Mad World

Putin, Trump, and XI all see themselves as kings. Look how they worship themselves. Not one can handle criticism.

Pure narcissists.

Xi and Putin have already successfully removed 'term-limits' in the last few years..and implemented the greatest threat to personal freedom the world over.

And now we're all living in it.

[link to youtu.be (secure)]
@11:00

Josiah Hornblower..he says directly @12:34

"It was a total racket. They were crooks.."

Racket(Crime)
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

One thing I noticed of note during The Social Dilemma last night, is one of the Google designers mentioned being 'addicted to his email'.

He said, I could feel it..


Remember how I mentioned for years I could 'feel thread bumps' seconds before or after the post, posted?

It's true..


Out in the middle of the woods..I could still feel it.

I made note of timing to cross reference for when I returned, to pin down the source.

It was all very calculated. I had accepted my own addiction and set out to distance myself..to understand better what was occurring.

But even being separated by distance from any 5G/4G/Wi-fi..I could still feel it interacting with me.

Thread: The cult turned against former high-priest Tucker Carlson because he grew tired of the horseshit!?




[link to youtu.be (secure)]

Racket(Crime)

A racket, according to the current common and most general definition, is an organized criminal act in which the criminal act is some form of substantial business, or a way to earn illegal money either regularly, or briefly but repeatedly.

A racket is therefore generally a repeated or continuous organized criminal operation. However, according to the more specific definition, racketeering constitutes extortion or criminal coercion.

Originally and often still specifically, a “racket” referred to a criminal act in which the perpetrator or perpetrators fraudulently offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem, a service that will not be put into effect, or a service that would not exist without the racket.

Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, but that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.
[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

They all serve Mammon.

Interesting Easter egg I noticed last night, in an episode from season 2 of The Simpsons. Mr. Burns needs blood and he gets it from Bart. When opening the thank you note..Mr. Burns address is 1000 Mammon Ln.

The Burns Manor is a luxurious ornate mansion located at 1000 Mammon Street, on the corner of Croesus and Mammon streets within the Springfield Heights district in the cioty of Springfield, and it is the personal namesake residence of Mr. Burns.
[link to evil.fandom.com (secure)]

Genius writers.

Image: [link to philosophynow.org (secure)]


The main insight from Pascal relevant to the debate about AI is this: any probability of infinite losses will always outweigh any possible finite gains.

To modify the idea slightly, we can add the qualification that the probability of an event must cross some plausibility threshold to be considered. Rossler’s worry about the LHC creating a black hole that swallows the Earth may not qualify as a plausible existential risk, while AI could. And according to Pascalian reasoning, once an event crosses into being a plausible risk of entailing infinite losses, we must assign it infinitely negative expected value, and act against it.

Using this as standard, the Anti-Natalist argument against AI looks like this:

1. If an event has a plausible likelihood of infinite losses then its risk outweighs any finite expected benefits.

2. AI destroying humanity would be an infinite loss.

3. There’s a plausible likelihood that AI will destroy humanity.

Conclusion: Therefore, the potential risks of AI outweigh any potential benefits.

I find each of these premises, and so the argument itself, extremely credible.
[link to philosophynow.org (secure)]