I find that to be an innately hilarious statement. Forget about the politics for a second, it's just very amusing.
"Your cows are weak!"
"Your cows are weak!"
Throw those parents directly into the woodchipper.
Forget the first question, the second! A newborn infant is NON SEXUAL. If you think it has a sexuality, you're a creep!
Forget the first question, the second! A newborn infant is NON SEXUAL. If you think it has a sexuality, you're a creep!
I just set up my nostr relay and satellite instance again after my main web config got kicked to shit due to me restoring broken backups.
Gotta admit, I still miss wolfballs.
Gotta admit, I still miss wolfballs.
I think the first few paragraphs saying news doesn't use narrative paragraphs reek. They're false. They're not true. News is overwhelmingly narrative, and that's not making things less partisan, it's making things more partisan. When reporters report that Donald Trump says "neo Nazis and white supremacists are very fine people" in the same speech where he actually said "white supremacists and neo Nazis should be condemned completely" they're relying entirely on narrative, and just like in the ultimate story of this American life in the article, it's because they have a story they want to tell, a narrative they want to provide, damn the facts and figures. Ironically, if you watch the entire interview, the story isn't about whether Donald Trump said neo-nazis or what white supremacists are very fine people or should be condemned completely.
The real story is that Donald Trump spent the entire press conference bumping heads with the press. He challenged them at every point. He actually agreed with him in a lot of ways, but he didn't trust them to be able or willing to report on enough of reality to give a nuance to viewpoint which ironically is exactly what he was trying to express. He was saying that some of the people who wanted those statues torn down were very fine people because they cared deeply about historical systemic oppression. He was also saying that some of the people who wanted those statues left up were very fine people because they care very deeply about historical preservation regardless of the narrative behind a certain statue, the people who they build statues of are nonetheless notable individuals. One narrative and not the only narrative is that Donald Trump was pushing back against the press for being liars, and so they went out and lied about him proving him right. It's really complicated. Especially since, depending on your point of view many different narratives that are in opposition to each other can still be true.
Now some people might think that I'm engaging in apologia for Trump, and I'm sure that people might say that he was saying his message in a sloppy way, that he didn't get it at a cross very well. I think that once you realize that Trump was actually being nuanced and the media just refused to report on that nuance, I don't see anything to defend. It's simply axiomatic that good guys are good and bad guys are bad. And it's not actually matter but it's very close that some of the good guys are going to disagree with you and some of the bad guys are going to agree with you and vice versa.
I'm not saying narrative isn't important, I'm saying a few things:
1. Narrative cuts through most epistemological frameworks to touch something pre-epistemic, our hearts and souls, our mammalian brain, sometimes our instinctual reptile brain.
2. Just because a big respected news outlet makes a narrative convincing doesn't mean it's true. It just means they were able to make something convincing.
3. Narrative is one of the key tools news uses today. If you listen to NPR, or MSNBC, or Daily Wire, or CNN, or even something like Alex Jones, part of the reason is they're weaving a narrative through selection and juxtaposition of stories over time. People have shockingly long attention spans in some ways, they choose their media sources for the long haul for a reason.
4. Narrative is one of the most important tools of modernism, and it doesn't behave like this story claims. Narrative is why European colonists thought it was ok to displace whenever was there. Narrative is the foundation of national socialism, or fascism, of Marxism. Modernist narrative has created more death through partisanship than any other force in history, though the narrative belonging to groups like the Mongolians certainly had a comparable impact on a much less populated earth centuries prior.
5. Truth is often left on the cutting room floor because narrative is more important than truth. Virtually everyone is doing that.
6. Truth didn't end up on the cutting room floor once in 2013. It's been constantly cut cut cut.
7. Ultimately, the viewer of media must be aware of all these things and be critical of narratives and discerning with multiple often contradictory truths and accept and admit these truths to get a better view of reality.
The real story is that Donald Trump spent the entire press conference bumping heads with the press. He challenged them at every point. He actually agreed with him in a lot of ways, but he didn't trust them to be able or willing to report on enough of reality to give a nuance to viewpoint which ironically is exactly what he was trying to express. He was saying that some of the people who wanted those statues torn down were very fine people because they cared deeply about historical systemic oppression. He was also saying that some of the people who wanted those statues left up were very fine people because they care very deeply about historical preservation regardless of the narrative behind a certain statue, the people who they build statues of are nonetheless notable individuals. One narrative and not the only narrative is that Donald Trump was pushing back against the press for being liars, and so they went out and lied about him proving him right. It's really complicated. Especially since, depending on your point of view many different narratives that are in opposition to each other can still be true.
Now some people might think that I'm engaging in apologia for Trump, and I'm sure that people might say that he was saying his message in a sloppy way, that he didn't get it at a cross very well. I think that once you realize that Trump was actually being nuanced and the media just refused to report on that nuance, I don't see anything to defend. It's simply axiomatic that good guys are good and bad guys are bad. And it's not actually matter but it's very close that some of the good guys are going to disagree with you and some of the bad guys are going to agree with you and vice versa.
I'm not saying narrative isn't important, I'm saying a few things:
1. Narrative cuts through most epistemological frameworks to touch something pre-epistemic, our hearts and souls, our mammalian brain, sometimes our instinctual reptile brain.
2. Just because a big respected news outlet makes a narrative convincing doesn't mean it's true. It just means they were able to make something convincing.
3. Narrative is one of the key tools news uses today. If you listen to NPR, or MSNBC, or Daily Wire, or CNN, or even something like Alex Jones, part of the reason is they're weaving a narrative through selection and juxtaposition of stories over time. People have shockingly long attention spans in some ways, they choose their media sources for the long haul for a reason.
4. Narrative is one of the most important tools of modernism, and it doesn't behave like this story claims. Narrative is why European colonists thought it was ok to displace whenever was there. Narrative is the foundation of national socialism, or fascism, of Marxism. Modernist narrative has created more death through partisanship than any other force in history, though the narrative belonging to groups like the Mongolians certainly had a comparable impact on a much less populated earth centuries prior.
5. Truth is often left on the cutting room floor because narrative is more important than truth. Virtually everyone is doing that.
6. Truth didn't end up on the cutting room floor once in 2013. It's been constantly cut cut cut.
7. Ultimately, the viewer of media must be aware of all these things and be critical of narratives and discerning with multiple often contradictory truths and accept and admit these truths to get a better view of reality.
Leftists are so stupid they're going to vote for a bank executive hedge fund manager to stick it to the banks and hedge funds.
Moving from the United States *to* a country like Canada -- a country where a woman was recently fined 10k for being mean in a private conversation -- because they're hoping to have more freedom of speech?
I tend to agree. There's still way too much air in a lot of stocks.
I think it's still up like double compared to 2019, and nobody with half a brain would say we're in better economic shape today than pre-pandemic.
One of the biggest losers yesterday was a hardware store chain whose stock lost 50% of its value -- and was still at a PE of 40!
I think it's still up like double compared to 2019, and nobody with half a brain would say we're in better economic shape today than pre-pandemic.
One of the biggest losers yesterday was a hardware store chain whose stock lost 50% of its value -- and was still at a PE of 40!
Everyone should have known the market was going to have a big dip for one reason or another in 2025 and positioned themselves appropriately.
But we had a similar big dip in 2018 (the year saw the market down 20%) for many of the same reasons we're seeing today, followed by the best stock market increase of all time in 2019 (up nearly 30%). I don't think that's going to happen here, but it's just a reminder not to get too concerned about day to day volatility.
Honestly, for the past couple years, almost all positive movement in the stock market has been in 7 stocks -- that's not healthy, and even if the reason for the correction isn't great, it's still just a fairly normal correction in a market that's massively overvalued. People are laughing at Tesla stock, but it's back where it was in April of 2024 after it nearly doubled for no good reason.
Many analysts were predicting a big downward move regardless of who was in the Whitehouse in 2025, and so the smart money was already getting out of risk on assets. Berkshire Hathaway for example spent much of last year on an unprecedented selling spree, getting out of a lot of positions to be in cash. The key for people who care about what the market did should have been capital preservation for 2025 -- but some people couldn't resist just staying at the trough. Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
I made a big move into risk-off assets around the end of 2023, and honestly I've been consistently going up regardless. Pretty easy when the fed pays 5% to park your money in a money market fund. Better yet, it's highly liquid where it is, so if the market dumps 20% and we enter a recession, I can quickly rotate into risk-on.
I also went big into infrastructure because it's a strong asymmetric trade -- power companies win if AI keeps booming because AI uses tons of power, but power companies also win if we go into recession (which is still a high likelihood for 2025) because unlike most businesses people need to keep paying their power bills (at least for a while) even when times are tough.
But we had a similar big dip in 2018 (the year saw the market down 20%) for many of the same reasons we're seeing today, followed by the best stock market increase of all time in 2019 (up nearly 30%). I don't think that's going to happen here, but it's just a reminder not to get too concerned about day to day volatility.
Honestly, for the past couple years, almost all positive movement in the stock market has been in 7 stocks -- that's not healthy, and even if the reason for the correction isn't great, it's still just a fairly normal correction in a market that's massively overvalued. People are laughing at Tesla stock, but it's back where it was in April of 2024 after it nearly doubled for no good reason.
Many analysts were predicting a big downward move regardless of who was in the Whitehouse in 2025, and so the smart money was already getting out of risk on assets. Berkshire Hathaway for example spent much of last year on an unprecedented selling spree, getting out of a lot of positions to be in cash. The key for people who care about what the market did should have been capital preservation for 2025 -- but some people couldn't resist just staying at the trough. Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
I made a big move into risk-off assets around the end of 2023, and honestly I've been consistently going up regardless. Pretty easy when the fed pays 5% to park your money in a money market fund. Better yet, it's highly liquid where it is, so if the market dumps 20% and we enter a recession, I can quickly rotate into risk-on.
I also went big into infrastructure because it's a strong asymmetric trade -- power companies win if AI keeps booming because AI uses tons of power, but power companies also win if we go into recession (which is still a high likelihood for 2025) because unlike most businesses people need to keep paying their power bills (at least for a while) even when times are tough.
Whenever I hear about DMSO I think about this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8
Man, rip spoony.... and like 98% of entertainment. Pretty much everything ended after 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnPM7I49fj8
Man, rip spoony.... and like 98% of entertainment. Pretty much everything ended after 2016.
I'm working on my next book (maybe two books, there's a lot of material here in two quite different forms) at the moment. One of the key themes in the books surrounds highly integrated neural implants with full access to AI and neural interfaces.
When I wrote about the fire hose of the Internet through the implant, I was thinking about my experiences with VR. VR is immersive, but it actually isn't addictive like phones, because it's so all-encompassing.
It's like the difference between taking a quick drag off a cigarette, or having to sit down for an hour to smoke a full length cigar. The former is quick and intense, the latter takes time, it's an investment. You're not smoking a full length cigar in between downtime at work. For that reason, it's more difficult to get addicted to cigars because it's inherently less habit forming even though the amount of nicotine is far more intense.
Some of the characters actually become addicted to aspects of the interface, but it's not the all-immersive Internet that requires you to make a deep investment to get the full benefit. It's parts that are quick and easy but give a hit of good feelings.
I did the math last night, and at the rate I'm planning to go I'm probably 24 weeks away from publishing day (at least for book 1), but at the rate I'm actually going I'm probably closer to 10-14 weeks away.
I never really cared if The Graysonian Ethic was something special for public consumption since it was never intended primarily for the public -- it was a letter to my son that made sense to publish for practical reasons. Future Sepsis, on the other hand, I do think it's something special. I'm hoping people come away from it changed. I'm certainly coming away from writing it changed.
On that note, it makes me wonder why more writers aren't actually deep wellsprings of wisdom in person. How can you spend all this time creating something so deep and not become deeper in person?
I have this idea, that there's a sort of empathy you can have for non anthropomorphic things -- you can start to think like a machine and earn machine empathy, you can start to think like an ideology or philosophy and earn empathy for those things. To embody something like that properly you have to live in its head. How many writers actually try to do that, and how many just write their own extremely personal story by putting a piece of themselves into the machine instead of making the machine a part of themselves? (But I might just be sniffing my own farts at that point lol)
I'll tell you one thing -- doing things like that doesn't result in a person being able to suddenly map themselves into whatever pablum they want to stick into an Oscar speech to make themselves look good. The world isn't so simple that you just need to follow the "correct" ideology and everything will turn out ok. It's like, "You live in other worlds for a living and all you could come up with is 'we need to follow my favorite ideology'? That's it?"
When I wrote about the fire hose of the Internet through the implant, I was thinking about my experiences with VR. VR is immersive, but it actually isn't addictive like phones, because it's so all-encompassing.
It's like the difference between taking a quick drag off a cigarette, or having to sit down for an hour to smoke a full length cigar. The former is quick and intense, the latter takes time, it's an investment. You're not smoking a full length cigar in between downtime at work. For that reason, it's more difficult to get addicted to cigars because it's inherently less habit forming even though the amount of nicotine is far more intense.
Some of the characters actually become addicted to aspects of the interface, but it's not the all-immersive Internet that requires you to make a deep investment to get the full benefit. It's parts that are quick and easy but give a hit of good feelings.
I did the math last night, and at the rate I'm planning to go I'm probably 24 weeks away from publishing day (at least for book 1), but at the rate I'm actually going I'm probably closer to 10-14 weeks away.
I never really cared if The Graysonian Ethic was something special for public consumption since it was never intended primarily for the public -- it was a letter to my son that made sense to publish for practical reasons. Future Sepsis, on the other hand, I do think it's something special. I'm hoping people come away from it changed. I'm certainly coming away from writing it changed.
On that note, it makes me wonder why more writers aren't actually deep wellsprings of wisdom in person. How can you spend all this time creating something so deep and not become deeper in person?
I have this idea, that there's a sort of empathy you can have for non anthropomorphic things -- you can start to think like a machine and earn machine empathy, you can start to think like an ideology or philosophy and earn empathy for those things. To embody something like that properly you have to live in its head. How many writers actually try to do that, and how many just write their own extremely personal story by putting a piece of themselves into the machine instead of making the machine a part of themselves? (But I might just be sniffing my own farts at that point lol)
I'll tell you one thing -- doing things like that doesn't result in a person being able to suddenly map themselves into whatever pablum they want to stick into an Oscar speech to make themselves look good. The world isn't so simple that you just need to follow the "correct" ideology and everything will turn out ok. It's like, "You live in other worlds for a living and all you could come up with is 'we need to follow my favorite ideology'? That's it?"
https://www.junonews.com/p/canadian-freedom-convoy-donations
This is great news. I hope they give the piece of shit the chair.
This is great news. I hope they give the piece of shit the chair.
I do have some level of faith myself. I look at the US election and how much they astroturfed down there, and the outcome.
But it shouldn't even be a question. I mean, even if you're a leftist -- he's a fuckin bank executive hedge fund manager!
But it shouldn't even be a question. I mean, even if you're a leftist -- he's a fuckin bank executive hedge fund manager!
If Carney wins, I think it's probably time to wind down democracy because Canadians just aren't suited to making decisions.
This all sounds like my Freedom 85 retirement plan.
(Work to 85 then blow it all on cocaine and hookers)
(Work to 85 then blow it all on cocaine and hookers)