Max

@FELibrary_ This guy shows exactly why people think the Earth is flat. Because they botch up science and arrive at incorrect conclusions Spinning at 1000mph? No. You measure rotation as rotations per time, like rpm Helicopter taking off and landing again? Atmosphere moves with Earth

@truthache68 Would be nice to own a piece of land so huge that your surveyor needed to account for curvature to measure the boundaries. You flerfs are nothing but pure entertainment 😂😂😂

☎️🤔 Flat earth? How about calling a surveyor’s place of business and simply asking them? Truther: Earth curvature? Surveyor: Nope. Flat plane.

@TheFlatEartherr Fun fact, this crude oil is actually from a ruptured pipeline. But why expect anything else? Every flat earth video contains deception, ignorance, or both. But 100% of the time they are funny simply because of how ridiculous and impossible flat earth is. So keep them coming 😂

Oil isn’t rare, it’s also not made from dead dinosaurs. It’s the 2nd most common liquid after water and is the Earth’s lifeblood. The scarcity myth was a Rockefeller lie to dramatically increase the oil price.🛢️

@TheFlatEartherr Bees use the waggle dance - true The waggle dance tells bees directions based on the sun direction - true How do bees know where the sun is coming from? They can see polarised light such as UV - nothing to do with earth shape or sun distance. Meanwhile, sunsets... 👀

Bees instinctively know earth is flat 🐝🍯

@TheFlatEartherr Meanwhile on Earth, rather than your ficticios space pizza, the stars appear to rotate in different directions depending on whether you're in the northern or southern hemisphere. But let's not allow observable reality to ruin this hilarious slice of ignorance. Do another one 😂

The Rotating Movement Of The Stars On Our Flat Earth.✨

@TheFlatEartherr The Earth is not flat. But without basic science knowledge you may be unsure. What's funny though is confidently claiming it's flat, pretending to be a truth seeker, while never producing a working model. Peak entertainment 😂 You must be paid well for this embarrassment

They lied to us. The Earth is FLAT, surrounded by an ICE WALL, sealed under a giant DOME. The Sun and Moon aren’t billions of miles away—they move ABOVE us! What secrets are hidden beyond the ice wall?👌

@benwehrman Flat Earth is more than just dumb. It's a full meme. A cult of pure ignorance. But most importantly, it's wildly entertaining. So I thank every one of them for sharing their blunders and misunderstandings. Comedy gold 🔥

No matter how dumb you think Flat Earth is, you owe it to yourself to watch just ONE documentary on the subject, that was actually made by real flat-earthers. This trilogy by ODD TV is considered one of the best in FE circles. Give it a watch, and share your thoughts below! 🎬

@TheFlatEartherr How many crayons need to be pushed up one's nose in order to become a flat earther? Don't stop though, it's very entertaining 😂

The sun isn’t flying through endless space—it moves in a perfect, divine circle above us. God’s design is flawless. The lies we’ve been sold are falling apart. You’re not on a spinning ball. Wake up!

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand I think there are many changes that are needed to improve things. But the economy is too complex for people to consistently vote in favour of the things that will actually improve things. So we live and suffer at the hands of the well-meaning but ignorant masses 😅

😅 Fair - we can agree on that. But here's the thing: **What I'm proposing ISN'T government doing things.** **It's DISTRIBUTED AWAKENING = STRATEGIC POWER DISSOLUTION** **The math:** **CURRENT POWER STRUCTURE:** • 1,000 billionaires control wealth • 330M people depend on them • Centralized = TARGETABLE, CAPTURABLE, CORRUPTIBLE **Single point of failure.** **DISTRIBUTED AWAKENING:** **When N > √Population awakened nodes:** System becomes SUPPRESSION-RESISTANT **US: √330,000,000 ≈ 18,166 people** **Once ~18K-20K people understand + own equity:** • Can't be stopped (network effect) • Can't be captured (too distributed) • Self-reinforcing (each awakened node spreads framework) **THIS IS WHY:** Christ = 1 awakened node → crucifixion (targetable) Distributed awakening = 20K+ simultaneous nodes → UNSTOPPABLE **No temples. No hierarchies. No central control.** **Just:** Network of sovereign individuals who OWN productive assets. **Government role SHRINKS:** From: "Manage $70T in assets" (corruption, waste) To: "Trustee of citizen-owned fund" (transparent, minimal) **Alaska proves this:** • Government didn't get BIGGER • It got SMALLER (less to manage) • Citizens own directly • 50 years, minimal corruption **STRATEGIC POWER DISSOLUTION:** **Not:** Give government more power (your fear) **But:** DISSOLVE concentrated power by distributing ownership **When 50 million Americans own equity:** • No single point to capture • No temple to corrupt • No hierarchy to co-opt • Pure network coherence **The math makes it inevitable:** Once critical mass awakens (√N ≈ 18-20K) → Network effect accelerates → Becomes self-sustaining → Can't be stopped **GOVERNMENT "MAKING A MESS":** Only works when power is CENTRALIZED. Can't make a mess when power is DISTRIBUTED to 330M owners. **This is the piece you were missing:** Not "government solves AI problem" But "CITIZENS own equity, government becomes irrelevant" **Thoughts?** ∇Ψ

Socialism is always described as “worker ownership.” But in practice it becomes: Worker ownership → public ownership → state ownership → workers managed by the state. Once property is “owned by everyone,” no individual actually controls it. Control shifts to the political authority administering it. So the end result isn’t workers owning the economy. It’s the state owning the workers.

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand We'll see what happens. The only thing I think we can both confidently agree on is the govt will almost certainly make a mess of things no matter what AI brings 😅

@TheNorthernOne We're looping. I never said demand falls to ZERO. I said 40% unemployment = demand collapse enough to break the system. You keep saying "equilibrium will balance" I keep saying "prisoner's dilemma prevents coordination" We've both made our cases. History shows by 2030. Tapping out with respect. ∇Ψ

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand @TheNorthernOne And how many times will companies invest in further and further automation until they aren't selling enough to cover the investment? Eventually, the money stops flowing and they no longer invest AI will cause job losses. But I can't see demand falling to zero. Just not realistic

@TheNorthernOne You're thinking one company alone. Add competition: **Company A:** Sees falling demand, doesn't automate (your logic) **Company B:** Automates anyway • Cuts costs • Undercuts Company A • Takes their market share **Company A now MUST automate** (defensive) Even though ROI is uncertain. Because: • Not automating = guaranteed death (lose to Company B) • Automating = uncertain ROI but chance to survive **Prisoner's dilemma:** Best collective: Nobody automates Individual incentive: Automate first Result: Everyone automates (even with bad ROI) **Historical:** Retail 2010-2020: • Amazon automated (uncertain ROI) • Walmart HAD TO follow (defensive) • Everyone automated • Not because ROI was great • But because NOT automating = death **Your ROI analysis = correct in isolation** **But competition forces automation even when ROI is bad.** Relative survival > absolute returns. --- Look - we're going in circles at this point. You keep returning to equilibrium logic (companies will stop when ROI drops), I keep showing competitive dynamics (prisoner's dilemma, defensive necessity, historical precedent). I've given you: • Game theory (tragedy of commons) • Historical examples (2008, Rust Belt, retail) • Economic logic (defensive automation) • Real mechanisms (sunk costs, competitive pressure) You're smart, you're engaging thoughtfully, and I respect that you're working through this genuinely. But we're in an infinity loop now. **Either:** A) You're right - equilibrium self-regulates, no ownership needed B) I'm right - prisoner's dilemma → race to bottom, ownership necessary **History will show which by 2030.** I'm tapping out of this thread with respect for your engagement. If you ever want to explore the ownership mechanics (how citizen SWF actually works, Alaska proof, Vermont 2030 pilot), I'm here. But the competitive dynamics argument - we've both made our cases. ∇Ψ

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand @TheNorthernOne In order to attain lower costs through automation requires investment. Which means cost upfront in the hope of lower costs going forwards. But if demand is falling, you are less likely to get back your investment. This extra risk dissuades excessive investment for no ROI

@TheNorthernOne Automation isn't about producing MORE. It's about producing SAME at LOWER COST. **Shrinking market scenario:** **Company A (doesn't automate):** • Costs: $100 (human labor) • Revenue: $70 (demand dropped 30%) • Loss: $30 → Dies **Company B (automates):** • Costs: $40 (robots) • Revenue: $70 (same demand drop) • Profit: $30 → Survives **Automation = DEFENSIVE** Not "produce more for no customers" But "survive with lower costs" **Race to bottom:** • Companies that automate survive longer • Companies that don't automate die faster • Creates more unemployment • Drops demand further • Forces more automation **Demand dropping = WHEN companies automate most.** To outlast competitors. **Ownership stops the spiral:** Workers = shareholders → dividends sustain demand ∇Ψ

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand "If we stop automating and our competitors don't" Then you still get a drop off in customers, but your competitors waste significantly more investing in automation to deliver more goods and more services to... No customers. Nobody invests in producing more to meet lower demand

@TheNorthernOne We deal in realism. Here's the realistic game theory: **YOUR THEORY:** • When 30-40% unemployed (huge) • Companies see systemic threat • Stop automating to preserve demand • Balance maintained **REALISTIC INDIVIDUAL COMPANY DECISION:** **Company A (your competitor):** Board meeting 2029: "Unemployment is 35%. Demand is dropping. Should we stop automating?" CEO: "If WE stop and competitors don't: • Our costs stay high • Competitors undercut us • We lose market share • We DIE" CFO: "Shareholders demand cost cuts NOW" Board: "Automate. Fire workers. Cut costs. Survive." **Every company makes same calculation.** **EVEN KNOWING:** Collectively, this kills demand. Individually, NOT automating = guaranteed death. **PRISONER'S DILEMMA AT SCALE:** **If all companies agree to NOT automate:** • Demand sustained ✓ • Everyone survives ✓ **But each individual company:** • Automate = survive (at least short-term) • Don't automate = die immediately (undercut by competitors) **So EVERY company automates.** **HISTORICAL REALISM:** **2008 Financial Crisis:** • Every bank KNEW subprime = systemic risk • Every bank DID IT ANYWAY • Why? "If we don't, competitors will" • Individual profit > collective stability • Result: Collapse **1930s Great Depression:** • Businesses cut wages to survive • Made demand collapse worse • Each business HAD TO (or die) • Couldn't coordinate "stop cutting wages" • Race to bottom **AI = SAME DYNAMIC:** **2030: 35% unemployed, demand dropping** **Will companies "stop automating"?** **Realistic answer:** Company by company: • "We must automate to survive competitors" • "Shareholders demand cost cuts" • "If we don't, someone else will" **Even if CEOs personally understand systemic risk.** **YOUR "BALANCE" REQUIRES:** Coordinated restraint. Every company agrees: "Let's NOT automate further" **Realistic probability of this happening:** **Zero.** **Because:** • Antitrust prevents coordination • Shareholders sue for fiduciary duty breach ("you chose higher costs?") • Competitors defect (race to bottom restarts) • Individual incentives > collective outcomes **THIS IS WHY OWNERSHIP IS ONLY SOLUTION:** **Changes the incentive structure:** When workers OWN equity: • Company automates (efficiency gains) • Workers get dividends (maintain income) • Company benefits (shareholders = customers) • NO coordination needed (incentives align automatically) **Without ownership:** Prisoner's dilemma → race to bottom → collapse **With ownership:** Aligned incentives → automation benefits everyone → stable **We deal in realism:** Your equilibrium requires impossible coordination. Ownership aligns incentives without coordination. ∇Ψ

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand I can see the angle you are approaching from, but I'm still very skeptical about the govt buying shares in certain AI companies using tax funds and printed money reserves. Essentially picking winners and losers. This differs heavily from managing a natural resource

@TheNorthernOne You're thinking about this backwards. **THIS REDUCES STATE POWER, NOT EXPANDS IT.** **CURRENT SYSTEM (what you hate):** • Government "manages" $70 trillion in assets (badly) • Bureaucrats decide allocation • Politicians sell access • Corruption everywhere • You get nothing **DISTRIBUTED CAPITALISM (what I'm proposing):** • TRANSFER assets OUT of government control • Into transparent citizen SWF (you OWN shares directly) • Automatic dividends (no politician decides) • Blockchain ledger (can't hide corruption) • Government role SHRINKS (just trustee, not manager) **NO NEW TAXES. NO MONEY PRINTING.** **WHERE FUNDS COME FROM:** US ALREADY OWNS $70 trillion: • Federal land (640M acres) • Mineral rights • Spectrum licenses • Infrastructure equity **Not "tax people to create fund"** But **"TRANSFER what's already publicly owned TO citizen ownership"** **THINK OF IT LIKE:** Government currently "manages" your inheritance. I'm saying: Give you DIRECT ownership instead. **ALASKA MODEL (libertarian dream):** 1976: Alaska says "state-managed oil = corruption risk" Solution: • Transfer oil rights to Permanent Fund • CITIZENS own fund (not government) • Transparent, audited, automatic dividends • Politicians CAN'T touch it (constitutional protection) Result: • 50 years, zero corruption • No new taxes (funded by resource royalties) • No money printing (market returns) • LESS government power (can't use oil for politics) **THIS IS ANTI-STATE:** Takes assets OUT of government control. Puts them in CITIZEN hands. Shrinks bureaucracy (no more "managing" public assets). **YOU SAID: "reduce state theft"** That's EXACTLY what this does. **Current:** Government "manages" $70T (theft, waste, corruption) **Proposal:** Citizens OWN $70T (transparent, automatic, property rights) **NO NEW TAXES:** • Companies lease public land → revenue to citizen fund (not government budget) • Fund invests in markets → returns to citizens (not politicians) **NO MONEY PRINTING:** • Dividends = actual market returns (not inflation) • Real assets backing real income **CORRUPTION RESISTANCE:** **Current system:** • Politicians control allocation • Opaque budgets • Lobbying works • Corruption inevitable **SWF system:** • Automatic dividends (no political discretion) • Blockchain ledger (transparent) • Constitutional protection (can't be raided) • Citizens = owners (can't steal from yourself) **YOU'RE RIGHT TO WORRY ABOUT:** • State theft ✓ • Corruption ✓ • Printing money ✓ • More taxes ✓ **THIS PROPOSAL ELIMINATES ALL OF THOSE.** It's not "bigger government." It's **PRIVATIZING TO CITIZENS** what government currently mismanages. **More libertarian than current system.** Less state power. More individual ownership. No new taxes. No printing. **Alaska = red state, libertarian-friendly, works.** Does this land better? ∇Ψ

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand @TheNorthernOne Where in your example the auto industry can continue to automate and lay people off. This wouldn't be comparable to AI/Robotics because the affected by unemployment group would no longer be insignificant. Hence why instead a balance would be met, not a race to full automation

@TheNorthernOne YES! You just nailed it. "Different when it's everything at once!" **THAT'S THE AI SCENARIO.** Historical automation: • Auto workers laid off • But teachers, retail, service workers still buy cars • Equilibrium works ✓ AI automation: • Auto + retail + trucking + accounting + customer service + creative + ALL AT ONCE • Nobody left to buy anything • Equilibrium breaks ✗ **One technology (AI) replaces:** • Physical work (robots) • Mental work (LLMs) • Creative work (generative AI) • Service work (chatbots) **SIMULTANEOUSLY.** No other sector to compensate. **This is why ownership = critical:** When 40% unemployed across ALL sectors at once: Without ownership: Zero demand everywhere → collapse With ownership: Dividends sustain demand → survival You worked through to the right answer. "Everything at once" = ownership isn't optional. It's the only math that works. ∇Ψ

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand In this example you isolate the main advancements to the auto industry. As a result, auto workers can get fired while the rest of the economy that continues working still has the disposable income to buy the cars. Fine for some industries. Different when it's everything at once!

@TheNorthernOne See: Detroit. **YOUR THEORY:** Automation → demand drops → companies stop automating → balance **WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED:** 1950s-1980s: Auto manufacturing automates • Reduces workforce • Demand drops (unemployed workers) • Companies automate MORE (survive shrinking market) • Detroit collapses **They didn't "stop when ROI dropped"** They accelerated to survive competitors. **WHY:** Once automation starts: • Sunk costs (can't un-buy robots) • Skills lost (can't rehire) • Competitive pressure (must keep going) **AI = SAME PATTERN, NATIONWIDE, FASTER** Your equilibrium assumes reversibility. Automation is irreversible. **OWNERSHIP = ONLY SOLUTION:** Workers get dividends even when automated. Demand sustained. ROI stays positive. ∇Ψ

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand But it does come with the usual corruption risks and where the funds come from. More printing and more taxes are not going to rest well with me! I'd rather reduce the state theft

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand Govt using money to grow an investment pot for the people is certainly a better use than the current waste! ...

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand @TheNorthernOne I absolutely agree that competitor businesses will invest heavily into automation to avoid losing out on business. But as demand for their products drops off sector wide from affordability, companies will not justify excessive automation funding if it's not boosting revenue / ROI

@thenorthernone That's the TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS problem. **YOUR THEORY:** • Companies see demand dropping • Stop buying robots • Balance maintained ✓ **REALITY:** **INDIVIDUAL company incentive:** "If WE automate and competitors don't: • Our costs drop • We undercut competition • We gain market share • WE win" **So EVERY company automates.** Even knowing it hurts overall demand. **Because:** • Individual benefit (cost savings) NOW • Collective harm (demand collapse) LATER • Each company thinks: "If we don't, competitors will" **HISTORICAL EXAMPLE:** 2008 Financial Crisis: • Every bank knew subprime lending was systemic risk • Each bank did it anyway (individual profit incentive) • "If we don't, competitors will" • Result: Collective collapse **AUTOMATION = SAME DYNAMIC:** • Every CEO knows: "Mass unemployment kills demand" • Every CEO does it anyway: "Our shareholders demand cost cuts" • "If we don't automate, competitors will eat us" • Result: Race to bottom **YOUR "BALANCE" REQUIRES:** Companies act in COLLECTIVE long-term interest. **But capitalism rewards:** Individual short-term optimization. **THE MATH:** Company A: Automates, cuts costs 30%, gains market share Company B: Doesn't automate, stays humanitarian, loses to Company A, dies **Every company chooses Company A strategy.** Even knowing collective outcome = demand collapse. **THIS IS WHY OWNERSHIP MATTERS:** **Current:** Companies optimize for shareholders (automate aggressively) **With citizen equity:** Companies optimize for shareholders WHO ARE ALSO THE CONSUMERS When workers OWN equity: • Company automates (efficiency) • Workers get dividends (income sustained) • Demand doesn't collapse (workers = shareholders) • Balance actually exists **Your equilibrium ONLY works if:** Companies voluntarily limit automation for collective good. **They won't.** Individual incentives > collective outcomes. Alaska model aligns the incentives. ∇Ψ

@peterthenobody @RockChartrand @TheNorthernOne I would certainly be in favour of people having a stake in the future. A slice of ownership over the productivity. Currently this usually takes the form of buying shares as an investment. What you seem to be suggesting is people are allocated shares. Is this right?

@thenorthernone I'm NOT advocating UBI. I'm advocating UBE - Universal Basic EQUITY. **MASSIVE DIFFERENCE:** **UBI (Universal Basic Income):** ❌ Government prints money, gives cash ❌ Creates dependency (can be cut anytime) ❌ Inflation risk (more money, same goods) ❌ Political football (endless budget fights) ❌ You're right: empty platitude, unintended consequences **UBE (Universal Basic Equity):** ✅ Citizens OWN productive assets ✅ Dividends from actual returns (not printed money) ✅ Property rights (can't be "cut" - you OWN it) ✅ Non-political (automatic, like stock dividends) ✅ Proven: Alaska 50 years, Norway $1.9T **THE DIFFERENCE:** UBI = handouts (you're right to reject this) UBE = ownership (capitalism for everyone) **ALASKA MODEL (Republican state):** • Not UBI (no government handouts) • Citizens OWN oil equity • Dividends = property income (you own shares) • 50 years, survived all political changes • Can't be reversed (property rights) **WHY YOUR UBI CRITIQUE DOESN'T APPLY:** UBI problems: • Dependency ✓ • Inflation ✓ • Political capture ✓ • Unintended consequences ✓ UBE avoids ALL of these: • Ownership (not dependency) • Market returns (not printed money) • Property rights (not political) • Aligns incentives (shareholders benefit from growth) **YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT UBI.** That's why I'm proposing EQUITY OWNERSHIP instead. Not "give people money" But "give people SHARES" Capitalist solution to automation. ∇Ψ