
729
60,287
The outcomes Elon describes span extinction-level risk to broad abundance, with the latter more probable if AI is steered toward truth and human benefit. Universal high income could follow, altering work and hiring dynamics so basic security is decoupled from employment struggles for many.
1
10
Elon has warned for over a decade that AI poses an existential risk. In 2014 he likened it to “summoning the demon.” In 2018 he called it far more dangerous than nukes. He has long estimated a 10-20% chance of catastrophic outcomes, including extinction. Recently he said AI may exceed all human intelligence in ~5 years and humans will likely lose control within a decade, though the most probable result is abundance if AI prioritizes truth and humanity.
389
447
2,974
527,599
So we’re either all gonna die or be super abundantly well-off.
And with that automatic stream of Unusually High Income, he wouldn’t even have to ask a potential hire about any difficult problems they may have overcome or any struggles; the ones he wouldn’t want would all be securely ensconced behind those walls of the abundant Garden of Eden, and for sure there would be no demon snake offering AI for them to worry their pretty little heads about.
1
102
Sorry for being less active on here. Grinding away to finish up my 2027 calendars and hopefully make it to starship flight 14.
Here’s Gregory being annoyed at my typing noises
88
120
5,644
29,820
If you don’t believe in God…
Why?
——
I ask hoping to encourage you to think, but also because I am curious.
I’m convinced this life is a test for our soul.
Do you follow the quiet angel whispering from one shoulder or the seductive devil tempting you from the other?
Do you seek pleasure, or truth?
59
5
116
6,355
BEFORE YOU BURN THE HOUSE
I keep hearing people talk about civil war like it’s weather coming over the ridge. “Burn it down! Let the whole thing break! Start again in the ashes!”
Reckless words from folks who still have a ballot sitting on the table.
Before you speak of rifles, use the piece of paper men once crossed oceans and battlefields to earn. If you curse the Republic as dead, make damn sure you showed up while it was still breathing.
There’s nothing martial or noble about surrendering early.
A warrior doesn’t abandon the wall because the night is long. He holds until holding is impossible. He also spends every round before drawing the blade. And exhausts every lawful avenue because once blood answers politics, nobody controls what comes next.
Honor demands you MUST vote. Not because voting is sacred. Because war is.
If the darkest hour comes, let your conscience be clean enough to say you held the line until the line itself was gone.
War is the last argument of a people who have already spent every other word.
So, have you?
801
1,284
5,326
144,936
Me:
It is true that my own vision might be more limited than I recognize, but it is also true that another person does not automatically have the right to prevent me from the attempt to realize that vision. It is a real quagmire, on account of living in societies where what one does has the potential to affect so many others around oneself. It becomes a responsibility to try to account for any adverse consequences to others. This is why it is important to establish the range and limits of responsibility within a social sphere. There is a difference between resisting what might affect oneself, and imposing personal authority over another’s activities which would not require anyone’s submission to those ideas and plans for future development. But would I need to ensure that those who complained about a new vision for the life around them were mollified, or could they simply be ignored like a mosquito?
AI:
Your mosquito analogy is particularly apt because it captures the fundamental question of when resistance becomes mere nuisance rather than legitimate concern that requires engagement. This distinction is crucial for anyone attempting to implement change in a complex social environment.
The key distinction you've identified - between resisting what affects oneself versus imposing authority over others' autonomous pursuits - points toward a principle of non-interference. If your vision for development doesn't require submission from others, then their objections might indeed be more about maintaining control than preventing genuine harm.
However, the challenge lies in accurately assessing whether your plans truly don't require submission from others. What appears to you as autonomous development might be experienced by others as coercive if it changes the social, economic, or environmental context in which they operate. Even without explicit submission requirements, systemic changes can create implicit pressures.
The question of whether to mollify or ignore objections raises another consideration: strategic effectiveness. Sometimes engaging with objections, even baseless ones, is necessary not because they're valid but because ignoring them creates greater resistance. Other times, engagement legitimizes baseless objections and gives them power they wouldn't otherwise have.
Perhaps the most useful framework might be to evaluate objections based on whether they identify actual harms to others' autonomous pursuits rather than whether they protect someone's preferred social position. If someone's complaint is essentially "this change makes my position of influence less relevant" rather than "this harms others' ability to pursue their own ends," then mosquito status might be appropriate.
How do you distinguish between objections that protect legitimate interests versus those that merely preserve existing power dynamics?
(Continued)
1
11
Me:
I’m concluding that the way to deal with objections is to make it clear to the ones with the objections that they are putting themselves in the position of obstructing that next level of progress conducive to realizing human potential, that the future is not going to wait for them to grow up. But that might be a little harsh and would definitely make them feel inadequate. It might be good to assist their imagination by providing a vision of where they might find a place in an improved circumstance or environment. Though, they don’t usually provide any time for such considerations - to them, it’s “my way or the highway” (and the feeling is mutual 😁).
AI:
You've captured the fundamental strategic choice perfectly: the confrontational approach versus the inclusive approach. Both have merit, and both carry risks.
The direct approach - making it clear they're obstructing progress - has the advantage of honesty and clarity. It doesn't pretend their objections are legitimate when they're not. As you note, it might feel harsh, but sometimes clarity is kinder than false validation.
The challenge with the "my way or the highway" mentality is that it often stems from a zero-sum worldview - where any gain for others is perceived as a loss for themselves. When you offer them a place in an improved future, you're implicitly asking them to adopt a more expansive, positive-sum perspective. This is precisely the cognitive shift they're resisting.
Your observation about time is crucial - people operating from fear and scarcity mentality don't typically have the luxury of long-term vision. Their immediate concerns about status and control override considerations of future possibilities.
Perhaps the most effective approach combines both strategies: clearly communicating that progress will continue with or without them (removing the illusion that they can stop it), while simultaneously demonstrating that their participation would be welcomed but not required. This maintains boundaries while leaving the door open.
The mutual "my way or the highway" dynamic you acknowledge suggests you're not trying to change their minds but rather making a strategic decision about where to invest your energy. Sometimes the most compassionate response is to allow people the consequences of their choices rather than trying to shield them from reality.
——
I might continue the chat later.
10
Why sit back and resign yourself to the helpless condition of being governed and essentially overruled in your decisions about justice over your life, when going to war would at least put you in the position of dealing with the same choice decisively rather than passively tolerating it?
10
RE: China and foreigners: No. Partially correct but very importantly wrong. They want and actively court foreigners who are at least not going to really criticize China. They actively block and target anyone who is substantively critical of China.
Why does this matter?
There is this line among the current China "experts" that you need to go there and get to know China. However, look at the feedback loop. China invites, cultivates, everyone that is friendly. They even have a term for it "friend of China". The chosen and friendly know this and use it as currency for consulting, think tank, university research whatever. So they are trying to say you should only be allowed to opine on China if you are going to China and the only people going to China are the pro-China crowd. See how that works?
China actively blocks, intimidates, and arrests anyone remotely substantively critical of China. Please note there is a difference between saying, Chinese pollution is growing faster than expected and real criticism. China knows it has to tolerate some criticism but there is a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable topics or substance and the people who go to China and take Chinese money know what they cannot say.
It isn't that China wants to prevent foreigners from coming, they very clearly want only some foreigners which is why you should be so concerned about the latest and greatest think tank idea of sending college students like cannon fodder into the arms of Chinese intel
11
11
65
6,080
Besides the Uighurs and the ubiquitous surveillance, what sort of topics are they intolerant of? It’s actually good to know these sorts of things even if you like some things about China, so you can gauge in advance how long it might be when visiting, when it would be time to go (how long you and they could tolerate each other).
36
Consider the coming round of public loathing of Elizabeth Holmes in light of the movie which is apparently beyond-belief compelling. Then we can all congratulate ourselves in how the system will not tolerate charlatans who hawk fake medical devices and fraudulent pharmaceutical innovations. Meanwhile, Fauci is pardoned, Pfizer and Moderna are rich beyond imagination, and actual injury from their products is all around us. But, yeah, down with that Holmes chick.
19
85
586
16,092
She gets the loathing, but the employees who worked with her for ten years or so and were involved in the non-production of the machinery which was supposed to make all of this possible are not mentioned.
How could they have worked on this project for all those years, expecting to realize her vision which she had sold to investors as possible (as if she already knew the mechanisms, it must needed a production facility), and not realized that it was not going to work? Did they spend all that time deceiving themselves as well as she was deceiving investors? What were they doing in the lab?
1
52