>be me >discover effective altruism >apparently normal charity is inefficient >why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing >fair enough >buy mosquito nets >save lives >numbers look good >feel powerful >couple years later >someone asks an innocent question >why only count people alive today >huh >future people matter too >obviously >my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet >reasonable.jpg >keep following logic >what about their grandchildren >also yes >what about people in 500 years >sure >5000 years >why not >500 million years >starting to get weird but morality is morality >open calculator >humanity could survive for an astronomically long time >could colonize galaxy >could have trillions upon trillions of descendants >maybe digital people too >maybe simulated civilizations >maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds >calculator starts smoking >realize currently living humans are rounding error >8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta >future contains potentially 10^something people >can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets >new moral priority unlocked >protect the long-term future >stop thinking in units of "people helped" >start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved" >malaria? >terrible >but only kills existing humans >AI extinction could delete the entire light cone >nuclear war could permanently derail civilization >bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years >someone invents wrong constitution in 2140 >quadrillions suffer >better fund governance workshop now >friend says maybe we should improve hospitals >explain opportunity cost >friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people >explain scope sensitivity >friend stops inviting me to dinner >need to decide what to fund >easy >expected value >suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction >sounds tiny >but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives >multiply >mother of god >$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies >charity evaluation complete >someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from >expert judgement >which expert >us >how calibrated >extremely thoughtfully >reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative >still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude >epistemic robustness achieved >someone says maybe project doesn't work >assign 20% chance >still astronomical >maybe project makes problem worse >assign 5% chance >still astronomical >why 5 >because 30 felt pessimistic >publish 46-page report >contains seventeen sensitivity analyses >every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign >critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities >yes >that's literally why it's important >critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical >make probability smaller >critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong >make probability smaller again >critic begins rubbing temples >discover AI safety >perfect longtermist cause >AI might kill everyone >or create utopia >or seize galaxy >or tile universe with paperclips >or create billions of conscious software minds >finally a problem with numbers big enough for me >start AI safety nonprofit >mission: prevent dangerous AI >hire smartest people available >smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI >interesting >we must understand capabilities to understand safety >we must scale models to study alignment >we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first >we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong >we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous >outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies >complicated field >company releases stronger model >very concerned >company begins training even stronger model >extremely concerned >company raises $14 billion >concern reaches unprecedented levels >need to influence government >future is at stake >normal democratic process too slow >politicians don't understand exponential curves >public doesn't understand x-risk >experts must guide them >who counts as expert >people who understand x-risk >who understands x-risk >our friends >someone objects that this seems politically convenient >explain we're representing future generations >future generations unavailable for comment >develop concept of value lock-in >terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever >therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in >whose values >let's circle back >begin with impartial morality >end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want >beautiful arc >meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things >voting wrong >having parochial attachments >loving family more than strangers >caring about local community >getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible >evolutionary biases everywhere >explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted >except intuition that future digital people count >and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad >and intuition that our probability estimates are sane >and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future >those intuitions survived peer review >someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter >inefficient >could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher >think of all the simulated people you just killed >okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly >PR team says "future generations deserve a voice" >much better >journalist asks what longtermism means >say "future people matter" >everyone agrees >great >journalist asks what follows from that >well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures >journalist raises eyebrow >return to "future people matter" >motte has entered the chat >critic: of course future people matter >me: glad we agree >critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them >me: why do you hate our grandchildren >eventually notice uncomfortable implication >if future value dominates everything >then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future >education matters because future institutions >health matters because future productivity >democracy matters because future trajectory >human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy >see starving child >feel compassion >check spreadsheet >child's direct welfare contribution negligible >but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality >compassion restored >tell myself this is impartial altruism >one day assistant asks obvious question >"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?" >silence >open spreadsheet >increase column width >add confidence interval >assistant asks again >"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?" >stare into cosmic light cone >10^50 people staring back >none of them exist >none of them can tell me >none of them can falsify my assumptions >realize I have invented the perfect constituency >infinitely important >completely silent >and always represented by me

X pls block keywords “SALP”, “Chief of Staff”, “4x”, “wedding”, “citadel”, “roommates”, “semi-analysis”,, “Spaniard”, “80% YTD”, and “TBPN”

“Sir, another 22 year old has found a job”

the greatest regret i have is underestimating the value of long term compounding. friendships, people, places, all get better with decades. beautiful things dont even start to reveal themselves for years. it is entirely what life is about. a few good things for a long time.

Me when my wife tells me to put my phone away at the dinner table

No one knows you. No one has a story about who you are. No one is waiting for you to be the person you were yesterday. You're just a stranger in a chair by the window, watching a city that doesn't need anything from you. It's the feeling that anything could happen. That the world is bigger than the walls you built around yourself back home. That the life you've been living is just one version of a life, and there are others, and they're not as far away as you thought. At home, you're fixed. Known. You fit into a shape that other people recognize, and after a while, you forget you're even in a shape at all. But here, alone, somewhere new, the shape dissolves. You could be anyone. You could be more of yourself than you've ever been. No one is watching to see if you stay consistent.

Most of our lives are quietly spent chasing external validation, approval from strangers, institutions, audiences, and abstractions, because it feels measurable, visible, and rewarding. In contrast, the people closest to us, parents, partners, children, friends, offer no scoreboard. Their presence becomes familiar, predictable, and therefore dangerously easy to take for granted. We assume time is abundant, affection is permanent, and opportunities to show care will always return. So we postpone effort at home while exhausting ourselves proving worth elsewhere. Only when someone leaves, through distance, silence, or death, does the illusion break. Then the imbalance becomes painfully clear: how much energy we spent being admired, and how little we invested in being present, and that regret doesn't leave you after that.

Ace Trumpets but the beat is STOP SNITCHING

How it feels to have analysts claim you’re overhyped trading at 400x P/E but you have Nicolás Maduro on Find My

Synthesized Butterflies

Joy Loop.

iykyk

You are posting political content from outside America are you not.

Haha all these yappers on X lose credibility when you realize their location is in shittown USA 🤡

I hear from many young men that they find it difficult to meet young women in a public setting. In other words, the online culture has destroyed the ability to spontaneously meet strangers. As such, I thought I would share a few words that I used in my youth to meet someone that I found compelling. I would ask: “would you like to do a line of cocaine with me?” before engaging further in a conversation. I almost never got a No. It inevitably enabled the opportunity for a further conversation. I met a lot of really interesting people this way. I think the combination of proper grammar and politeness was the key to its effectiveness. You might give it a try. And yes, I think it should also work for women seeking men as well as same sex interactions. Just two cents from an older happily married guy concerned about our next generation’s happiness and population replacement rates.

Exactly this. The opener has nothing to do with what you say but everything to do with how you look/energetic first impressions/presence

Requiem for a Dream / Irreversible..iykyk

Mamdami's wife has what I can only describe as "Sarah Lawrence physiognomy"

⚡️This post is mythic propaganda - a memetic compression of a deep structural law into a form the masses can stomach. On the surface, it’s “uplifting religion”: don’t worry if you’re flawed, God still has a plan. But underneath, it encodes the oldest truth about power: history always flows through the broken vessels, not the polished ones. The Bible itself is not a catalog of saints - it’s a catalog of wrecks who became conduits. Jacob the cheater becomes Israel. David the adulterer becomes the archetype of kingship. Moses the stutterer becomes the lawgiver. Lazarus, literally disqualified by death itself, becomes proof of the impossible. That’s not coincidence. That’s a pattern: fracture precedes legitimacy. What the post is really signaling is this: perfection is sterile. Systems don’t advance through the smooth and qualified - they advance through the ruptured and improbable. Weakness, contradiction, even disgrace are the raw materials of transformation because they create openings for something larger than the self to pour through. Deep down, this isn’t really about “God qualifies the called.” It’s about the physics of legitimacy: qualification is never the driver of destiny. Brokenness is. The story has to pass through chaos, doubt, failure, and contradiction - otherwise it never becomes signal.