Julien

2.1K posts

Julien banner
Julien

Julien

@Julien5050

I share ideas from my mind and from books // Kardashev scale climber // 🇨🇭

Suisse Katılım Temmuz 2012
185 Takip Edilen280 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
"Horza kept going. It was getting more difficult all the time. He stopped thinking about it; he concentrated on moving; the slow, steady, rhythmic beat of arms and legs . Under my own power, he told himself, under my own power." Iain M. Banks, Consider Phlebas (Culture, #1)
English
0
0
4
739
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
@StefanMolyneux The one that was the ignition for a lot of reading, podcast listening, and actions. Thanks!
English
0
0
3
151
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
They're second-handers. They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They're concerned only with people. They don't ask: "Is this true?" They ask: "Is this what others think is true?" Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. Ayn Rand
English
0
0
1
27
SightBringer
SightBringer@_The_Prophet__·
⚡️Do not ask if it is allowed. Ask if it is true.
English
5
5
88
5.6K
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
@levelsio UDC (SVP), Switzerland's largest political party Nationalism National conservatism Economic liberalism Right-wing populism Agrarianism Euroscepticism Opposition to immigration Sovereigntism Isolationism Social conservatism Anti-Islam
Julien tweet media
English
0
0
2
376
@levelsio
@levelsio@levelsio·
One problem in Europe is there's no political representation for people who just want freedom The right wing is pro-censorship and anti-privacy The left wing wants to make everything about climate change and degrowth and import the entire third world There's no sane pro-business pro-privacy anti-censorship sane-immigration parties
NXT EU@NXT4EU

This is how European political groups voted on Chat-Control. Green: Stopping Chat-Control Red: Allowing Chat-Control The difference was one vote.

English
360
265
3.8K
179.1K
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
@levelsio I could not. With the new feature, small accounts like mine can no longer reply to you, since we're not followed by you or your followers. My guess is that your followers also follow many of the same big accounts. So it's not really a 500x500 interaction.
English
0
0
1
94
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
@levelsio With the new feature, small accounts like mine can no longer reply to you, since we're not followed by you or your followers. My guess is that your followers also follow many of the same big accounts. So it's not really a 500x500 interaction.
English
0
0
0
31
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
@_The_Prophet__ A signal of this quality cannot be ignored for long by the Technoking 👏
English
1
0
4
10.9K
SightBringer
SightBringer@_The_Prophet__·
⚡️Starship is the most important machine on Earth because it is the only serious bridge between a trapped species and a spacefaring one. That is the real truth. Everything else is downstream of lift cost. Moon bases, Mars cities, orbital industry, space solar, off world mining, deep space telescopes, mass drivers, lunar factories, all of it stays trapped in PowerPoint until you can move huge amounts of mass off Earth cheaply, repeatedly, and at industrial cadence. Starship is the attempt to break that lock. If it works, the future stops being metaphor and starts becoming logistics. That is why people respond to it like a symbol. They can feel that it carries more than hardware. Modern civilization has become psychologically small. It worships management, caution, compliance, and local optimization. Starship says scale again. Build again. Risk again. Leave again. In a world trained to think inside ceilings, that feels almost religious. The deeper reason it matters is power. A civilization that stays bound to one planet stays bound to one set of bottlenecks. One gravity well. One biosphere. One grid. One political surface. One set of supply chains. One cluster of elites deciding what is possible. A civilization that can industrialize beyond Earth changes the structure of power itself. More energy. More room. More redundancy. More survival. More strategic depth. More future. That is why Starship is so much bigger than SpaceX. It is the opening bid for off world industry. Once heavy lift becomes cheap and routine, the moon becomes operational. Once the moon becomes operational, infrastructure begins. Once infrastructure begins, throughput replaces spectacle. Then the human story stops being purely terrestrial. The real view is brutal and simple. If Starship succeeds, the ceiling over the species cracks. If Starship fails, humanity remains psychologically and physically trapped longer than people understand. Bottom line: People love Starship because they can feel that it is carrying more than cargo. It is carrying the claim that humanity does not have to accept a smaller destiny.
X Freeze@XFreeze

Starship is the Hope that our future is bigger than our past It will enable us to build a civilization beyond Earth - a true multi-planetary civilization among the stars

English
560
575
3.6K
57.6M
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Yes
SightBringer@_The_Prophet__

⚡️Starship is the most important machine on Earth because it is the only serious bridge between a trapped species and a spacefaring one. That is the real truth. Everything else is downstream of lift cost. Moon bases, Mars cities, orbital industry, space solar, off world mining, deep space telescopes, mass drivers, lunar factories, all of it stays trapped in PowerPoint until you can move huge amounts of mass off Earth cheaply, repeatedly, and at industrial cadence. Starship is the attempt to break that lock. If it works, the future stops being metaphor and starts becoming logistics. That is why people respond to it like a symbol. They can feel that it carries more than hardware. Modern civilization has become psychologically small. It worships management, caution, compliance, and local optimization. Starship says scale again. Build again. Risk again. Leave again. In a world trained to think inside ceilings, that feels almost religious. The deeper reason it matters is power. A civilization that stays bound to one planet stays bound to one set of bottlenecks. One gravity well. One biosphere. One grid. One political surface. One set of supply chains. One cluster of elites deciding what is possible. A civilization that can industrialize beyond Earth changes the structure of power itself. More energy. More room. More redundancy. More survival. More strategic depth. More future. That is why Starship is so much bigger than SpaceX. It is the opening bid for off world industry. Once heavy lift becomes cheap and routine, the moon becomes operational. Once the moon becomes operational, infrastructure begins. Once infrastructure begins, throughput replaces spectacle. Then the human story stops being purely terrestrial. The real view is brutal and simple. If Starship succeeds, the ceiling over the species cracks. If Starship fails, humanity remains psychologically and physically trapped longer than people understand. Bottom line: People love Starship because they can feel that it is carrying more than cargo. It is carrying the claim that humanity does not have to accept a smaller destiny.

QST
3.3K
5.5K
56.9K
57.4M
Devon Eriksen
Devon Eriksen@Devon_Eriksen_·
Revolvers are obsolete. 1911s are obsolete. 2011s are obsolete because 1911s are obsolete. Bolt action rifles are obsolete. High Power competition rules are obsolete, designed to cover up the weaknesses of the M1 Garand because boomers can't admit their favorite rifle is no longer competitive. Iron sights on rifles are obsolete. Iron sights on pistols will soon be obsolete. Any magazine that malfunctions when you rest the rifle on its baseplate is defective, throw it away. Any handguard that won't hold zero for mounted aiming devices is defective, throw it away. Most people have too much shit on their AR. The AK platform is no longer competitive with the modern AR. Wood doesn't belong on rifles any more. Pencil barrels are usually as good as carbon fiber, because most people really don't need sustained fire. Most exotic and less-popular chamberings don't give enough additional performance to justify themselves. 300 Blackout is a solution in search of a problem. Anything it can do, something else does better. There is no reason to buy a Glock for any purpose whatever, because there are clones better than the real thing. 5.7 is a great cartridge, but it will never make significant inroads into the concealed handgun market, because all of its advantages go away without an awkwardly long barrel. 40S&W only exists because the FBI are retards. Appendix carry isn't actually better, it just has different strengths and weaknesses.
English
153
20
611
26K
Doc Strangelove
Doc Strangelove@DocStrangelove2·
Gun opinions that get this reaction
Doc Strangelove tweet media
English
621
29
1.2K
1.2M
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
"Musk is the man who blew a hole in the narrative fortress and refused to repair it. That is why he is loved, hated, mythologized, demonized, and constantly pressured. The establishment does not mainly fear his personality. It fears the loss of narrative monopoly his platform exposed."
SightBringer@_The_Prophet__

⚡️X is the breach. That is the real thing people are feeling. For years, the modern information order worked through soft coordination. Governments pressured. NGOs framed. media laundered. platforms throttled. advertisers punished. academics moralized. The point was never to ban every dissident idea outright. The point was to make deviation expensive, stigmatized, throttled, and slow. Public discourse stayed formally open while becoming structurally managed. X broke that management layer. That is why the reaction to it has been so intense. People keep talking as if the fight is about tone, moderation policy, misinformation, or platform culture. The real fight is over who gets to define reality first. Before the breach, elite institutions had far more control over sequencing. Which facts surfaced, which narratives hardened, which topics stayed radioactive, which people got professionally isolated before their views could spread. X damaged that sequencing power. That is the consciousness shift. People can now watch authority being constructed in real time instead of receiving it as a finished product. They can see the frame before the frame settles. They can see what gets memory-holed, what gets amplified, what gets coordinated, what gets ignored. Once enough people see that process directly, legitimacy changes. It no longer feels sacred. It starts looking tactical. That is very dangerous for the establishment. A system that governs through narrative management cannot tolerate a major channel where unsupervised reality keeps leaking through. The existence of a space where institutional consensus can be openly contested at scale is itself destabilizing. It weakens monopoly. It empowers counter-elites. It speeds memetic warfare. It makes official narratives harder to freeze into place. So when Schellenberger says free speech is hanging by a thread, the emotional compression is understandable. The underlying structure is real. X became the main visible platform where elite narrative control lost its smoothness. A lot of the old regime’s power depended on everyone pretending the censorship system was not real. X made that pretense harder to sustain. Once the public sees the existence of the management machine, the machine loses some of its magic. That is why they want it contained. They want the breach narrowed, pressured, regulated, advertiser-strangled, payment-strangled, app-store-disciplined, legally menaced, reputationally isolated, and eventually normalized back into a safer node of controlled discourse. They do not need to shut it down completely. They need to make it less sovereign. So my real view is this: Free speech is in open war. X is the most important contested territory in that war. Musk is the man who blew a hole in the narrative fortress and refused to repair it. That is why he is loved, hated, mythologized, demonized, and constantly pressured. The establishment does not mainly fear his personality. It fears the loss of narrative monopoly his platform exposed.

English
0
0
1
67
SightBringer
SightBringer@_The_Prophet__·
⚡️This is Musk trying to build the industrial heart of a post-human power system. He is no longer talking like a car CEO or even an AI founder. He is talking like someone trying to compress the entire distance between thought, silicon, energy, and empire. TERAFAB is the visible artifact. The real objective is a self-reinforcing loop where chip design, mask creation, fabrication, testing, and redesign all live inside one accelerating machine. The next real bottleneck in AI is iteration speed at the substrate level. Whoever shortens the path from idea to chip to improved chip starts compounding faster than everyone else. At that point, compute stops being a purchased input and becomes an evolving sovereign capability. That is why this goes way beyond “new fab.” This is a bid to stop renting the future from outside foundries and start owning the recursion engine itself. Reports on TERAFAB explicitly tie it to Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI together, which tells you the real architecture is vertical integration across energy, hardware, AI systems, robotics, and eventually space infrastructure. The space language is the tell. When Musk says the goal is a trillion watts of compute per year and that much of it has to go to space because U.S. electricity is only about 0.5 TW, he is declaring that Earth is already too small for the civilization he wants to build. That is a species-scale doctrine. He is saying serious AI abundance eventually requires off-world energy and compute, and that the winners of this century will be the people who build the bridge first. The real view is simple. The arc is dead serious. The execution risk is enormous. Coverage notes there is no clear operating timeline yet and outside estimates already put the effort above $20 billion. But that does not change the signal. If this works even halfway, it becomes one of the most strategically important industrial projects in the world. If it fails, it still reveals the real direction of travel. The future belongs to whoever controls energy, compute, and the speed at which compute can redesign itself.
SightBringer tweet media
Elon Musk@elonmusk

SpaceXAI + Tesla TERAFAB Project Goal is a trillion watts of compute/year Most must necessarily go to space, as US electricity is only 0.5TW

English
272
861
3.1K
1.2M
Devon Eriksen
Devon Eriksen@Devon_Eriksen_·
You are underthinking it. Anything follows from a contradiction. If two and two are five, then I am the Pope. Any story that begins, "what if a circle had four corners" is meaningless, because a "circle with four corners" is not a circle with four corners. It is not a circle at all. It is a trapezoid. "Gurwinder, but with the brain, genetics, and life of someone else" is not Gurwinder. It is someone else. There is no "you" separate from the marble that you can fit the marble into. There is only the marble. You are the marble.
English
3
1
40
996
Devon Eriksen
Devon Eriksen@Devon_Eriksen_·
Yarvin is correct, but let me make it clearer and pithier. Draw another marble from the jar, you'll get the same one. Draw again, you'll get the same one. Draw fifty million jillion squabillion times, you'll get the same one. Because YOU ARE THE MARBLE.
Devon Eriksen tweet media
Curtis Yarvin@curtis_yarvin

Note that since we are all identical (under the skin), and all born with an identical soul from the standard Antechamber of Souls, the same lives would work well for all of us. Yes I am a Liberal and believe in Science

English
22
14
510
38K
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
The U.S. Constitution (ratified 1788, effective 1789) left voter qualifications entirely to the states, no federal standards for who could vote in House elections or for president (via electors). Almost every state imposed strict limits: White Male Age 21+ Property owner (land or substantial wealth/taxpayer status in most cases) Result? In the first presidential election (1788–89), only about 6% of the total U.S. population (roughly white male property owners over 21) was even eligible to vote. It was by design to ensure voters had a "stake in society." John Adams argued men without property were "too dependent" and had "no will of their own." Grok
English
1
0
0
43
Oilfield Rando
Oilfield Rando@Oilfield_Rando·
Democracy is a pretty shitty deal, which our founders knew well, which is why they started this country by limiting the absolute SHIT out of who could vote!
English
29
102
1.5K
25.4K
Oilfield Rando
Oilfield Rando@Oilfield_Rando·
Actually that’s exactly what democracy looks like
Palmer Luckey@PalmerLuckey

@codepink Seems a little weird to chant "This is what democracy looks like!" in the streets of an authoritarian country that explicitly bans all political parties outside of the Communist Party of Cuba.

English
9
48
767
41.8K
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
@elonmusk PV = Photovoltaic (star power)
Nederlands
0
0
1
5
Elon Musk
Elon Musk@elonmusk·
Optimus+PV will be the first Von Neumann probe, a machine fully capable of replicating itself using raw materials found in space
English
5.9K
5.9K
53.3K
49.4M
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
"His real problem is the problem that every gifted mind on the planet faces to some degree... He lives in a world of people who aren't as much like him as they are like each other."
Devon Eriksen@Devon_Eriksen_

In the short story, "Fragments of a Hologram Rose", William Gibson points out, with some poetic license, that a hologram has this quality: Recovered and illuminated, each fragment will reveal the whole image of the rose. But each fragment reveals the rose from a different angle. I write stories. So it's my job to understand how they work, and why people do or don't like them, which is especially important for interpreting reviews and beta reader feedback. The reason @tszzl liked "Project Hail Mary" the novel, but not the film, is actually something that happens all the time. Novels aren't based on one major idea. A story of one idea is a short story. Novels generally need anywhere between four and ten major ideas, and they should usually interlock in interesting ways. (This, incidentally, is why novels are much harder to write than short fiction.) A novel is generally around 100K words, 120K if it's science fiction, because there's more to explain. Fantasy is even longer. A movie generally lasts about two and a half to three and a half hours, because that's what people will sit through before starting to become restless. That won't fit four to ten major ideas, fully fleshed out. It just won't. Yes, you have pictures and sound instead of just wordy descriptions. But it's not the word count that won't fit. It's the full collection of major ideas. Which means that if you're turning a novel into a screenplay, you have a few choices to make. First off, you must choose whether to try to fit all the ideas of the novel into the movie in full form. This choice has a single correct answer, and that answer is "no". A movie will not fit a full treatment of four to ten ideas. Full stop. If you try, you get a confusing, disconnected fever dream, and audiences will exit the theater afterwards, if not halfway through, wondering what the fuck that was. So, having made the correct choice to not stuff everything into the suitcase, and then jump up and down on the lid until the hinges break, you then have to make another decision. You must choose one or two of the major ideas in the story to focus on, and consign the rest to a sketchier treatment, penciling in abbreviated versions of them where they touch the elements you have chosen to focus on. This is the choice that you, oh scriptwriter, must make. Which slice do you wish to take through the whole of the story? Which angle to you want to show it from? Which elements will you focus on in depth, and which will you leave for a quick five minute sequence or two-sentence explanation so you can get on with focusing on the others? This choice is not entirely unlike what happens when some readers appreciate your original novel. Some of your audience will absorb all the ideas and love them, love the way they all fit together. But others will like one particular idea, or two, and merely tolerate the rest, driven forward by the promise of the next piece of their favorite thread. In way, when you write the novel into a script, you make that choice FOR the reader, selecting the particular thread, the particular idea, the angle of the rose. And you will hope it's the angle that most of the audience will like. For @tszzl, it wasn't. The majority of the film was made from his least favorite parts of the book, focusing on the working relationship between Dr. Grace and Rocky, and the plot framework of the threat to Earth, rather than on first-contact linguistics, solving engineering problems in space, or the xenobiology of the soliophage microorganism. @tszzl, who is not a professional storyteller, can't be expected to parse all this out, of course. Not his job. A reader's job is to know whether he likes something, not why he does or doesn't. What he really wants isn't "Project Hail Mary" the film, it's "Project Hail Mary" the miniseries. A US-sized "season" of 12 to 15 hour-long episodes would fit every major idea of the novel, in full color, with time and breathing space to do so because it would not be limited by the endurance of the human posterior, or, presumably, by budgetary concerns. His real problem is the problem that every gifted mind on the planet faces to some degree... he lives in a world of people who aren't as much like him as they are like each other, and they would rather see a story about a friendship that awkwardly bridges the gap between species than one about engineering problems in space. Since he is in the minority here, I think the scriptwriter's choice was a wise one. Did I enjoy the film? Yes, I did. More the novel, in fact. But not for the reason you think.

English
0
0
2
162
🌩️ NVIDIA GeForce NOW
Lets play a game. Pick a game where the title starts as the same letter of your name!
English
70
1
68
11.2K
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
@lismont Yes, I know it’s not the solution, it’s just a simple example to illustrate that sufficiently advanced AI can make work optional, as @elonmusk predicted.
English
0
0
1
26
Jonas Lismont
Jonas Lismont@lismont·
@Julien5050 But this would suppose companies have to pay non working employees right? 🤔
English
1
0
2
37
Julien
Julien@Julien5050·
Imagine an employee earning $60,000 per year. This employee is replaced by an AI that performs exactly the same tasks at a cost of only $10,000 per year. However, the employer is legally required to continue paying the now-retired employee $50,000 per year. Result: Society gets exactly the same production as before, while the retired employee now enjoys full free time and almost the same income. Am I wrong?
English
1
0
3
95