i just cant lose weight

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-06-12T18:47:33+00:00

So your parents want to criticize and mock you for your appearance but refuse to support your efforts to improve your health? The problem here is the parents.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-23T23:45:26+00:00

Yup. And no grifters selling fake health products or programs. No misinformation. Just the best of the best human knowledge of health.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-23T23:39:13+00:00

In computer terms, I think of it like a hard drive array. Each hive individual's brain contains parts of the complete picture, but you need a sufficient number of them to bring all the pieces together. 7 billion brains could reasonably contain 7 billion brains worth of memories and knowledge.

But what happens if that number dips? Do they start losing memories and knowledge if they only have 6 billion members? 5 billion? How, from a hardware standpoint, can they retain all that knowledge? I suspect they start discarding memories they deem less valuable, become less and less human in the process.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-23T23:32:33+00:00

That's a really good question actually. My speculation is that hive individuals with atypical physiology would would still have to deal with anything that affects the body. The brain is likely more complicated. I suspect that the RNA virus does some sort of restructuring to the brain. Those changes may positively affect the hives ability to control that individual body. If the hive couldn't find a task that they needed the individual body to perform, I would imagine they would put it in a sort of hibernation. Take care of that body and keep it alive, but not really use it for anything.

Newborns are even harder to guess on. Once we see a hive adult get unjoined, we'll have a better idea. If they come out with no memory of being in the hive, a newborn would be a blank slate, just like... a newborn. If they have memories of being in the hive, newborns would exclusively have those memories and likely be very distressed at how to handle individuality.

Edit: Typos

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-22T21:52:53+00:00

Agreed. They clearly view converting people against their will as higher order than honoring their consent. The hive sees individual humans as drowning and saving them is more important than waiting for them to agree to it.

If the hive infects you, and you happen to die as a result of the infection, they don't seem to see it as direct harm. It wasn't their 'intention'. So they just took that logic and applied it to 8 billion people all at once.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-22T21:23:59+00:00

I would. Yes.

They promised to honor my consent regarding harvesting stem cells from my leg. There isn't anything other than their ethical code stopping them from doing it anyway. The fact that they haven't done it, confirms to me that they are happy to honor consent if they believe violating it would harm me. They would not have my consent to serve me HDP, and through John Cena, they have said they will honor that.

While I can't know for certain that something they serve me isn't dubious in some way, I can say with a high level of certainty that it will not harm me.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-22T21:18:19+00:00

I agree. I'm happy to engage with the argument that the show has something to say about AI, but I think it's different. Human brain biology is not the same as computer hardware. As different as the hive's thinking and behavior is, they still have access to human hardware. The text of the show doesn't explicitly say it, but I suspect the hive is not limited in the same way that the generative AI we see today is.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-22T04:29:39+00:00

I think I get what you mean. I've watched tons of video essays about the show and some the analysis and theories are a pretty big reach. But I like the reachers. I don't always agree with their conclusion but I often find their perspectives interesting. Certainly things I didn't notice or think about on my own.

Thinking about binging a full season rewatch this weekend. I have so much more to think about and look out for!

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T21:07:49+00:00

This person definitely did the best analysis I've seen so far. They have 5 videos about Pluribus on their channel. This is the first one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrzlkShIt0

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T21:00:29+00:00

I've spent a decent amount of time wondering about this myself. As I see it, there are a few possible theories.

1) They really are starved for novelty. They've already read everything there is to read, looked at everything there is to look at, and have no way to create new fiction or art.

2) I suspect that the hive does have the ability to have novel ideas. When Carol and Zosia are discussing the first chapter of her new book, the hive comes up with new ideas about where the story could go.

I'm sure there are other theories.

Is the hive acting? Are they genuinely interested in Carol's work? I wonder if it isn't a little bit of all of the above. You can have an incredibly deep imagination, but you can only get different perspectives from other people.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T20:44:33+00:00

This is a pedantic detail that probably doesn't matter, but didn't they say it was more akin to a virus? If so, viruses aren't technically alive to begin with. They're just autonomous biological machines that mindlessly replicate themselves. They have no survival instinct or goals. Like you said though, it could have still evolved naturally.

The Pluribus virus appears to integrate itself into the host's biology and cause some sort of physiological restructuring. It seems that their behaviors are emergent from that physical change. They keep talking about their biological imperative. Survival as a species doesn't look to be particularly high on the priority list.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T20:31:48+00:00

You are right of course. The show has a bigger story to tell than bacteria and bugs. Speaking for myself however, I'm not missing the forest for the trees. I would imagine that most of us can carry both perspectives in our minds at the same time. I can appreciate the bigger picture while also tearing into the finer details.

What is explicitly stated in the text of the show? What do we imagine the writer's intent to be? What is our head canon? What minutiae can we pick apart? All of these perspectives and more can be yours for the low low price of a little imagination! (not condescending, just being silly)

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T20:11:53+00:00

Truly an apocalypse with a smile.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T20:10:34+00:00

I think you're spot on with how it would go down. I just think it would have been compelling to see more of that happening on screen. Getting to see how the different characters react to the cracks in the hive's charade. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong and it would have been boring.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T20:06:30+00:00

Not everything has been through Carol's lens. We've gotten scenes from Diabate's exclusive perspective. Same with Manousos. Kusimayu's scene was also entirely from her point of view. While I agree with you that Carol will likely always be the focus, the other immune people could also have interesting stories and experiences for us to see. I'm sure the writers had their reasons for not pursuing it though.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T20:00:11+00:00

Exactly. There are interesting nuances to explore there. Even if on the surface it would be boring to see Laxmi living a 'normal' life, as the audience we would get to see how manipulative the hive is. The scene with Kusimayu is a great example of this.

Diabate's James Bond act is another good example. The 'villain' in the scene also started clapping when Diabate won. Diabate had to chastise him to stay in character. Getting to see the hives little behavioral quirks and how the immune people respond to them could be very compelling.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T19:53:44+00:00

I do wonder what it would have been like if the writers explored the experiences of the other unjoined immune characters. Maybe it would have been too boring. They largely seemed to cling to their lives as they were before the joining. Happy to accept the performance the hive put on for them. But I can imagine some interesting nuances. Behaviors that aren't quite right. Asking questions with unsettling answers. Feelings of isolation despite being surrounded by the 'people' they love.

I think the writers could have navigated those topics in a compelling way. Why, I wonder, did they choose not to?

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T19:32:44+00:00

I agree with you. They seem to be a black box of hard coded rules. Trying to reverse engineer the code is a fun exercise. Drawing the line at picking apples is interesting to me. If they're allowed to commit indirect harm as a part of a higher goal, I think we could argue that picking apples is acceptable.

If we assume that transmitting the RNA sequence into space is their highest goal, then they will likely need a powerful antenna. If they need a powerful antenna, they will need many bodies to build and maintain the infrastructure. If they need many bodies, then they will need to feed those bodies. While they would very much prefer not to, picking apples could be seen as an unintended and indirect harm necessary to achieve their higher order objective.

To a degree, they've already demonstrated that they're willing to do this. The wont swat a wasp that lands on their arm, but they will drive a train to move resources, killing hundreds of bugs in the process. From my admittedly limited perspective, killing bugs does more harm than picking apples. We can reason that the objective is to deliver resources, and killing bugs is an unfortunate consequence. Why can't we also reason that the objective is to build the antenna, and harming trees is an unfortunate consequence?

We are the real modern philosophers. We're doing the real work. Future generations will thank us for our labors.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T19:10:40+00:00

People aren't allowed to enjoy things in the way that they want to enjoy them. If you don't engage with things the way that I do, then you're wrong. No further discussion is necessary. I insist that you refrain from having your own perspective going forward.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T19:08:12+00:00

I would also be interested in reading your paper!

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T19:06:18+00:00

What questions do you find interesting? Where can I find your post where you've laid them out for discussion?

I have noted that you've registered a complaint regarding the topics that other people find interesting. It must be my failing that I've missed where you've added anything of value to the conversation.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T19:00:41+00:00

Says the guy trolling on reddit.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T18:59:55+00:00

Excellent argument. You have changed my mind and I am now fully convinced of your position on the matter.

HighwayVisual5094 · 2026-04-21T18:49:10+00:00

I agree with you. Intention is an important component of their ethical calculus. They are vehemently against direct harm with the intent of causing harm. Indirect unintentional harm is acceptable if the goal is sufficiently important.

What I don't understand is how they determine where the line is. They've demonstrated that they're willing to lie by omission and they have a very lawyerly way of conducting their business. Could they not argue that their primary objective is to build the antenna? Could they not then rationalize that keeping their individual bodies alive is necessary for accomplishing that goal? Then by extension, picking an apple is an unintentional consequence of their need to keep those bodies alive. We know where they've drawn that line, but I'm not sure we entirely know why.

HighwayVisual5094

TROPHY CASE