graderjs

Such a scum move. What is this guy, a deep state puppet? YC is not sending their best people.

Assume the CIA motivation of American primacy: OK fair enough, but is the way to achieve that really through the creation of a few small super monopolies?

What’s wrong with a bit of 1980s style unregulated capitalism when it comes to AI right now? Can not we all theoretically have a chance to build companies, train models build great new products, get rich?

Why months after this tech was first released to the public are we seemingly being denied that within the United States via regulation?

How can Sam Altman claim to be from a company that create AI for all? It’s like the thinnest ministry of truth cover story ever. “Oh yeah, we’re all about AI ethics AI openness, creating AI for all” and then we just gonna create a super monopoly with regulatory capture—only riches for me, but not for thee.

I mean, this is a new fucking gold rush right now, right? so I guess this is sort of like prospecting licenses, but it seems worse than that.

> And I ain't your son. Jackass.

Well that got nasty pretty quickly! Especially for fully-unruffled jimmies and wholly raveled world view hahaha

It's a term of endearment, son! I'm older than you. 40.

But of course your jimmies will remain unruffled and your worldview unmoved, son, if you work so hard to protect it from new info as you are doing!

About everything else--nope, it's your hubris to pretend blindness to 1000s of observations. Hahahaha!

> ... and as expected you have nothing.

The nothing is your doing, as you ignore everything, right? I have everything, but if you won't see it...you cannot blame me for your own failure to see: that's not my problem it's yours.

Pretending otherwise is not only jackass, it's abusive when you then feign superiority and make the topic a pretext to take out your pent up rage on others who don't deserve it at all.

Which is the whole issue: your failure of sight and interpretation: you hallucinate son as something bad, you hallucinate 1000s of observations as being invisible.

At least if you're going to do that, don't take it too far, and pretend those people who differ from you are idiots. That's abusive. Isn't it more stupid to close your eyes and pretend you're in touch with the truth, than open them and talk about what you see?

But this is not your failure, unique to you. It's a whole class of people scared of the stigma and unknown--and some like you get abusive and want to create that stigma for others--you're a member of that wilfully ignorant, but sadly abusive, class. I don't know why you act so proud of that?

You'll be doing some learnin' son, today, by jimminy!

> Your premise ... tech civ on it.

Blah. Science's frontier is ignorance. That's how it should be!

> and all people like yourself have is faith, and faith isn't science.

Again you're hallucinating: mis-seeing and mis-saying my knowledge of evidence as faith! My son, you have zero idea what I have, about anything. But in this topic, I can tell you, what I do have is curiosity! :) ;p xx ;p

Closing your eyes and blaming the people who dare to look, hahaha-- and you claim familiarity with science.

> find it hilarious

It's funny because you don't sound hilarious. You sound desperate to find the weakest version of this topic and: pretend you're triumphing; pretend others are idiots; preserve your worldview; which one of those is it? Or all of them? :P ;) xx ;p

Have you watched that video yet? Even at 4x speed you're not going to get through the 60minutes plus in the 10 minutes it took you to beat out that evil reply! :P ;) xx hahaha

I hope you can be better than your username next time, sincerely son, that's why I have spent this time to educate you by this careful and thought out reply. I only seek the cessation of your abusive ignorance! :P ;) xx;p

Well, son, you’re gonna need more than a quaint turn of phrase to make fools of all of the thousands of observations and observers over the decades.

If you don’t think so or that sounds unreasonable to you, I suggest you please now take a seat right now watch that entire YouTube video (the phenomenon) and write up for me your criticism and we can discuss further part by part.

Don’t you think it’s hubris of man to assume he’s already got it all figured out and therefore, because he cannot reconcile these observations with his pet theories, The observations must be doubted?

But yes thanks for coming back to seek out to reply this almost invisibly unpopular thread. Such as suggested here must be so dangerous to your worldview as to require you discover and reply it, to ensure that such a challenge does not go unanswered, as even out of sight, Such a powerful suggestion would be an intolerable nagging doubt in your mind that would threaten to unravel everything you hold dear and depend upon for your daily existence. Am i right?

Phew...thank god we rebutted that. I was worried for a second there that war may be motivated by money and not the morality or ideology spoken to justify it...

> Article alleges it is not external threats but corrupt political interests that drive ever higher US defense spending. But correlation is not causation and this link is unsupported,

I think the charge that it's an unsupported thesis is itself unsupported, when that thesis is advanced by military generals and DoD insiders as a result of their experience or analysis.

> especially when no analysis of the un/reality of the external threat is offered

The specifics of the external threat don't change the dynamic of a threat being fabricated or exaggerated to boost spending.

> There is some low-hanging fruit here around Iraq so not bringing that in leads me to question the quality of this article.

It could be a word count thing. But I guess the article was quality enough to require a careful and determined rebuttal from yourself. Although it seems you would be unlikely to accept the article's thesis if you felt it was defending China, so I think your questioning the quality of the article would be something we could assume would happen without question. Making it not an actual signal of quality but rather of your ideology

> It is harder to make that case with the Cold War or the PRC vs its South China Sea neighbors so perhaps that is why this aspect of their argument was not pursued.

But what is the real threat presented by China today, or by the USSR before? If it's such a hard case to make for the non-threat thesis, I respectfully request you give the easy argument for its antithesis. Just 1 sentence will do, unless it's too much to ask?

Yeah, current publicly known laws of physics.

Laws discovered by Man, who's imperfect and flawed and apt to be scared of what he doesn't know and think anything outside of that is impossible.

Also apt to greedily conceal that which would either give him advantage or make him look bad through ignorance or lack of control.

So...Galileo would like a word. :) ;p xx ;p

It's funny, because 1000s of people saw these things in the late 1940s in USA, and they didn't think they were fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0Kr1TwKhQk

About the motion blur, it's good point, but what if it "moves" by skipping to discrete points, rather than moving continuously? That could explain it.

Talk to chat-gpt4, consider the Polyform licenses.

Is there an optimal filesystem or is it all just trade offs? And how far if we come since you know when we were first creating file systems plan nine or whatever to now like it’s as there been any sort of technological Leap like killer algorithm it’s really improve things?

How can we reform science? What are the obstacles to doing this? What would scientific journal publishing look like if it were the best possible? How can science embrace the unknown and overcome the fear of the new and the stigma associated with it, so it doesn’t uselessly bias towards established dogma? What are you personally going to do about this?

And I think if you lose the oral tradition, if you don’t speak your thoughts out loud and make them into a speech then you lose something too. It’s also the ability to think. I find my modes of communication in writing, and speech way different to the extent that I’ve taken to Verbally responding to things; recording that; transcribing that; and then putting that into writing, because I find like the process of writing maybe because it’s cross pollinate it too much with my work as a programmer uses a different part of myself and a lot of the time ends up going on like long tangents to explain everything in agonizingly stupid legalistic detail wheras in speech, I would just get straight to the fucking point. Obviously, your mileage may vary my insights here may only apply to myself, and certainly not gonna apply to everyone I think.

However, what I’m saying, reminds me of what Haruki Murakami talks about as his process for writing I think in his earliest novels anyway, he even mentioned trying to write it as if he was speaking it but certainly he writes his novels in English first and then translates them back in the Japanese, because he finds that’s how he expresses his authentic voice. Kind of hilarious to have such lauded post modern writer, write in a way where his pre-translated works are then translated back into English else. Reminds me too of fight club / chuck Palahniuk copy of a copy of a copy. Yet in Murakami‘s case it seems to create rather than erode quality.

Of course there’s always the issue of the very low quality transcription available in a by default in iPhone and android keyboards. The voice typing sucks and so you always get some weird homonyms inside probably there’s some in his comment to.

Thanks! I always like nice compliments thank you :) It's big picture the same, I think, but misses some details. For example:

"presenting aliens as a priest class with ultimate control over Earth's power structures." I actually was talking about the (government / corporate special access programs / counterintelligence disclosure narratives) being the "priest class" gatekeeping the technology for everyone else, and how these "disclosure narratives" center them as (the source of confirming authentic information), it reinforces the (power dynamic / dependency) of populations toward the existing power structure (government corporate).

It also elided a lot of examples and details, but mostly captured it well I think, tho haven't gone over it in super detail.

Certainly much shorter and I think maybe cleaner than the original transcript (which I post for you here) but it loses the voice: https://pastebin.com/da726iQd

I actually don't know a good prompt to feed something long into it piece by piece and have it spit out a great, shortened, organized essay, but I'm sure something will emerge eventually.

Is the guy really a cult leader tho? Hahaha, this thread is totally not about this guy but OK: I guess he’s got a cult on your mind if you keep thinking of him while this is actually about something else. Wouldn’t that be your problem tho, not about this guy?

Mm, yes interesting: https://tensegritywiki.com/index.php?title=Castaneda,_Carlos

I guess it’s a big tent! Hahaha

Hahah, that's hilarious. I wonder if Buckminster Fuller knew about this when he coined the word? Or maybe he didn't coin it...maybe these guys got there first! haha :p ;) xx;p

I recorded a spoken comment in response to this article, then fed it through GPT-4 to clean it up and organize it:

The article "Our Alien Stalkers" proposes that aliens aim to prevent civilizations from expanding, similar to the United States Monroe Doctrine, and that their only objective is to maintain control. While this theory is intriguing, it seems more plausible that if one alien civilization could arrive, so could others with varying levels of aggression and objectives.

A more coherent strategy for extraterrestrial control would involve targeting the top of Earth's power hierarchy, like governments and large corporations. By offering access to advanced technology, aliens could control these entities and maintain influence over the rest of the population. This idea is supported by anecdotal and conspiratorial evidence of technology transfers or crash retrievals.

By distributing advanced technology to multiple competing power structures on Earth, aliens could play all sides of existing conflicts and further reinforce the narrative that governments and corporations hold power. However, this perspective raises the question: do governments and corporations truly have power, or are they merely pawns in the hands of an alien civilization using advanced technology and human greed to maintain control? The UFO disclosure narrative only strengthens this dynamic, presenting aliens as a priest class with ultimate control over Earth's power structures.

In response to the article "Our Alien Stalkers," I'd like to suggest that if aliens were to infiltrate our society, they could potentially offer powerful people irresistible advances in technology, energy, and weaponry in exchange for certain concessions. This Faustian bargain would likely be difficult for power-hungry individuals to refuse. In doing so, the aliens would cleverly exploit human psychology and existing power structures to gain control over our planet.

The dominant UFO narrative often centers around government and corporate elites hiding secrets, inadvertently reinforcing the power dynamic between these entities and the general population. An alternative explanation could be that our governments and corporations are merely pawns, controlled by their own greed and the more advanced alien civilizations. This idea is unpalatable for many, as humans are generally egocentric and struggle with the notion that they might not be at the top of the universal hierarchy.

The concept of humans being a small fish in a vast cosmic pond is a difficult pill to swallow, much like the realization of a small-town bully who discovers they're not as powerful as they once believed. This alternate narrative offers an interesting perspective to consider, as it challenges the human-centric viewpoint and our assumptions about the power dynamics on Earth.

Favorite quote:

what I am also not is so spectacularly incurious about the world and the way it works, so ideologically captured, so damn grouchy, as to refuse an invitation to what will more than likely be the most important historical event in the UK of our age. Not just the most important, but the strangest, the weirdest.

Um, maybe no … is the Answer? Hahaha, but is that What’s happening tho here?

Doesn’t look like it.

But anyway… does anyone think, I mean, don’t you feel like your brand of dismal dismissive negativity is definitely super uninteresting? At least boring and bad, right?

I mean — what’s the appeal supposed to be? Hahaha

Bring back the 80s I say

Is a Mach-9 sonic boom 9x (or sth proportionally) greater than a Mach-1 boom?

Also, I bet the tickets will either be 0, because there's a non-zero probability you will burn up mid-flight, or really expensive, because maybe that money helps peel the risk onion.

Unless the "jet" is "non-conventional propulsion"...

Also, here's a vid of a rotating detonation engine (the type supposed to be used by this "jet"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRgiSHjdet0 (NASA test-fires 3D-printed Rotating Detonation Rocket Engine, January 2023)

Great! I also agree. One phrase always stuck with me, when talking about the leader of the cult, Murakami said, paraphrasing, "imagine the bloodbath of internal conflicts that must need to happen to give rise to someone like that". For some reason, I've always remembered it. "Bloodbath of internal conflicts" was a line that always stuck with me. :P ;) xx ;p

Also, I recommend getting hands on the very early (and short) English translations of, "Hear the Wind Sing", and "Pinball 1973" -- just really strange, bizarre and cool. Like a distilled pure essence of all his works to come, but these were (I think) his first two. You can sort of see all his themes, style and everything in those first two. Really great! :) ;p xx ;p

That's a good point, but I think the trend over time is, what was a targeted tool, is now mass.

Hahah, that's an unexpected connection that's funny!

No, I was thinking more, be a dissembler.

The idea that you can assume privacy because whatever country or corporation surveys is incompetent or bureaucratic sounds reasonable, but what's the probability of that? It's not 100%.

If privacy is important, assume compromise and work around it, sounds like the more secure strategy.

But not if we assume compromise.

How would you hide in plain sight? That is the question.

Bruce Lee said: be water. But maybe you need to: Be Hamlet

> likelihood lower

Not if we take the lore around mass survey into account (Snowden etc)

But the concept itself (of recreation process) and its ephemerality could be art, couldn’t it?

Please don't post shallow dismissals. It ruins what this site is for.

Interesting that the message content is not what’s being adjudicated by down votes here. If a mod says it: all good. If a cocommenter says it: very bad.

But if your phone OS / cellular firmware is compromised then e2e or even at-rest encryption won't matter. Anything you can see on your phone can be seen.

I think a more rational alternative is to consider that everything except your unexpressed thoughts and emotions is already logged. At some point, this will become true (if it ain't already), so....then you at least will be ahead of that curve.

So if everything you do is monitored, how do you achieve privacy in such a world? That is the question, I think.

In fact, it's similar to how a corporation or nation needs to think about protecting their own secrets. They have to assume compromise (of people, systems, etc)...how do you confuse and compartmentalize what you want to protect?

Title actually: Modern water at low latitudes on Mars: Potential evidence from dune surfaces

Hehe :) Okay, thank you! ;p xx ;p

Question if you don't mind: does the fellow mean alien as in extra-terrestrial?