First: our sessions and guests were mostly not controversial — despite what you may have heard

Man, you invite one Nazi to speak at your conference and suddenly you’re “the guys who invited a Nazi to speak at their conference.” How is that fair? :-(

Wow, he seems so confident and secure in his masculinity! No one’s gonna think this guy has issues with his sexuality after he made this tweet, that’s for darn sure.

this made me laugh out loud thank you

deleted by creator

And who doesn’t want to be younger for longer?

Oh, of course it’s about this. Is it ever not about this with Thiel?

I’m just wondering how exactly he goes about doing this. Like if I wanted to casually slip the N word into a casual conversation (for… some reason) I’m not actually sure how I would go about setting it up?

Like, is he just randomly saying it at people to see how they react (which most normies rightfully would judge as very weird)? Is he using it to describe actual black people (in which case I feel like people dropping him as a friend aren’t really doing it over “speech taboos”, are they…)? Is he asking people “so how do you feel about the word ‘n…’?” Something else? My curiosity is piqued now.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The whole idea of “IQ correlates with income, so we can eliminate poverty by genetically increasing people’s IQ” seems particularly stupid to me. Like, what do you think is the actual reason that IQ correlates with income? Is it because the magical money fairies give you more money the smarter you are? Also, IQ is a normed measure anyway, so the average is always 100 and there’s always the same number of people with each score… agh, it’s dumb for so many reasons

edit: wait, sorry, it’s actually stupider than I thought:

Elites play a disproportionate role in the economic productivity of nations because they occupy important roles in government and business. If one is interested in increasing economic output and creating better institutions, it would be wise to drastically improve the size and abilities of the elite… In an effort to empirically investigate this question, Carl and Kirkegaard (2022)investigated the benefit of the top 5% independent of the average national IQ level and found additional benefits beyond the benefit from the average IQ. This is fortunate, considering the most likely scenario is that elites adopt the technology more rapidly than the population at large. Government subsidies and low costs would ameliorate the issue of inequality.

Literally just trickle down IQnomics

of all the ways we’ve tried so far, Substack is working the best.

The sheer arrogance of this quote is really something to behold. It’s “working the best” by what metric, exactly, sir? And who’s the “we” that have tried various ways so far, because it’s certainly not ‘people on the internet,’ many of whom have developed ways of dealing with Nazis which are significantly more effective than the substack method of ‘literally give them money to use our platform’

we simply don’t know how the world will look if there are a trillion or a quadrillion superhumanly smart AIs demanding rights

I feel like this scenario depends on a lot of assumptions about the processing speed and energy/resource usage of AIs. A trillion is a big number. Notably there’s currently only about 0.8% this number of humans, who are much more energy efficient than AIs.

import qualified Urbit.Ob.Ob as Ob (fein, fynd)

Why

Oh man, I won’t be able to unsee this, lol

The economic incentive is coming from the popularity of stir-fry.

I’m picturing some kind of flour-sifting Juicero-type smart device

Feel like the very beginning of this is not completely crazy (I’ve also thought in the past that straight people often perform “attractiveness” more for the approval of their same-sex friends) but it seems to kind of jump off the evo-psych deep end after that, lol

Also you can’t build a bunch of assumptions about “we should organize society this way” while ignoring the existence of LGBT people, and then go “yeah I know I ignored them but it simplified my analysis.” Like yeah it simplifies the analysis to ignore a bunch of stuff that actually exists in reality, but… then that means maybe your conclusions about how to structure society are wrong??

edit: also this quote is choice:

I don’t know if this really happens. But even if not, the fiction does a great job of highlighting the dynamic I’m thinking of.

It’s like pickup artistry on a societal scale.

It really does illustrate the way they see culture not as, like, a beautiful evolving dynamic system that makes life worth living, but instead as a stupid game to be won or a nuisance getting in the way of their world domination efforts