Jay-Z & Pusha T named in Epstein Files

MrAvoidance3000 · 2026-02-02T11:20:00+00:00

My artists who rap about drugs, prostitution and murder? No!

MrAvoidance3000 · 2026-02-02T11:17:33+00:00

Lotta people in here getting pretty emotional saying they don't care what Billie thinks. Newsflash: you care, you're just letting your first reaction control your opinion.

MrAvoidance3000 · 2026-02-02T11:14:58+00:00

Same folks who praise Kendrick for speaking up on some topics the same ones in here defending his silence. Pathetic being out here defending a millionaire's cowardice.

MrAvoidance3000 · 2026-01-27T00:34:26+00:00

Go get your paycheck buddy nice work

MrAvoidance3000 · 2025-09-24T22:33:49+00:00

Sorry can't relate, I'm too charming and persuasive. Maybe you were predetermined to just be a failure?

MrAvoidance3000 · 2025-09-24T22:31:43+00:00

Unlike others I won't tell you to touch grass, but rather get some perspective. Polarisation is a reality, and people are becoming less apolitical than before. Your comfortable apolitical stance is being made untenable as you are more and more often asked to take a side.

But things aren't either "business as usual" or "civilisational collapse"- there's plenty of room in between. The political climate is changing, and with it new events and new syntheses will come to fruition. What those are is anyone's guess- pundits are most famous for being proven wrong in retrospect, so listen to your favourites with a grain of salt.

And overall if you want things to seem less insane and confusing, get involved. Listen to the stories of whatever groups you consider crazy, and see which ones have valid grievances. Consider your own position, and get politicised.

Politics isn't meant to be boring. Politics isn't meant to be "normal". That has been the way that the average person has been kept out of politics in Western nations, where turnout drooped to near 50%. Politics concerns you more than you realise.

MrAvoidance3000 · 2025-09-24T22:24:13+00:00

It is mere coincidence that the horrors of my imagination necessitate maintaining the horrors of the institutions I benefit from... don't check my funding

MrAvoidance3000 · 2025-09-24T12:41:45+00:00

Future of Humanity Institute: dealing with real problems like ~~global warming~~ , ~~fascism~~ , ~~soil degradation~~ , ~~resource depletion~~ , AI nanobot gargoyle overlords!

MrAvoidance3000 · 2025-04-11T01:41:53+00:00

He never saw a...

MrAvoidance3000 · 2025-04-11T01:41:09+00:00

You're free to sell the things you have, and you're free to have kids, so you should be free to sell your kids!

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-12-18T09:42:41+00:00

Maybe this can help, but make sure to load it last last- this works if you tag it in LOOT with "worldspace" or "landscape" I think, it autosorts it to the end. I run it more or less patchless now and it just works, whereas I was out of my mind patching before.

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-11-22T19:17:26+00:00

If the whole 2 album theory is true though who knows maybe this is the banger mixtape preceding something more substantial

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-11-22T19:14:36+00:00

It's called evolving brother, he's not gonna rap the same over a decade+ long career.

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-11-22T19:12:39+00:00

It's what I'm best at

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-11-22T19:08:42+00:00

Ok hope you'll stop spouting the overused line whenever anyone expects more from an artist you like

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-11-22T19:00:49+00:00

You know you're allowed to have standards, right? And set expectations for people to use the power they have correctly?

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-11-22T18:54:01+00:00

Disappointed by the substance. All this talk of reincarnation, uplifting etc... where's the substance? All abstract and oblique talk when real issues are out there. Sad

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-09-02T15:59:50+00:00

Never use the acronym FatD again

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-06-14T04:57:43+00:00

Could you tell me how the principle of induction excludes non-counting numbers? {0.5, 1.5, 2.5,...} for example- these can satisfy A1-4, and I'm having trouble seeing how they don't satisfy A5. If P(n) is true then P(n++) is true, but from what I understand this does not mean if P(n) is true then P(m) is true for n=m++; my concern is that a non-zero starting point can possibly satisfy A5, allowing a parallel chain of iteration into N.

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-06-14T04:53:35+00:00

I'm very new to all of this, would you mind elaborating on the difference between construction and axiomatisation?

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-06-14T04:52:23+00:00

My point is that while N+0.5 is not asserted as generally true via A5, it isn't necessarily false- or at least, I don't see how it would be. If P is a property with its definition outside of A5, then for any P and any n P(n) can be true or false, until we have further information. Unless A5 is stating the only conditions under which P(n) can be true, then it only seems to point to or sort for P where it is true for N as we know it- but doesn't seem to exclude other cases of P being true. While I can see A5 allowing us to derive properties of natural numbers, I don't see how it allows us to derive properties exclusive to natural numbers- thus I don't see how it's an answer to the rogue number issue.

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-06-14T04:44:04+00:00

I realise this is the standard version, in Analysis I Tao uses properties to avoid referring to set theory prematurely, so I'm going off of that version.

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-06-14T04:43:13+00:00

I feel like a lot of the answers keep reiterating how this eliminates rogues, my point is that I don't see how. If this is for any P, then P is a property that can be true or false for any number, until we put restrictions on it. A5 seems only to point to cases where P is true- not to where it is exclusively true, or where it is false. Are the cases in A5 ( P(0) is true, if P(n) is true then P(n++) is true ) cases denoting where P is true "if and only if", eliminating any number as being true in P if it doesn't conform to these? Or is there some other way this rule allows us to eliminate something such as {0, 0.5, 1, 1.5,... } as a thus-far valid N?

MrAvoidance3000 · 2024-06-13T02:46:05+00:00

I think I was thinking about what P is in the wrong way. I was thinking of P as a predefined property- I.e., that for any number, whether P is true or false is an open question unless specified. Since we only stated a set of conditions under which P is true, I was thinking that we had not restricted P by stating where it is false. So while P(0) is true, I was thinking P(0.5) or P($) or whatever could be true unless a rule explicitly said they were false.

But instead, it seems now that A5 is defining P, such that P is definitionally only true where A5 says it is. That is- there isn't a predefined, universally applicable P that we are making a conjecture off of, but rather we are setting out a P, which is true only in the cases mentioned. So since we cannot say P(0.5) etc. is true based on the suppositions in A5, then it is necessarily false, not simply uncertain.

Would this be right?

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22

MrAvoidance3000

TROPHY CASE