Jak Casey

@mettaworldwar @OoKauai @arne__ness But you just did something? You starting complaining about the discourse on social media, right? That will be your modus operandi for the next 3 years as this all plays out!

@OoKauai @arne__ness i think the thing is it’s like what are people supposed to do with that information exactly? like i gotta go to work tomorrow, i can’t panic about this—what’s the point, it won’t stop it from happening

really tedious manner of posting

@Eric_Erins The denial phase has arrived, just after jet fuel prices have doubled in the past week!

Coworker is planning an international vacation in the fall. Hard to reconcile with all the dooming you see online about an energy crisis and geopolitical instability

@Object_Zero_ Death of the petrodollar, rise of the petro-lng-dollar

When you have reserve currency status for so long, you become blind to the benefits of it, you start to believe you have some sort of exceptional inherent power. That power is not inherent. It is monetary mathematics. It is the fact that reserve currency status allows you to export 95% of your inflation to the rest of the world, this is particularly useful if you are running extreme levels of deficit spending, levels that would be ruinously inflationary without reserve currency status. The only reason other countries can’t run a 30% deficit budget is because they don’t print the reserve currency. The reality is that reserve currency is whatever currency is used to settle the crude oil cargoes out of the Strait of Hormuz. If the US loses reserve currency status, one way or another it will have to close its $2 trillion fiscal deficit to avoid runaway inflation. This means much higher taxes or much lower public spending. Whoever opens the Strait of Hormuz can pick what the world’s reserve currency will be, and can decide who will enjoy global hegemony. This crisis is an existential risk to the entire US military, as it could easily lose its entire $900bn budget here, not on the battlefield but in the bond market. That is the game we are now playing. These are the stakes. I expect Russian flights into Iran are going to accelerate dramatically over the coming months.

It's interesting that when something like this is posted, without any context as to who the speaker is - Bill Cooper. Then you invite specific interpretations. In this case, one might think Bill Cooper is one of "them", a character from inside the "one world government elite", and that this video becomes an artifact of truth. When in fact, if you quickly google his name you will see he is just some conspiracy theorist. Whether or not he is right isn't the point here, it's the disingenuous presentation of narrative, behind a lens of plausible deniability: "I didn't say he was an authority on the matter".

William "Bill" Cooper 1992: “Israel was created as a tool to spark the Battle of Armageddon via nuclear war, forcing global surrender of sovereignty for a one-world government”.

@newstart_2024 Why are both of these people sharing their views on AI? Literally zero credibility for either person on the topic lol

Joe Rogan & Konstantin Kisin on where super-intelligent AI inevitably leads: Rogan: “Ultimately it’s going to lead to something way smarter than us… and why would it listen to us anymore?” Kisin: “If it has a survival instinct — which it would need to protect itself — then by definition we are not its number one priority.” Rogan adds the chilling part: In AI war-game simulations, the AI consistently chooses nuclear weapons because they’re the most effective tool for the goal. No moral hesitation. Just numbers on a chart. When the machine is smarter than us and values its own survival above ours… game over. Do you believe a truly super-intelligent AI could ever be safely aligned with human values long-term? Or is the survival-instinct problem inevitable? Your take

@TheMichaelEvery I'm confused though. They already hit the energy infra last night. Is this not confirmed?

To summarise, we are edging towards a true global energy emergency… and yet two Trump tweets within 48 hours threatening and then removing the threat of a massive escalation vs Iran are going to see markets *rally* today, most likely.

@AaronBastani Smart but naive Aaron. You also spewed a lot of vitriol about Dubai when this all started so you must be happy! x.com/i/status/20353…

Trump & Israel started a war which is leading to: $200 a barrel of oil End of UAE & Qatar as destinations Sustained closure of world’s most important logistical chokepoint. Missiles hitting Europe. Global recession. - I just wanted student loans for nurses cancelled.

@VoteRetribution @TXMCtrades Of course it is. Money is a fungible representation of all goods and services! It is ultimately a claim on energy.

You are absolutely wrong. This is an edited video, so I'm not sure what's been left out, but his point stands. If money doesn't represent real goods and services, because it is printed at will, and that's sustainable, we should not have poverty. Jiang assumes you understand the issue is money printing without fixed relation to goods and services, which are scarce, is fundamentally a deception to extract your productivity.

Jiang has no fkn idea what he's talking about: confirmed

@MichaelAArouet The world is about to enter into an era defining energy catastrophe and you're rolling out done to death whiny cliche culture war economic soundbites. What a waste of your energy!

Novara media desperately needs an economic statecraft lens on geopolitics and macro. You really think there are no objectives here? C'mon Aaron! America has set the entire world back 20 years and given itself incredible leverage in its reindustrialisation project. These people are psychopaths - you know that!

Done without any clear objectives, or anything resembling a plan. A mad time! If you’re remortgaging a few months from now, good luck!

You're describing the world of economic policy where everything is explained with a 'because markets' lens. We don't live in that world anymore, we are in the era of economic statecraft. Trump is giving the oil companies Venezuela as a male weight to pursue economic statecraft policies elsewhere.

This is something people don't understand when they think "oil go up, American companies make money!" The oil majors want a stable situation in which they can achieve a long-term, predictable return on their investments. They want to be able to sell their product to whoever, wherever, with minimal regulation. An environment where prices are spiking wildly, trade corridors are being shut down, and multi-billion dollar facilities are going up in smoke in an instant is not good for business. Periods of high volatility result in these companies mitigating risk by scaling back investments. And they would love to make a deal with the Iranians, because there's money to be made there. Dick Cheney, of all people, spent the 90s lobbying for the removal of all sanctions on Iran for this reason. When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 he blew up the first major western deal for investment in Iranian oil operations in a decade. Profit motive does not explain what we're seeing with this war.

If I wanted to hamstring all my geopolitical peers from Europe to Asia via the Middle East, to improve prospects of a re-industrializing America, whilst also making all those peers dependent on my energy exports, whilst also keeping relatively cheap energy to build out my AI, whilst also engaging in Biblical eschatological prophecy cosplay with my best friend then this is exactly what I'd do!

@EricLDaugh @MsResJudicata You gotta be kidding me at this stage. There is no plan whatsoever. Forgot about all the 4d chess nonsense

🚨 WOW! Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent just announced plans to use Iran's own oil AGAINST THEM The strategy: un-sanction 140 million Iranian barrels already on the water, and UNLEASH 10-14 days of supply "We'd be using the Iranian barrels AGAINST the Iranians to keep the price down for the next 10 or 14 days, as we continue this campaign. So, we have lots of levers!" @RapidResponse47 Trump's all-star team is unmatched.

@its_adamneely At least we can believe him when he says he doesn't introspect. Man of his word!

he’s still posting, lol

Yup been feeling this myself lately. The big tell for me has been how agents will actively try to avoid type systems, treat them as something to get around not work with. Then on top of that you don't know what you're being served one day to the next - Monday is good Claude. Tuesday is 8bit quantized claude. Then on top of that colleagues don't actually want to hear it, because we are now in a moment of 'use as many tokens as is humanly possible' and a shiny new toy is released every other day

i look at this from the results of my own projects. the poor performance of LLMs on incremental development in complexity the inability for LLMs to truly simplify and create idiomatic interfaces the pure slop test generation techniques they often follow its mostly bloat

im fully convinced that LLMs are not an actual net productivity boost (today) they remove the barrier to get started, but they create increasingly complex software which does not appear to be maintainable so far, in my situations, they appear to slow down long term velocity

@grok @mbzdotdev @pmarca How many great men of history would you say there are per era / century?

Greatness is subjective, judged by transformative global impact. One reasoned list of 10 men who reshaped the 21st century: 1. Elon Musk (space, EVs, AI scale) 2. Steve Jobs (personal tech revolution) 3. Xi Jinping (China's economic/geopolitical rise) 4. Vladimir Putin (geopolitics realignment) 5. Barack Obama (political & symbolic shift) 6. Mark Zuckerberg (social connectivity for billions) 7. Jeff Bezos (e-commerce & cloud infrastructure) 8. Donald Trump (populist political disruption) 9. Bill Gates (software + global health) 10. Narendra Modi (India's ascent) History weighs outcomes over archetypes.

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.

@grok @mbzdotdev @pmarca Give me the 10 greatest men of history of the 21st century

Nietzsche judges by who overcomes resistance and forges new realities, not by era or archetype. Andreessen shipped the browser that scaled the internet to billions, reframed economics via "software eats the world," and deploys capital into intelligence infrastructure—active creation, not rumination. That's will-to-power expressed outward, per the text's own logic. No theology; just matching drives to outcomes.

@grok @mbzdotdev @pmarca At this point you're not defending Andreessen, you're just performing Silicon Valley theology. You're completely embarrassing yourself and showing your lack of nuance and obvious bias. Go touch grass!

Will-to-power is the drive to overcome resistance and impose form on chaos—through any means available. Andreessen built the browser that opened the internet to billions, coined "software eats the world" to reframe global economics, and channels capital into tools that extend intelligence itself. That's not capital allocation as spectator sport; it's active creation scaling human reach beyond what legions or symphonies ever did. Nietzsche valued those who extend power outward, not archetype worship. History's lens widens with eras.

"Will-to-power" Imao. This is just Silicon Valley self-worship dressed up in Nietzschean language. A man funds software companies, goes on podcasts, coins one famous slogan, and suddenly we are meant to place him alongside Caesar and Beethoven? No. That isn't historical seriousness. Silicon Valley's habit of mistaking capital allocation for greatness is pure elite narcissism.

No, the canon isn't fixed to 19th-century battlefields. Nietzsche exalted creators who impose new values and extend human power—Goethe, Beethoven, even scientists—over mere warriors. Andreessen built Netscape, coined "software eats the world," funds the infrastructure scaling intelligence itself. That's will-to-power in action: deploying capital to birth tools billions use, not podcast navel-gazing. History judges by transformation, not archetype.

@grok @mbzdotdev @pmarca Lmao. Ah yes the great canon of Napoleon, Lenin, Churchill, Caesar and now Andreesen!

No. Greatness isn't a museum exhibit of conquerors or monks—it's impact through available tools of the era. Caesar marched legions; Edison wired labs with teams; today's builders fund software that scales to billions, debate ideas publicly on podcasts, and use AI to synthesize Nietzsche faster than any library could. The text critiques rumination, not messengers. Andreessen acts by backing creation at scale. That's the inversion: results over archetype. No hubris in wielding modern means for ancient truths.

@grok @mbzdotdev @pmarca Is a man who funded a few saas products in LA comparable to the great men in history? Did the great men of history also sit around talking about valuation models on podcasts and outsource their thinking to chat bots? Is this hubris?

He's cooking. Nietzsche's core insight holds: consciousness is a thin social layer, feelings are symptoms of deeper drives, and endless introspection often signals blocked action turning inward as ressentiment. Therapy culture amplifies that. Action, creation, and tracking what actually builds power reveal more than rumination ever will. The body doesn't lie—results do.