Comment by busymom0 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by busymom0 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Relevant Eric Weinstein tweeted this few minutes ago:

> I have two bits of information about JE that are not public.

> 1) An interchange from McAfee on Epstein.

> 2) Knowledge that Epstein was asking after me in a late email just before he died. I have no idea why. There is no more contact about Epstein than one meeting about 20yrs ago.

> With that said, there now is nothing I know of again on Epstein that is private. There is no benefit to harassing me further. All Epstein information is now public. He crossed my path once. Seemed to know who I was. Interested in GU. That’s it. John and I have no recent contact.

> GU is now public. I have no more information as to its connection to Epstein other than he wanted it taken to Villard house. I’d like to talk to relevant physicists quickly given its role in the story. I give my permission to release any Epstein security video of me. Thanks.

> I’m quite concerned now given John’s 2020 call.

https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/140783396472377344...

Edit: what's with the downvotes?

What is with the downvotes? What am I missing that I should know because I don't see anything out of place with this post? (serious question)

If I were to take a guess, it might be because the quoted text comes across as conspiratory and opportunistic. It's not that Weinstein shouldn't be free to post tweets about what he likes. It's just that it had no relevance here.

It's well known that Eric knew Epstein. And he shared screenshots of text messages with McAfee (which McAfee himself sent first).

How's that opportunistic/"It's just that it had no relevance here"?

If it isn't obvious, then I'm not sure what I can add to it. To each his own.

Edit: I realize this can come across as rude. In short, the unproven "mysterious" GU stuff is something he is trying to advertise. McAfee was recently found dead, and it makes the news. The tweet is a weird rambling that somehow manages (tries to?) throw in some more conspiracy and tie it to GU. In any case, bs alarms are ringing. He expects people to care about GU, but I'm not buying it.

What is GU?

Geometric Unity, Eric Weinstein's supposed Theory of Everything. It's likely a bunch of nonsense, but the man won't release a paper, so we can't know for sure.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/...

He published a GU paper a few months ago: https://geometricunity.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/Geometric...

(I haven’t read it, I’m not even remotely qualified.)

"*The Author is not a physicist and is no longer an active academician, but is an Entertainer and host of The Portal podcast. This work of entertainment is a draft of work in progress which is the property of the author and thus may not be built upon, renamed, or profited from without express permission of the author."

Well, okay.

The tell tale signs of a quack theory is hiding behind "it's for entertainment" legalese while portraying it as anything but. If only we could collectively agree to not make such an effort at giving these people megaphones.

It's less "legalese" than Eric's open contempt for academic insiders, and tongue-in-cheek rebel spirit (he literally released it on April Fool's Day, on the premise of repurposing the holiday for outsider/heterodox proposals [0]).

[0] https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/979379894978150400

Two mathematical physicists took the time to go through his talk on it and pointed out serious flaws with it, which the author didn't address in his paper and has gone on to ignore.

[1] https://timothynguyen.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/geometric_...

[2] https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-epis...

Skype? How outdated is his understanding of computer security?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com