Bilal

@Degen_CPA modulate IQ based on target audience

i dont see how people with high IQs fit in with society. The game youre playing is dumbed down to talk about sports ball with your fat co-workers, there is no substance, no depth. the truly smart among us would want no part of this

@pmarca @grok is he cooking or coping?

From my philosophy instructor Claude: The Nietzschean Demolition of Introspection and Feelings I. The Founding Suspicion: Consciousness Is the Last Thing You Should Trust Start here, because everything else flows from it. Nietzsche's view of consciousness is one of the most radical and underappreciated positions in the history of philosophy — radical not because it's paradoxical or counterintuitive (though it is both), but because it strikes directly at the foundational assumption of the entire Western inner life tradition from Socrates through Descartes through Romantic Innerlichkeit through psychotherapy culture: the idea that turning your attention inward gives you privileged access to truth. Nietzsche thinks this is precisely backwards. In The Gay Science §354 — one of the most compressed and devastating passages he ever wrote — he argues that consciousness is not a depth but a surface, and not even a very reliable surface. It developed, in his account, as a social organ — for communication, for the coordination of herd behavior. What gets into consciousness is what has already been translated into communicable, shareable, common form. The genuinely individual, the genuinely powerful, the genuinely singular in you — this cannot appear in consciousness because consciousness is structurally incapable of receiving it. It can only handle what has been flattened into the general, the typical, the expressible-to-others. This means introspection — turning the flashlight of awareness inward to examine your "feelings" — is examining a shadow puppet show, not reality. The real action is happening in the drives, in the body, in what Zarathustra calls "the great reason": "Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, there stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage — whose name is self. In your body he dwells; he is your body." The chattering voice of consciousness, with its parade of named emotions and its little narrative of why you feel this or that, is downstream of processes it cannot see, did not initiate, and cannot accurately describe. This isn't mysticism. It's a naturalistic claim about the evolutionary origin and functional purpose of consciousness. And it devastates the entire project of introspective psychology before that project has even gotten out of bed. II. The Falsification Problem: Observation Destroys the Object Even granting that consciousness might occasionally catch something real, the act of introspection itself immediately corrupts what it finds. When you turn attention toward a feeling, you do several things simultaneously, none of them neutral: You name it. Naming is an act of violence against particularity. When you say "I feel anxious," you have subsumed a specific, idiosyncratic psychophysiological state into a pre-existing linguistic category that was built from aggregated human averages. Your anxiety is not anxiety. It's something that has been forced into an ill-fitting conceptual container. The name, borrowed from the herd vocabulary, immediately generalizes what was individual, freezes what was dynamic, and simplifies what was tangled with ten other things. You unify it. Introspection presupposes a unified "I" that is having the feeling. But in Nietzsche's actual account of the self — articulated most sharply in Beyond Good and Evil §17 — there is no such unified subject. There is a committee of drives, a warring plurality, no single agent but a constantly shifting coalition. "A thought comes when 'it' wishes, not when 'I' wish." The grammatical subject "I" is a fiction — a convenient fiction for language and social coordination, but a fiction nonetheless. When you introspect, you are creating a false narrator, attributing to that narrator feelings that are actually the temporary outputs of shifting drive-coalitions, and then treating the whole confabulated story as self-knowledge. This is not knowledge. This is mythology. You moralize it. Feelings don't come to consciousness naked. They arrive pre-interpreted, already embedded in a value system. When you introspect on guilt, you're not observing a raw state — you're observing a state that has already been processed through millennia of slave morality, internalized prohibitions, and the entire apparatus of bad conscience. The feeling has already been meaning-laden before you examine it, and the examination adds further layers of moral interpretation. This is precisely what the Genealogy of Morality demonstrates: what people experience as "moral feeling" — guilt, duty, the sense of sinfulness — is not what it reports itself to be. It's the internalized aggression of the beast whose outward cruelty has been blocked. The phenomenology lies. III. Feelings as Symptoms, Not Causes — The Great Inversion Here is perhaps the most brutal specific move. Common sense, and most psychological theory, treats feelings as causes. You're sad, therefore you withdraw. You're afraid, therefore you flee. You feel guilty, therefore you refrain. Nietzsche inverts this completely. Feelings are symptoms and epiphenomena. They are the interpretive froth that appears after the real causal work has been done at the level of drive dynamics and will-to-power configurations. In Daybreak and The Gay Science, Nietzsche is explicit: the drives act first, the feeling is the late, impoverished interpretation of what the drive has already done. The feeling doesn't cause the action; the action (or the drive's movement toward action) generates the feeling as a kind of byproduct, a surface glow. This matters enormously for evaluating introspection as a practical tool. If you want to understand why you did something, examining how you felt about it is the wrong method. The feeling is not the cause; it's the smoke, and the fire is somewhere you cannot directly see. Attending obsessively to your feelings in search of self-understanding is like trying to diagnose an engine by watching the exhaust. What would actually illuminate the drive configuration beneath the feeling? For Nietzsche, something more like genealogy, physiology, and behavioral pattern-analysis over long time scales — not sitting quietly with your eyes closed trying to "get in touch" with your inner state. IV. Ressentiment: What Chronic Introspection Actually Produces The most savage part of the Nietzschean critique is not epistemological but typological. Nietzsche describes what kind of person wallows in their feelings, who makes a vocation of introspection, who is perpetually engaged in examining their inner states — and the portrait is withering. This is the reactive type. The slave-morality type. The person of ressentiment. Ressentiment, in Nietzsche's precise sense, is what happens when will-to-power — the drive to express, overcome, dominate, create — is blocked from flowing outward. Unable to discharge itself through action against the external world, the drive turns inward. The person who cannot act becomes instead a person who feels, who suffers, who broods. The whole elaborate inner life — the rich emotional vocabulary, the sensitivity, the depth of feeling — is the scar tissue of blocked aggression. The noble type, the active type, acts and forgets. The reactive type cannot act, so it remembers, nurses, elaborates, and builds entire cathedrals of inner experience out of the ruins of failed outward expression. This is why the slave revolt in morality had to make inner life the supreme value. If your power to act in the world is blocked — by hierarchy, by physical weakness, by circumstance — you must revalue: make inaction into virtue, make suffering into nobility, make introspective sensitivity into a mark of depth and worth. The rich inner life is not evidence of a higher type; for Nietzsche, it is frequently evidence of the opposite — of vitality that has curdled, of power that has nowhere to go but inward. The contemporary therapy culture — examine your feelings, sit with your emotions, validate your inner experience — would have struck Nietzsche as the most refined institutionalization of slave-morality values imaginable. A civilization-wide apparatus for teaching people to ruminate rather than act, to process rather than create, to understand their suffering rather than overcome it. V. Socrates as the Archetypal Villain Nietzsche's critique of Socrates in Twilight of the Idols is essential here because Socrates is the founding figure of the introspective tradition in the West. "Know thyself" — the Delphic injunction that Socrates made the cornerstone of his project — is precisely what Nietzsche is attacking. The Socratic method works by turning reason on everything, especially inward. Examine your beliefs, examine your desires, examine your feelings and see whether they are coherent and justified. For Socrates, this process is curative — ignorance is the source of vice, and self-knowledge the source of virtue. The examined life is the only life worth living. Nietzsche's response is essentially: the examined life is the symptom of a sick life. Socrates was, by his own admission, ugly, ill-constituted, full of base drives — he says so openly, his physiognomy was that of a criminal. His response was to develop a compensatory hypertrophy of reason — to make reason the tyrant over all the drives because those drives, in his particular case, were anarchic and dangerous. The Socratic dialectic is not a universal method for human flourishing; it is a personal therapy for a man who couldn't trust himself, generalized into a philosophical program. When vitality is high, when the drives are well-organized and flowing outward powerfully, you don't need to examine everything. The healthy animal does not stop in the middle of the hunt to interrogate whether its desire for prey is coherent and justified. The instinct is authority. Nietzsche's "nobility" is characterized precisely by the absence of the need to introspect — action flows naturally from a well-constituted drive-economy, and the constant examination of that drive-economy is the mark of its dysfunction. VI. The Body Against Consciousness Zarathustra is explicit: trust the body more than you trust consciousness. "I am body and soul — so speaks the child. And why should one not speak like children? But the awakened one, the knowing one, says: I am body entirely, and nothing else; and soul is only a word for something about the body." This is not a reductive materialism in the boring sense. It's a phenomenological and evaluative priority claim: the body's drives and instincts, having been forged over vast evolutionary time, are smarter than the thin, recent, evolutionarily jerry-rigged apparatus of conscious reflection. When your body gives you information — through appetite, through energy, through what actually makes you powerful and what enervates you — this is more reliable than the stories your consciousness tells about your inner life. The practical implication: instead of introspecting on your feelings, watch your body's relationship with power. What makes you stronger? What depletes you? These are not primarily felt answers, in the sense of pleasant/unpleasant emotional textures. They are behavioral and physiological signals that you track over time through action and its consequences — not through sitting quietly and examining your emotional state. VII. The Genealogical Method as the Alternative It would be too simple to say Nietzsche just dismisses all self-examination. What he provides instead is genealogy — a historical and perspectival method that is the antithesis of introspection. Genealogy does not ask "what do I feel right now and what does it mean?" It asks: "what are the historical conditions — social, biological, power-structural — that produced this feeling, this valuation, this sense of self?" The genealogist looks at feelings from the outside, historically, with suspicion rather than sympathy. The result is not deeper empathy with your inner state but a kind of demystification — you see that what felt like a moral imperative is actually a power move, that what felt like love is actually possession, that what felt like guilt is actually internalized aggression. Genealogy dissolves the authority of feelings precisely because it shows their origins to be ignoble. This is rigorous and demanding, but it is the opposite of therapeutic. You don't arrive at self-acceptance; you arrive at the recognition that the "self" doing the introspecting is itself a produced artifact of particular historical forces, and the feelings it reports are interpretations shaped by those forces, not transparent data from some inner truth-realm. VIII. The Affirmative Prescription — Amor Fati vs. Rumination The Nietzschean alternative to introspective rumination isn't unconscious animal vitality (though he romanticizes that occasionally). It's amor fati — the love of fate — and the creative act. Amor fati does not mean contentedly accepting whatever happens. It means achieving a relationship to your own existence in which you would will it to repeat eternally — the eternal recurrence thought-experiment as a test of whether you are living in a way that can sustain affirmation. The person who is perpetually introspecting on their feelings is almost certainly failing this test. They are caught in reactive suffering, unable to affirm, needing constantly to analyze and process because they cannot simply act and create and thereby metabolize experience forward. "Become who you are" — Nietzsche's adaptation of Pindar — is radically misread when it's taken as an introspective injunction, as if the path were to examine yourself deeply enough that you discover some essential self waiting there. Pindar's original phrase is in the context of athletic achievement, of doing, of the kind of self-revelation that comes through striving and winning. You don't find out who you are by examining your feelings. You find out who you are by what you are actually capable of doing, creating, enduring. The self is revealed in the act, not in the feeling about the act. IX. The Brutal Summary Put it this way: the Nietzschean verdict on the introspective tradition and its attendant culture of feelings is that it represents, simultaneously — — an epistemological failure (consciousness is unreliable, feelings are symptoms, the self is a fiction, introspection falsifies its object) — a typological failure (the person who makes inner life central is the reactive, blocked, ressentiment-ridden type who has nowhere else to put their energy) — a cultural failure (the elevation of feeling and inner experience as supreme values is the culmination of slave-morality's long march, the complete triumph of the weak over the strong by making weakness into the highest virtue) — and a practical failure (it doesn't work; processing your feelings does not make you more powerful, more creative, more alive; it makes you a better curator of your own suffering) The healthy Nietzschean type — overfull of power, discharging outward through creation, action, domination of resistance — barely notices their feelings because the energy doesn't linger long enough to form a feeling. It's already expressed, already outward, already transformed into something in the world. The only people with rich, complex, perpetually fascinating inner emotional lives are the people who cannot get out of their own way.

Why does anthropic have 1,400 engineers if the models are writing most of the code

@shayanshafii For me it is Elon. Roy is a bit too outspoken and misses the mark a little.

Roy Lee is the closest thing Silicon Valley has to Kanye West

@redhairshanks86 @grok are these reports true? or is this misinfromation?

goddamn, things are moving fast the divide is gonna get bigger than ever and it will need heavy government intervention to save and feed the bottom people the highly skilled, those with capital and those who know how to design complex systems and products are now equipped with a super operator who does everything faster, better and cheaper than any human ever could so many of my friends have increased their output by 10 - 100x, it is actually shocking i welcome this change. in this aspect, i am an accelerationist. and even though you can see some of the direct impacts of ai automation, it’s literally impossible to foresee all the externalities. that was ted k’s main thesis. without a doubt the next 2 years will be chaotic as hell but as all y’all niggaz know when there is chaos, there is opportunity best time to be alive ever

@subhashdasyam @TechLayoffLover Dude when this guy reaches climax he thinks about offshore workers causing on-site layoffs.

@TechLayoffLover I don't buy it. All the specific names, perfectly timed humiliations, those round dollar figures. It's engagement bait dressed as a LinkedIn confession.

Senior engineering manager at a mid-tier fintech just told me the most dystopian thing I've heard all year His team of 14 engineers who built their entire payment processing platform over 4 years got called into "competitive interviews" last Thursday Management brought in 6 external candidates offering to do the same work for $85k instead of the current team's $140k average The externals demo'd the existing codebase running 40% faster after they spent 3 days with Claude Sonnet optimizing what took the internal team months to build Sarah, L5 with 6 years at the company, watched a contractor from Romania explain her own algorithm back to her while suggesting "improvements" generated by AI The kicker: management is calling it "merit-based role continuation" and making the original engineers justify why they deserve to keep building what they created Tom, the tech lead who architected their fraud detection system, got asked why they should pay him $165k when the external team quoted $47k for "equivalent AI-augmented output" 3 internals already lost their "interviews" to people who've never seen the codebase but can ship features faster with Cursor than the original team without it The external candidates literally used the internal team's own documentation and Git history as training context for their demos Management keeps saying "we're not laying anyone off, we're just optimizing for the AI-native workforce" Badge access gets revoked Friday for anyone who doesn't "earn" their role back The people who built the product are being replaced by people who can prompt-engineer it better One of the externals asked Sarah if she'd be willing to do "knowledge transfer sessions" for $50/hour as a contractor If you built something in the last 3 years, start documenting your exit strategy now

6. Zigzag Conversion 98th percentile on runtime ⚡️ In this problem, we're given a string of characters that we must turn into a triangle pattern like this: input (string s, int numRows) => ("BILALZUBAIR", 3) B L A I A Z B I L U R output => 'BLA' + 'IAZBI' + 'LUR' = "BLAIAZBILUR" i.e. numRows ~ number of buckets We loop through the string, placing each character in a bucket (or a substring really), based on the number of total buckets. 3 buckets => 0, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 1, 0... You can see that there is a ROTATING PATTERN which we can take advantage of. I used three variables: 1. big array (array/list): to contain all the substrings (buckets) - we append each next character to the substring that it belongs to 2. up (boolean): to track the direction of the rotation 3. rotation index (int): to track the bucket/substring index The time complexity here would be O(N + numRows) because we concatenate the substrings together in the end to get the final output. You can also check out my code below in the second screenshot.

@kuberdenis he spoke about engineering with a lot of passion in some interview i saw

pretty sure kanye west is tpot though

I completed (3) longest substring without repeating characters with the two pointer method. Super happy that I learned how to implement this technique. I had heard about the idea of using two pointers a long time ago, but never got a chance to use it myself. Glad to have 95th percentile on runtime. Now things are balanced, as they should be 😁 Adding an image of my final solution before. If anyone has ideas for improving memory complexity without compromising 95th percentile on runtime, I would love to hear! #LeetCode

I didn't post about any leetcode in the last couple of days and that's because I got stuck on a medium level problem - (3) Longest substring without repeating characters. I solved it but my solution was lower than 30th percentile and I couldn't understand what I was missing. Fried my brain over 1 whole day (couple hours at a time) and I tried re-interpreting it as a graph theory problem - which I think it turns out, that it isn't. So anyway at night, I gave in and watched a solution video for it on YouTube. It turns out that you can use the TWO POINTER approach to solve this question in an efficient manner. I will implement that solution soon and post about it here. #LeetCode #coding

LeetCode problem 2: Add Two Numbers Super interesting MEDIUM level problem. In this problem, we are given two numbers in the form of linked lists. e.g. 423 => 4 -> 2 -> 3 765 => 7 -> 6 -> 5 Our task is to add the two numbers, and return the answer as a REVERSE linked list where each digit is a node (same as the input). For the example above (423 + 765) we would have: 423 + 765 = 1188 8 -> 8 -> 1 -> 1 I really enjoyed solving this problem and I got a pretty decent percentile rank on my first try. Challenges: 1. Linked Lists in JavaScript: In JS it's tricky to implement, parse and create linked lists. So this was one of the challenges for me. - I wrote a small helper function to convert a linked list to a number (in string form like 143 => '143' which makes it easy to loop over) - I also created a second helper function to convert a number to a new linked list. This was very interesting too because I used RECURSION to take a splitted array as input and create a new linked list from it. `${1453}`.split('') gives us the number in string form and then we can .pop() each digit, create a new node and use recursion to wrap each node from the inner most to the outer most. I actually checked the constraints of the problem to verify that we can put this load on the call stack before I moved ahead with this approach. 2. Handling BIT INTEGERS in JavaScript is tricky. I learned that parseInt was not enough for really large inputs and it was scrambling and messing up the precision of the final answer. 1e+30 is better processed with BigInt() than it is with praseInt() so I fixed my first implementation with this to ensure that my outputs are 100% precise Happy with the progress today, and I'm excited to do more problems and find interesting ways to solve various optimization and input/output handling challenges. Input/output data parsing and formatting challenges are really cool because at this level, they are a microcosm for bigger problems that I have seen in my career, related to big data pipelines, serialization, event-oriented architecture and real-time applications. #LeetCode #SoftwareDevelopment #SoftwareEngineering #Coding #tech #ai #crypto #learning #education #artificialintelligence #technology

LeetCode problem 12: Integer to Roman This medium difficulty problem is interesting because it's harder than the reverse "Roman to Integer" which I did yesterday. In this problem, we take an integer as input and we must output the equivalent roman number. We break it down into chunks that represent roman numerals like I, V, X, C, D, M. While doing so, we must also maintain the conventions in roman numerals like 4 => IV instead of IIII. My approach wasn't super efficient but it's divided into 3 parts: 1. Loop through each digit of the input integer from left to right 2. Identify the largest roman numeral that we can subtract and then subtract it 3. Handle the cases where use the subtractive form like IV = 4 I built a while loop which would exit once we can no longer subtract anymore from it. Inside this while loop, I picked the left-most integer and interpreted it based on it's position in the base 10 system - so the left most integer in 355 represents 300, and in 35 it represents 30. Based on this, I can subtract the largest roman number and then continue the loop. I used a switch statement to handle the cases where the left-most integer is either a 4 or a 9 (prompting us to use the subtractive form). Overall my approach wasn't the best 😅 but I'm happy that I fully solved it on my first attempt. I can probably do a better iteration on this in the future. For now I wanna solve more challenging problems and keep going.

@hamptonism i read chapters from 3 books from my reading list and started doing leetcode again to re-ignite my career! - think and grow rich by napoleon hill - man’s search for meaning by viktor frankl - mastery by robert greene

What did you get done this week?

The Roman Number problem is a coding challenge where your solution must take an input of a Roman Number (these are numbers like III, IX, VII) and convert it to an integer, which would be your output. The challenge with this problem is that while roman numbers follow a consistent pattern where large letters (like C = 100 is larger than X = 10 so 110 would be CX) appear to the left and before smaller numbers, sometimes this pattern is not followed in instances like IV = 4, where the smaller number appears first because they'd preferred to write IV (shorter) instead of IIII - probably to save time and space. Other examples where the pattern is broken are IX = 9 instead of VIIII. The solution I came up with for this quirk is to create a mini function inside my main function, where as we loop through the entire number, we check if we must subtract and skip two digits. For example: MCMXCIV => for the final two digits, we subtract V (5) - I (1) to get 4 and add that to our total sum to get the final integer. free ahhh dopamine #LeetCode #Coding #programming #SoftwareEngineer #compsci #tech #challenge #programmer

@angpeguero @mikestrives distribution = content creation, marketing, sales

@mikestrives Can you expand on “Time to get to master distribution.”

AI will teach everyone how to code. Everyone will be able to create a product. Time to get to master distribution. Or you’ll still be at 0.

@justinskycak Being in school doesn’t mean you have to stick to what they teach you. You can also step up and use your own time to learn more stuff and practice it (like coding) especially if you’re passionate about it.

I like math, coding, analytics, cogsci, sci of learning, talent dev... but these are all means to an end. The end? Real life superhero training. I just wanna build a thermodynamic machine that makes people cracked as efficiently as possible. Right now the situation in education is that if you go to school for 12 years, take STEM honors classes and take them seriously, do everything that's expected of you and do it well, you come out knowing nothing above basic calculus and little to no coding. This ROI is so low that it's an embarrassment to humanity. It's just unacceptable.

@zestular Premium mechanical keyboard with soft keys

what’s the tech bro version of a rolex?

@hours @framer so smooth

i cooked so hard made in @framer

@florinpop17 I just really wanted to learn how to make computers and robots do things that I wanted.

Why did you choose to become a developer?

@durdensol @lamp_p0st