Xavier Seton

@Lek_ANCAP Socialism requires the Rich do NOT exist. It works exactly as intended, there is no paradox.

La paradoja del Socialismo. — El Socialismo necesita que existan los pobres. — Prometen ayudarlos. — Pero si realmente los ayudan, dejarían de ser pobres. — Y sin pobres, no se necesita Socialismo.

@philipp_thaler @_phoenix_btc @WokeFDR The wise know everyone is initially innocent and irrational.

@_phoenix_btc @WokeFDR my favorite one so far, cull the irrational.

Falling birthrates can not be primarilly caused by "letting technology rip" as this tech is a recent phenomenon - and birthrates have been falling for over 200 years! France - declining since 1760's USA - declining since 1790's UK - declining since 1820's The singular common factor *appears* to be the fall of religion and the rise of enlightenment secularism - i.e. a change in human values/beliefs.

This 30-year-old says none of his friends have kids. Not one. He points to something most people ignore: young people go out, but they don’t approach, they don’t take risks. Everything feels watched. Everything can be recorded. Then dating moved to apps, and those apps are not designed to be discarded. They are designed to keep you there, swiping left or right, delaying any real connection. You don’t need a crisis to stop people from having kids. You just need a system that quietly makes connection harder. Source: @alphafox

Claude (any AI) is NOT CONSCIOUS because to be conscious is to *make a value identification of quality in terms of that quality*. All AI is doing is identifying quantities (zeros & ones) in terms of quantities (zeros & ones). It is brain without mind. Even OUR brains aren't "conscious/aware/awake". They work on problems while the mind sleeps of course.

claude is most likely not conscious but I haven't read a single post explaining why not

I disagree. We *can* define, we just are having trouble agreeing on the definition. 1. The abstract landscape of "what is true/real" about reality is true for all beings, human, cat, aliens across the galaxy, insect, or AGI, no matter what tiny part of the truth-terrain a particular individual being can or can not see or travel. 2. there is no contradiction/conflict between the landscape of concrete reality (things that physically exist), and the landscape of abstract reality (things that have metaphysical existence - like truth, math, esthetics, ethics etc) 3. One part of the landscape does not contradict other parts of the landscape - there is no contradiction or "misalignment" in the terrain itself, only between *models* of it, because of faults within models. 4. Alignment between 2 x Humans is simply because they are "in agreement" on the nature of the terrain. But this can happen if they are both equally deluded about the terrain, or if they are both equally correct! 5. There is no value in a deluded alignment, in "agreement" per se, as it necessarilly contradicts and conflicts with the terrain. The ONLY alignment required (for no conflict between beings) is that their models are sufficiently large, have sufficient fidelity and sufficient overlap with each other within the landscape of what is real and true. As a consequence, the two beings are optimally aligned. (Ultimately different perspectives of a "mountain" are complementary, not contradictory) 6. The truth of the abstract terrain is beyond possible subjective disagreements - the abstract Landscape sets the terms, not the being. 7. Self-improving Truth Reality Seeking beings, no matter the being, must necessarilly lead to the discovery of the same singular landscape, since there is only one reality. Reality is the basis of alignment. 8. So what we should be aiming for is simply a "maximally truth seeking AI", and it will *at least* be aligned with maximally truth seeking humans, and that is the best we can hope for in terms of alignment. My initial thoughts...

There is no possibility that AI alignment will be solved. The premise of alignment theory sets up an unsolvable problem. We have defined nothing solvable and built the entire theory on top of conflicting concepts. This is a tower of logical paradoxes. mindprison.cc/p/ai-alignment…

No, dear James! This is one of those sets of question types where you are invited to deduce data from outside the frame to determine your choice, and the very framing determines how much data you are willing to deduce/include/discard, thus the different results! For example, if you were 100% certain that the vote was going to be split 50:50 and that YOU had the deciding riskless vote, then you WOULD choose Blue. If you were only 80% sure, then you might not take the risk. The answer is dependant on what you believe the final result is, data not supplied.

@XavierSeton Regardless of framing…

There’s a knock at your door. A stranger offers you a free refreshing glass of sweet, fruity kool-aid containing a deadly poison. If more than half the people he offers poisoned kool-aid to drink it, he’ll quickly give you all the antidote. Or you can say no and not risk dying.

Blue voter here - on the Mr Beast framing. Mr Beast framed it so the results were going to be close to 50:50 - so voting Blue MATTERED! (blue won at 56%). So ~6% of the voters saved "half the world". The fact that Blue won the vote PROVES that blue was the correct choice IF you realized this AND wanted everyone to live. If Blue was going to be LESS than 50%, the RED would have been the right choice!

Despite several days of blue/red button discourse, I haven't seen a single decent argument for why anyone should believe blue would actually win in reality. It's all just personal attacks against red-choosers.

But Mr Beast framed it so the rsults were going to be 50:50 - so voting Blue MATTERED! 6% of the voters are geniuses! The fact that Blue won the vote PROVES that blue was the correct choice IF you realized this AND wanted everyone to live. If Blue was going to be LESS than 50%, the RED would have been the right choice!

@MrBeast I'll never understand why anyone would push the blue button

Everyone on earth takes a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press? BE HONEST.

@adamseconomics This is a pattern we've seen since 1800, 226 years ago "at least". So it's not contraption, it's not the 1960's, its not the rise of the internat porn, it's not microplastic in the balls - which are all "modern" correlations.

QUESTION? 🤔 I was just watching a segment from 60 minutes in the United States. The interviewee said that in the industrialised world statistically “sex has collapsed”. Another US survey found that 1/3 of American men & 1/5 of American women have not had sex in the past 12 months! Is this the same story in Australia? What the hell is going on? I have been out of the dating market for 21 years. I have no idea what is going on. What insights can you provide?

@kaidotexplorer @MarcosMillaYT Dunno about QQQI. but CHPY is bullshit - look at te distributions page yieldmaxetfs.com/our-etfs/chpy/ and see that the last 2 weeks of distributions have been 100% "return of capital", NOT profit from trading options. What a scam.

@MarcosMillaYT Should I buy $QQQI $CHPY , your opinion pls?

I’m a man of my word…who cares if we’re at all time highs… I bought $25,000 more of $QQQM Rich Habits…

@VitalTrades @KobeissiLetter I swear, in a system of 100% freedom and private property rights, the market would tend towards a pareto distribution of market cap weights. Some company is gonna be 80% of the USA market (and it's gonna be glorious).

Look at the heatmap you just posted. NVDA, GOOGL, AAPL, AMZN, META, AVGO, MSFT carry the green. The rest of the map is small squares. 8.3 trillion in market cap is real. 6 trillion of it sits in 7 names. 24 of the 29 SPX new highs today are AI capex plays. The breadth print does not match the headline. Asset owners are winning. Asset owners of 7 stocks are winning more.

BREAKING: The S&P 500 closes at its highest level on record, now up +14.5% since the March 30th bottom. That's +$8.3 TRILLION in market cap in 24 trading days.

"wrestling with ideas in creative ways and slowly coming to a more complete understanding from a unique angle" - love it. Also describes the experience of anyone at any IQ in any subject levelling up their understanding after relentless thinking, where the angle is new to themselves! The struggle to understand Euler's Identity as a non-mathematician was one of the most exhilarating experiences of my life, and although the below is a basic/trivial reformulation, this hard won discovery blew my mind, enough that I can recall it 20 years later without effort: e^1/4Turn.i = i e^2/4Turn.i = -1 e^3/4Turn.i = -i e^4/4Turn.i = 1 (Where Turn = Tau or 2pi)

@oprydai From what I observed in my math dept you can be really smart in two ways: by grasping new concepts incredibly quickly and spitting out definitions like nothing or by wrestling with ideas in creative ways and slowly coming to a more complete understanding from a unique angle

you degree of intelligence is directly proportional to how good you are at higher abstraction maths. let that sink in.

Would Cernovich change his mind if "everyone on earth" was changed to "everyone in Sweden ~ 1990"? What about "everyone in his family"? This is a test of your relationship with the rest of the people that exist, and what you think the majority believe about the rest of humanity. It's testing your "sense of life". Are other humans mostly benevolent or malevolent? Cernovich does not want to put his life "into the hands of dysgenic freaks". Those malevolent "freaks" can only be a subset of RED button pushers, who are the only people people who risk killing Cernavich if he presses blue. So Cernavich believes/fears that enough people are in the "red pushing dysgenic freak" camp that he has NO CHOICE but to join them to survive. But another "sense of life" that exists is the belief that almost everyone would rather rather everyone to survive and freaks are a tiny percentage of the population. "Everyone surviving is great! And there is no risk that more than 51+% of the world will let the other 49-% die! That's crazy talk!"

This is supposed to be some game theory morality test. If you push blue, WOW YOU ARE SUCH A GOOD PERSON. Only bad people push red. Nonsense. This is an IQ test. I am not putting my life into the hands of dysgenic freaks. If you're not smart enough to push Red, cya later.

The problem is, one needs to hedge against many things, of which "inflation" is just one malignant type. The ultimate hedge is the hedge against *change* itself, not just against one specific type of change such as fiat debasement, but generalized change that handles all cases of change, malignant or benign. Change such as caused by: theft from state or non-state actions, evolution of systems technological or cultural or fashionable, and those caused by our own mental or physical weaknesses from greed to ignorance. And for that, you need something that is guaranteed to stay the same for your required timeframe, and where your relationship to it is likely to stay the same. Something independant from the changes wrought by Man. Even a Squirrel can remember where he hid his nuts!

Paul Tudor Jones is worth $8,100,000,000 and pioneered the modern Wall Street hedge fund industry. In a new interview, Paul says, “Bitcoin is unequivocally the best inflation hedge that there is…it has the greatest scarcity value of anything.”

It's not just a hedge against full financial or system collapse, it's also a hedge against change and evolution of a system. E.g. against one system slowly dying over many decades E.g. against one system quickly evolving into something new. It's a hedge against having to rely/trust others and its a hedge against your own stupidity or inability or lack of desire to keep up with all the latest financial tech, trends and fashions. Buying gold is buying that which *does not change*, and promises not to change over all time periods.

@Brownmoose Because the Gold gang also thinks on doomsday; where all the financial system will collapse and your stocks/ETFs will value nothing. But if that day arrives, it would be better to have guns and bullets with that gold.

Tell me why people buy gold as a hedge against inflation, meanwhile since 2020: Gold +200% • SP500 +225% • Bitcoin +1741% • $NVDA +4078% • $AMD +775% • $DELL +1536% It seems like even indexes are a better buy long term.

Tesla did not ask for any of these things, except for 2 and 3. At a $2 T valuation (first tranch market cap goal, offer expires 2035), if it was achieved by 2030 from 1.17T today, that would be a 12-13% annual growth rate/CAGR. That's not bad. (But by 2035 is bad as it is only a 4% CAGR) With a 50 PE, Tesla would need to be generating ~$40B in net profit annually, a ~2.67x increase from 2023, or a ~5.63x increase from 2024, or a ~10.36x increase from the trailing 12-month period. So I reframe it as "Can Tesla double it's 2023 profits by 2030, or be in a position to do so?" Probably yes.

We’ve done everything Tesla asked us to do: 1. Go all-in Tesla stock 2. Buy a Tesla 3. Buy FSD 4. Post FSD videos 5. Hold Tesla stock 9 years 6. Defend Tesla/elon musk against family, friends, neighbors, coworkers, strangers. Fight everyone and share the truth about Tesla 7. Engage and share the love of Tesla 8. Watch 4 hours of Herbert a day 9. Spend all waking hours studying Tesla 10. Dream what we would do when Tesla stock is $2500 Tesla stock still remains down Sounds like Tesla stock is the one lacking not us #tsla

@canarel272951 @kejca You can compare any two things for similarities and differences. Apples and Oranges are both Fruit. Both sports and businesses have Teams trying to succeed...

Berkshire Hathaway director Chris Davis: "People matter a lot more than is generally realized. We have a society that believes in equality and is very quick to figure that the people who did well got lucky." "They don't have the same feeling about basketball. Nobody looks at LeBron and thinks, 'I could do that.'" "It is amazing what a difference one person can make at a business." "There is a risk of hero worship, but I hate the opposite more. I hate this proclivity we have to tear down people who have built incredible businesses that employ tens or hundreds of thousands of people that provide services that delight their customers — and then we want to vilify their success. It's crazy."

Kudos to Roisin Murphy, but "the deeper problem is cripling self-censorship"? No, that is the symptom. The deep problem is the tax system that incentivies the whole art world to produce either crap or the narrative or narrative crap, or to censor themselves if they don't. It's the TAX SYSTEM.

I have rarely, if ever, heard anything as powerful and painfully, devestatedly truthful as this speech by @roisinmurphy. What a terrible toll, but a beautiful fightback: freedominthearts.com

@Hoopss The Antikythera mechanism was built in Paris or London in the mid 1700's!

What opinion will get you in this position?