GDC7

> You’re struggling to date because you’re a horrible toxic man who doesn’t view women as people

I know this will be downvoted to hell, but guys who are very successful with the opposite sex are those who objectify women the most.

Leaving aside the Dan Bilzerian types and those who see sex as transactional , some degree of objectification might be needed in order for regular guys to go for it.

When men compete for say a darts trophy they are unapologetic in declaring to themselves and to others that they are going for it....when a woman is involved on the other hand it's almost like male pride and ego takes the wheel and we don't want to look thirsty or desperate or even subordinates who don't have any other option than making the first move.

In short it's really tough to go there and admit to ourselves and to her that we need her more than they need us, that she has plenty of options , while we only have the option of going out there and expose ourselves to a potential rejection/humiliation . Ego is not having it, because we don't want to look inferior and most importantly feel inferior compared to another human being. Objectification solves this problem, in a sense, it brings us back to the darts trophy analogy and liberates the male psyche. I'd say transient objectification is the regime which has been in place ever since the beginning of the specie till the early 00s.

Transient objectification gave men enough peace of mind to approach women without much worry about ego consequences, and if the approach was successful it would disappear rather quickly and boom! In 3 months time you are a couple.

Matter of fact the most successful videos on youtube aren't about picking up, they are about helping guys become beautiful/successful/famous/wealthy enough in order to reverse the above dynamic and have women approach them instead, so women would have to swallow their pride, at that point both ego and the relationship centers in our brain can be happy with the outcome, otherwise one would have to suck it up.

It's almost like the transient objectification route has been closed off somewhere in the 90s/00s and now those who are successful are guys who either have an ego small enough to chase or with enough resources to reverse the typical dynamic and have women chase them instead.

> Do people think Bill Gates doesn't have a lot of MSFT stock, or Warren Buffet doesn't own a lot of Berkshire stock?

Bill Gates is actually the richest man in the world proper because his net worth is so diversified that it still has an asterisk near to it due to illiquidity because we are talking about billions of dollars, but not nearly as much as Musk or Bezos.

Not to mention the fact that when Gates picks up the phone to reach the WH or the WHO or the health secretary of any country on Earth he'd be able to speak directly within 10 mins.

No amount of money can curate Musk reuputation as a quack and nobody wants to be seen or be on record talking with Bezos either.

With regards to net worth , although Musk is selling stock he still has lots of net worth tied to an Enron-esque type stock which has essentially only downside and it's more unstable than a Chernobyl nuclear reactor (and it's mostly due to Musk)

His plan is to use time windows where the stock is at the all time highs to offload equity to bigger fools and hype the stock with constant promotion

if he/she moves the original coins and proves that he/she is indeed Satoshi via technical competence and social consensus , then between the immense wealth and social status as the creator of Bitcoin their influence on the crypto world will be massive.

You can never decentralize power and wealth because they obey Power's law and also it happens organically and unspectacularly, it's simply a bunch of people agreeing that somebody is cool or what they are saying makes sense.

It snowballs from there and a couple of exponentials later that person is sitting on billions of dollars and a 70M people platform

Well, I am in favor of assisted suicide so I can't hold that position and also argue for people to be prevented from going to Mars , each person should decide freely the manner in which they want to go.

How can I bet against this statement?

> Decentralized money, decentralized information, decentralized voting.

Satoshi Nakamoto, net worth 30 billion and veto power over the entire cryptospace (if he's alive)

Vitalik Buterin , net worth 10 billion and veto power over the whole Ethereum ecosystem.

"Meet the new boss...the same as the old boss"

They just wanted to punish Florentino's Real Madrid for the SuperLeague.

Madrid went from the best draw to the worse.

How is it a point of failure?

It's not like somebody can steal the shares.

Crypto crowd is seeing points of failure everywhere, mainly to justify to themselves and to others the idea of holding cryptocurrencies.

It's total madness, you don't need to justify anything, it's 2022, it's totally acceptable to own an asset just because other people also want to own it and many more will want to own it (thus making the price increase).

It's also totally acceptable to own something because you are seeing something in the supply and demand of that asset which implies a future run up.

Again it's 2022, come out of the closet already, people like Soros and Druckenmiller have been doing this since the 80s and they never felt the need to justify themselves.

> Feynman's fascination with basically everything is always so fun. Here is another, where he is talking about trying to figure out why ice is slippery...

He never looks bored, many people of his level of intellect only have very short moment of real hype when they actually have big wins and are proven right and recognized by peers (Nobel prize, Fields medal...)

Feynman has such a wide interests , also things which people even on here would consider mundane and not special enough to be given the time of the day such as bongos, painting as a hobby, dancing at the Rio Carnival, stripclubs, strippers and sex workers.

Also Tuva which is a territory forgotten by god himself as well as men.

Volvo are upping their game and honestly Chinese brands have a really great design language but the brand power of non-Volvo Chinese brands is weak.

Lucid too, but they only have one model

> BMW

The new grill won me over , especially on the 3/4 series and the M versions

> Porsche

They have the great advantage of not having to pay for designers ever since the Beetle /s

> Audi

The best in terms of individual model design and also overall

Kinda sad that Mercedes-Benz lost their way, they are not even putting the star on the hood anymore , except for the S-Class and the Maybach

In terms of supercars I'd say Ferrari but I really mean Pininfarina, they do Lambos and Zondas as well IRC

Before reading the article I thought it was about startup merchandise lol.

I was already picturing an African kid running around with Theranos t-shirt together with his bro sporting a "Patriots 19-0" snapback.

Relevant : http://www.energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=5042&A...

I mean, it's not like you don't have plenty of time to withdraw.

I have no interest in knowing that I am a unit in an 8 billion sample (going on 10 billions).

You read it as a texbook notion in school, but it's the internet which makes you internalize it.

All the stuff you care about and are enthusiast about you'll find people who put your skills and level in that particular field to shame.

And you don't even have to be looking for such info because it's shoved right in your face.

The most talented person (or perceived as talented) in a field monopolizes all the discussion in that particular field. So as you try to learn about the field you are met with all sorts of devote followers and bootlickers.

Bingo.

Also The most famous celebrity ever

Nobody even comes close

Short answer :

He didn’t dictate it, but he’d be pleased about it.

He was a human being after all, if you want to cut him some slack you can compare him with a contemporary Buddhist monk.

They too have an ego

Well if he really existed as an historical figure (we highly suspect he did) then for sure he would not be displeased if he knew that the world came to a halt on his birthday and that he has 3B followers and not like Instagram followers who have an attention span of 1 minute, just the number 3 billion doesn’t really paint the whole picture . It’s the amount of waking hours that the totality of humanity spend thinking about him. Nobody even comes close . No king , no absolute dictator , no celebrity (modern or past). It’s power law on steroids

Many of the 3B dedicate at least an hour a day thinking about him and the values he tried to communicate , and in a very deep way

He was somewhat of a crossover between a magician , a cult leader an artist and a businessman self promoter so nobody can convince me that he would not the type to gloat about his success.

And honestly I can accept that . I’d rather have promotion about love and compassion than the technoutipian futurism such as crypto Jesus or rocket Jesus .

But as I said I have to point out that luck plays a huge role . So many people tried to sing the virtue of compassion and love via story telling but only Jesus broke out and became a figure with 3 billion religious followers

> shite

Yesterday is only good when you hear it in hindsight, knowing the commercial success that it had and under the influence of halo effect

Honestly every song of that Level is.

You have to put together a good album and it can make it to 100k copies sold .

Everything above 100K copies is more telling about the luck and the scope of the promotional campaign supporting it then it says about the album itself .

It’s a phenomenon you see in every field .

Gisele Bunchen is beautiful but not 400M dollar beautiful

Bill Gates is smart but not 170B smart

The Mona Lisa is a great painting I guess but not 1B dollar worth

Jesus was a pretty cool role model , but not a 3B devote follower type role model dictating that the world stops on his birthday

All the above phenomenons rely on a mix of luck, vitality and as well as people not thinking about potentially buying into something that could be overrated and ‘overpriced’ compared to cheaper options which is the definition of halo effect

Like every government beurocracy they just move money around to create opportunity for cronyism and mysterious leaks in the pipe as money is moved around .

There is no interest in going down in history for enlarging the pie.

You can say everything you want about Bezos , Gates, zuckerberg , Larry &sergey and everybody who had beef with the EU (including European entrepreneurs) but at least they started with the ambition of enlarging the pie as opposed to becoming beurocrats

No. I am comparing a 5$ purse to an 800$ purse .

Trickle down made it so that the 2 are indistinguishable, except for an hologram nobody would ever check .

Of course if you are hating on trickle down because not everybody owns a 40M yacht then you’d always be disappointed in every system .

At least with trickle down a regular person can afford to be on a 40M yacht for a week in their whole lifetime if they accept some trade-offs , some sharing of the boat with other guests and maybe some debt .

Not to mention luxury buildings costing 5 billions or more . Regular people can go in those hotel buildings at least 4 times per year (think the big Vegas hotels)

Also nurses do travel overseas . Don’t know if it’s all paid for or some debt but for sure they are going

Trickle down was never about monetary wealth .

It’s about quality of life .

It does trickle down considering that nurses are taking overseas trips to Europe every 2 months and 800$ purses can be bought for 5$ and the only thing which makes it noticeable is a small hologram which nobody will check .

Of course people only look at yachts and mansions because when everything becomes equal the stuff which separates the rich from the rest of us tends to shine brighter and get all the attention.

Of course if you want everybody to be a millionaire then trickle down failed , but in the past experiments which tried to make monetary wealth equal for everybody caused a situation where quality of life collapsed for everybody….and being all equally as miserable is not such a great result and the number in the bank account being all equal won’t provide any consolation

Everybody conceives cool things in their minds but the cooler the idea the more it’s a winner take all market

Web1.0 teaches this just by looking at the big tech giants which dominate. There’s space for only one in each of the big tech sub fields. Search - social media -cloud - Desktop OS - phone OS

The ideal is to bet on a trend instead of a company and do so when the rising tide lifts all boats such as Nasdaq 1995-2000 and Bitcoin 2010-2020.

I get what you are saying but in today society there is not only no glory but outright ridicule and financial trouble for people who have a cool project which gets copied by a giant . It ends up in tears .

I wish it was different . I contacted on LinkedIn the guy who put together the first Facebook like social network in 2000. He works for Sony and nobody knows his name

Epstein is a nothing burger .

He was the one pursuing people in finance and politics, not the other way around . And it appears it was the case also for late Senator Dole

Also if you believe he was some modern day mastermind of Hitler-esque fashion …then taking money from him was always the right thing to do .

Less money at his disposal and when he comes knocking for an illegal favor you can always tell him to f*k off given that you have already spent the money to get in office or in Bill Gates’ case to ship vaccines to subsaharan Africa

> In reality, non-deflationary cryptocurrencies have been tried on various occasions. Surprise! None of them have taken off because "number doesn't go up".

I am curious to see what will happen when the everything bubble pops

If people don’t react in an angry way that’s the clear signal from society that it wants a certain % of ponzi and scams to be allowed and tolerated

Much like it tolerates gambling , lottery and games of chance which are all zero sum games

The only real decentralisation is the one constituted of 8 billion brains and 8 billions bodies which are all roughly the the same size and strength

All the other types of decentralisation are marketed to you by early adopters who want you to pump their coin in order for their asset to increase in price

They are ironically using the concept of decentralisation to centralise wealth and power in their hands

Of course even if with their dishonest intent they can never quite beat the real decentralisation provided by nature which makes it so that even the most powerful “human” ever (Jesus Christ) only has an extremely limited amount of power over the totality of humanity.

Matter of fact “he” only gets to be the spokesman of otherwise already popular concepts such as compassion , love and the reward for those who practice them

It’s like that headline about the internet being a glorified fax machine in 1999. [0]

It was wrong to put your name on that piece for posterity to see (and mock you) , but if you listened to that article and shorted the Nasdaq you’d have made 5000% type returns .

And if Krugman himself listened to his own brain , he’d have had enough money not to care about that piece or make people forget about it

The web3 might not be bullshit , but if you want to make money the only trade out there is to bet that it is .

Bulls who say that web3 is in its early days surely mean the technical early days , because financially the web3 is already priced for world domination .

Bulls forget that when you have to learn a programming language to profit off a trend you already missed on life changing money and hockey stick price increase (bitcoin 2010-2020 and Ethereum 2015-2020)

[0] https://twitter.com/kevincadogan/status/1195521960437932033?...

> Not in my experience. I think people in general prefer existing over not existing, no matter what age.

Existing sucks, you want to thrive, meaning having fun, novelty, winning, and generally being a boss.

When you are old you simply don't thrive, you don't have fun, all the novelty is gone, you lose all the times, you lose your swagger because you become extremely risk averse both in your behavior in the natural environment as well as social behavior when around other people.

Time to withdraw everything from 401k! /s

> Where are the waves of senior suicides?

Where is their enthusiasm for life?

Of course survival instinct does its job very well. It even prevents people who are in extreme pain from committing the extreme act, but nonetheless it's not really that people look forward to stuff at 90.

And why would you? If you are not completely gone mentally, you can observe yourself losing relevance by the minute, younger guns attacking you and filling the void.

By the time it comes naturally, around 80 y/o 90 tops it would be a relief...you'd be so tired after a lifetime of fighting and you'd be such a second class citizen and excluded from all the fun and the social relevance that you'd be looking forward to checking out.

People who worry about death due to old age in their future are always the type who live in such luxury or are at their apex , having exhausted all other worries (and also wrongly project that they'll be in that frame of mind 50 or 60 years down the road).

> Including you

I have no interest in just existing, I want to thrive. Considering that pragmatically speaking it's not possible to thrive at 90, I have no interest in watching other people thrive, so checking out seems like a natural way of solving the issue.