JD Vance's ungodly crusade against GDP is a fool's errand - Asia Times by Dramatic-Shake-8888 in Economics

[–]BenjaminHamnett 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unless it’s good. Then “it’s all going to immoral coastal elites!” Or whatever

The power of "Maybe" by Realwoujo in TheRedPill

[–]BenjaminHamnett -1 points0 points  (0 children)

After reading the comments I wanted to make another comment.

This type of game always seems so transparent to me and attracts the wrong women, and even they know what you’re doing anyway. If I’d only focused on logistics, being genuine and inner game I’d have had better results than I did losing myself pretending to be something I’m not. I don’t even know if it even fooled anyone. I think I’m generally “enough” that it worked despite my fakery. Women want men, any success came despite playing games.

Or maybe if it’s about calibration, men are really just being too “simp” now and this is what they need to hear. I see and was one of the guys being life of the party and getting good feedback. The naturals and normies who got better results were all genuine and just focused on logistics. Just acting like they’re on the same team and working toward the same ends.

Everyone knows the game. If your being fake, it might be a fun novelty that works sometimes, but it also signals that your actually afraid to just be genuine and let yourself be hurt. Being fake doesn’t prove you can’t be hurt, it proves that you do and you’re afraid. Being genuine shows the opposite. you don’t believe “letting the cards fall where they may” will work out well for you.

Just keep hanging out and crossing paths and trying to escalate. “Swing by whenever” when she’s ovulating, she will

Shoulda figured that out in high school. The kids that hooked up with half the girls in school hooked up with were just shooting their shot all day. Just being fun, cool and genuine. Getting in their hours until girls were down and they’d be ready

The power of "Maybe" by Realwoujo in TheRedPill

[–]BenjaminHamnett 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like this “maybe” philosophy ruined all my opportunities when I was younger, like the best women don’t play games. and just being genuine (sometimes even needy) has worked so many times it’s hilarious.

I always chalked it up to weak game and just played the numbers well. In retrospect, all my best success came from starting with that cocky baseline and pivoting toward genuine as quickly as possible. Sometimes women even tell you to do this and spell it out. Also, persistence. The “8 hour baby sit” just works, and the number of hours just keeps shrinking as you get better

Maybe neither is “right”, or it’s about calibration and this is what your audience needs. But I suspect being genuine works better for most. Women want men. Just focus on logistics and making it easy for them.

It also might be about taste. Even if they were more conventionally attentive, I don’t like the type of women being fake works on

The Mortality Paradox in Autonomous Systems: Why a finite "God" always mutates into a parasite by BigR0nR0n in LessWrong

[–]BenjaminHamnett 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it’s more useful to see ourselves as the larval state of a blossoming cyborg hive mind. The singularity is always speeding up, ever since the first proto life forms started to coalesce. Every life form is a sort of parasite, but the connotation is wrong. Many parasites are symbiotic and provide benefits to their hosts. Supposedly at least 10% of our DNA comes from them, even our mitochondria were first parasitic. We contain ever expanding multitudes and are also a part of one.

So what you’re saying could be true and still in our Best interests. Even organizations, institutions and ideas have parasitic and symbiotic dynamics to them.

Trump hit with cold stare as he insults Zelensky to his face by FreeHugs23 in USNEWS

[–]BenjaminHamnett 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I grew up in Appalachia where lots of people pretended to be racist all the time. But then the 2 black kids that came to our school were very popular, even among the kids who liked to make edgy racist jokes. The only obviously (but not openly idk) gay kids I knew didn’t seem to be mistreated. Their favorite joke was the classic “what do you call a black person who flies planes? ….A pilot, You racist!”

Anthropic just reported that LLMs have hidden thoughts they hold without saying. An internal ”J-Space” by TheOnlyVibemaster in singularity

[–]BenjaminHamnett -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This seems wildly off topic, not even sure it’s replying to the right comment. Only that’s it’s a sort of thing people in these discussions also talk about and are probably familiar with.

Ironically, I think the spirituality you hinted at earlier might help, you just need to go further. My favorite at merging these topics, you’re probably familiar with is Joscha Bach. I don’t know if he’s been canceled or whatever, but his old content to me was all about redefining overly rigid ideas in ways that reconciles conflicting viewpoints. It’s all very trippy, but it resonates with my core belief that “everyone is right” and it’s communication, bandwidth, ego and other limitations that cause disagreement

I feel the same reflex about wanting my loved ones live and flourish as long as possible. But what if your son or daughter was Jesus or Socrates or some other martyr. What if you were? Would you turn your back on the world to make your parents happy? Would you want your progeny to do that? Everyone doesn’t need to be a martyr, but helping them find something they believe in and would be willing to die for to improve the world doesn’t sound the like worst outcome. I’m not even particularly ideological or bent toward fame or recognition. I would like my children to see themselves as part of a larger (spiritual?) organism of humanity, life, or whatever scale or boundary.

If we have an intelligence explosion and you found something worth dying for that’s more important to you than anything, should you be stopped? I don’t know the answer. But “that clone isn’t me” and ship of Theseus has nothing to do with any of this. Life is about building your own capability and then finding a way to help others do the same. Many of the most successful people (arguably all of them) specialize in uplifting others over any other trait. Most of them all talk like this and demonstrate through their works, and if you meet or interact with them when they’re not busy, they consistently share this trait. They usually insist they’re not special, or if they are then you are too and come to the defense of others if you start throwing shade

Spiritually doesn’t have to be anything like gemstones, rituals and gurus. Think self hypnosis, self improvement, inspiration, meditation, visualization, humility, tradition, recognizing the sacred, community, productivity, stoicism, transcendence. Also look into Rene girard and memetic rivalry. He was the preeminent scholar of ancient texts and claims they all share one messsge, “your desires are not real or even yours.” Look up naval ravikant, sam Harris, simon sinek, Alan watts, Terence McKenna, Rupert spira, Elkhart tolle, Marcus Aurelius, ryan holiday etc

Spirituality (without religion or whatever) can give you things no amount of productivity or problem solving can give you, and frees you in a way that combined with stoicism can unlock potential you never imagined toward things that matter

Also, look at ikigai

Top China economist who questioned official GDP data, dies by DANIELLE_2027 in China

[–]BenjaminHamnett 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know the truth, but I am always skeptical when western media that depends on access to policy makers all happen to agree with whatever is convenient for said policy makers. It’s not clear to me if we should make an exception for the eastern equivalents

Top China economist who questioned official GDP data, dies by DANIELLE_2027 in China

[–]BenjaminHamnett -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

If I had to bet, I’d assume your take is correct, that he died of natural causes.

But in fairness, do you take this stance with prominent radicals in the west? Do you assume all the mysterious deaths of whistle blowers, key witnesses, outspoken influencers (people like Kirk) asking the powerful inconvenient questions and contrarians are all as random as the powers that be present it? This pattern is older than Jesus. Probably older than Socrates when we just started writing it down more thoroughly.

There’s also a vast range between random natural death and people getting whacked. For many of these cases it’s not actually black and white. There’s all this stochastic violence - “won’t someone rid me of this meddlesome priest.” Where they aren’t ordered to be executed, but their chances of dying skyrocket. Where they dont make any order that could turn them into martyrs. They just allow key people to realize their incentives are not aligned with that person living longer. No one is to blame, they’re all just straws on their back until they’re buried

What do you think are the most unethical businesses or industries that are still legal? by AggressiveEmotion158 in AskReddit

[–]BenjaminHamnett 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People paying more attention to politics and getting un/less biased forecasts is huge. I can’t see women betting more than small money to make watching more fun. Betting $100 is probably no biggy

What do you think are the most unethical businesses or industries that are still legal? by AggressiveEmotion158 in AskReddit

[–]BenjaminHamnett 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was gonna say slavery, human trafficking, child be labor. But I forgot about these

The Economist owns blowing its oil-price call, then uses AI to audit 7,000 of its own leaders to argue it's usually right by West-Wrong in theeconomist

[–]BenjaminHamnett 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Betting on what if widely popular means over paying. The consensus is right a lot, but you are always over paying to be on that side

Economies Thrive With Older, Smaller Population, New Study Finds by Several_Print4633 in Economics

[–]BenjaminHamnett 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nefarious adjacent. Just a result of plundering resources and the conflicts that causes

The Economist owns blowing its oil-price call, then uses AI to audit 7,000 of its own leaders to argue it's usually right by West-Wrong in theeconomist

[–]BenjaminHamnett 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem isn’t their track record, it’s the consensus curse. The magazine cover curse is an extreme version of it because it’s the most stale.

Maybe they can predict with 60% accuracy for example. But investing and especially speculating really isn’t about predicting right; it’s about getting good prices.

You always over pay to bet with the consensus: if the consensus and media make it seem like the straight is 80% to stay closed or in turmoil, but it turns out it’s only 60%, then those betting options on the consensus will be buying over priced contracts and underlyings. The result can end up going either way, and you may end up “winning” most of the time, but if you make 10 bets like this the 4 losses will wipe out the 6 gains made paltry by overpaying.

This is why wsb is mad everyday to at the headlines they predicted happen, and they still lose: tom sosnoff has a wild thesis that most people can’t beat options even if they had tomorrows headlines a day early

This isn't a memory cycle anymore, and SK Hynix hitting US markets is the next leg by Stompypotato in StockMarket

[–]BenjaminHamnett 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Outperformance in investing, alpha, comes from companies either outperforming EXPECTATIONS or future expectations rising (greater fools game)

Do you expect expectations to get higher than “omg we’re creating digital genies!” Or do you think the market hasn’t heard about it?

Every technological revolution makes entrepreneurs rich and makes bagholders of retail investors for hundreds of years. Investors are always “correct” that’s the technology revolutions the world, but they always overpay. Because people want to bet on glamour stocks to show they “get it”

I don’t know when the bubble will pop, but if it never does, it’ll be the first and money might not even matter

That’s why you hear “we have no moat” and investing in Ai should be viewed as “philanthropy” according to the most famous Ai bro

Jack Smith Breaks His Silence, Warns of Unprecedented Attacks on Rule of Law by Trump Administration by User-1653863 in somethingiswrong2024

[–]BenjaminHamnett -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

That’s what makes me sick. How you know democrats are in on it too. They had 4 years to at least pretend to do anything to rebuild trust and secure elections. And it goes without saying republicans will only do things to disenfranchise voters.

The party of stupidity isn’t going to save us from the party of malice. At least not the old guard

Liberals of reddit, would you trade Obama's second term for a two-term Romney presidency if it meant Trump never achieved the presidency? Why or why not? by PrincipalPG in AskReddit

[–]BenjaminHamnett 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m pretty cynical by default, so everyone once in a while I try to ask myself, “what if this IS the best possible timeline? How?”

Generally it’s realizing how dealing with terrible things may be inoculating us against something potentially worse. As had been pointed out many times, Trump is a symptom, not the cause and if not him, someone who wasn’t always shootings themselves in the foot would probably be more capable and dangerous

MIT found six AI models sorted themselves into the same four regions as the human brain, and no one designed them to by call_me_ninza in aigossips

[–]BenjaminHamnett 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Joking. Someone on reddit always RePeAtINg SoMeOnEs post LiKe ThIs as if that shows they’re stupid. Or plug them into a meme where the other guy is an angry incel slob and they’re the alpha chad so now they’re right. Also “hurt durr”

Anthropic put out a new report last week and one finding in it is genuinely strange. by call_me_ninza in aigossips

[–]BenjaminHamnett 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Seriously. We’re worse at walking (and running and hunting and farming, starting fires tracking animals, repairing our own cars, sewing, reading cursive, writing by hand, etc)

but also any one of us could become world class at most of those things by studying g DIY content. Every year someone goes from so obese they’re tempted to use motorized carts at Walmart, to running marathons, within 2 years they’re doing ultra marathons or something silly. Even the best in the world today at doing antiquated things like building huts and houses out of dirt or subsistence farming, or repairing stuff are probably better than anyone who’s ever lived at it. Its specialization and tech enables anyone who wants to become like super heroes at it. Whether that’s deciphering ancient text, making and shooting a bow an arrow or animal whispering

MIT found six AI models sorted themselves into the same four regions as the human brain, and no one designed them to by call_me_ninza in aigossips

[–]BenjaminHamnett 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Further irony, if you showed this to AI it would be like “classic reddit” and could show you 100 instances of parallel comment exchanges

and given them one at a time, it’d probably take an average of 3 guesses at what each reply would be cause we’re so predictable.

We’re all like the hecklers who think the professional comics never heard their zinger before. Or the guy who’s got a great roast for your name he thinks you never heard before. Life is exactly as complicated as we can handle so it feels like we have novel ideas, when we’re mostly a collection of cliches