Sanity Check

Science has been failing for 20+ years. Although probably not in the ways she thinks its failing.

Those are the types of games I play. But I'm not satisfied with their depth. I don't know if its escapism. Games can be addicting. Things have come a long way.

Everyone has their own motives for things. I've always tried to use games as a means of sharpening perception & mind. There are many games out there which resemble chess. Except with a significantly greater number of board pieces and variables to consider. If wise men of old used games like chess to sharpen mind. It may naturally follow that computers of today might allow for an expansion on the strategic & calculation based elements games like chess provided. Something I've always tried to take full advantage of.

Hundreds if not thousands of small choices & calculations might be made within the course of a single game. In which case, the true goal games is to improve our capacity to make better choices. The violence and special fx are only a marketing gimmick.

Living in a computer ^

It is nice to see people trying. But are they legit. Most here have a bad reputation.

Jesus was crucified on a wooden cross. Christians wear crucifixes in remembrance of this great victory. But how does that work? How is the Son of God being crucified a victory for christians? Part of the answer to this question may have been uncovered by archaeologists digging through the remains of ancient roman cities. While examining the contents of ancient roman trash, archaeologists were horrified to discover large numbers of human remains. Not in scattered or isolated incidents. But rather as if the practice of disposing of human corpses in trash were the set standard for ancient roman society. While the human remains found at trash sites may have belonged exclusively to slaves. This reflects one of the most underrated and unappreciated aspects to how Christ's fate is a victory. In a way that can be measured and quantified via empirical methods. Prior to Jesus the standard for society was human life having no value. There was no thought towards helping the poor or the needy. Indifference and apathy towards the downtrodden were standard fare. One of the main driving forces behind the spread of christianity was its invention of elaborate welfare programs for the poor and needy. Christianity treated people as if their lives were precious and had value. Even if they were poor or sick. This was a revolutionary and mind blowing concept for its time, fueling the spread of christianity across the world. Thanks to this, we all spectacularly benefit from the christian moral framework greatly elevating standards of justice, life and prosperity. A great victory not only for christians but for all. Of course, none of this happens without the Crucifixion. One of the key points to note here is forces of evil crucifying Jesus carries a massive net effect of making life significantly harder for themselves. Over the past 2,000 years since the Crucifixion cases of war, slavery, genocide significantly decreased. Prior to the Crucifixion Lot could not find 10 moral people living in Sodom. After the Crucifixion the number and proportion of moral people in the world increased substantially. The number of moral people per capita today is much higher than in the era of Sodom. This is reflected by homicide, crime and violence rates per capita hovering at all time lows pre COVID. If a price tag were attached to crucifying Jesus the cost would be unaffordably expensive for team evil. So overwhelmingly expensive that the smart move is to NOT crucify Jesus and spend the day listening to Taylor Swift albums instead. It is a mistake to crucify people under circumstances where the net effect will be shifting the world in an opposite direction than intended. This is why christians wear crucifixes as symbols of victory rather than defeat. Even if they themselves do not comprehend the specific circumstances behind it. In observing evil, their quest is to diminish the number of moral people in the world, to reshape the world in their own image. But if crucifying Jesus multiplied morality & multiplied the number of moral people in the world. Would targeting and killing other good and moral christians carry a similar net effect? Therefore, if evil is to have a chance of victory against forces of good, evil must restrain itself from crucifying Jesus and those like Him. Give me feedback please.

The previous workshop was $18 and had more engagement. I noticed some taoist workshops cost $500+. That "emotional alchemy" though. Clever.

Flourishing is easy. Maintaining prosperity and living standards in the face of human overpopulation is what's hard.

https://perell.com/essay/why-youre-christian/ Above is an essay published by an atheist. I personally consider it the smartest thing an atheist has ever said. Good reading.

This verse needs to be covered more in 2025. The context here is being held at gunpoint by a thief intending to steal ones possessions. Jesus advises not to resist under circumstances where many might lose their lives by refusing to hand their possessions over. It is not and never was intended to endorse pacifism as is seen here:

Will it ever become trendy to forget about conquering the world. And focus on conquering thyself, instead.

Hmm. Interesting. Might it need more matrioshka brains? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain

.Ultrasound is cool.

Most smart kids want to be a lawyer earning $100,000. Rather than a scientist with entry level $30,000. Inventions built in a lab owned by a university or large corporation means they own your creation. While by contrast owning & operating your own independent lab is prohibitively cost ineffective. Given the dubious nature of copyright and intellectual property protection laws, foreign powers might simply steal your invention. Producing at lower cost than you yourself could ever afford to. Everything about markets, higher education and the economy are stifling & unfriendly to innovation / progress. And so people shifted career trajectory and found other things to do.

Aside from random things like lithium batteries there hasn't been much progress in technology either. Try googling "Father of artificial intelligence". The name of a man from the 1940s will pop up. Alan Turing. A huge chunk of AI work was completed around 1940s. The only reason AI didn't become mainstream sooner is due to lack of hardware necessary to make it function. Tech has also been a dead end in terms of innovation and progress. But maybe its ok. It might give our spiritual power a chance to catch up to our scientific power?

Do not fear change, more than you fear death. Or you will wind up extinct like Barney the Dinosaur.

https://www.cbs17.com/news/milk-soda-more-hydrating-than-water-according-to-study/ Scientists release study claiming soda pop is more hydrating than water. Its almost like they're on a personal quest to make themselves appear unsmartiest.

Eh. In the year 2025, science is disappointing. I think most would agree with me on this. But to each their own.

Which part of that paper "punches a hole" in my argument? LLM is large library model. Its identical to the small(er) library model that used previously. The only thing relevant about it is its size being larger in contrast to library models of past eras. The same with the chess program that defeated Garry Kasparov. The software was virtually identical to chess programs of past eras. The only difference was the hardware it ran on having more memory and more computational power.

The hardware to support LLMs did not exist under recently. It is actually Moore's Law that is driving progress in AI. LLM. Large Library Model. Its simply a bigger library file. Let's say in the year 1980 a library file for AI was 10 kilobytes. While in the year 2025 a library file for AI (LLM) might be 50 gigabytes. Is that really a major achievement? it is in terms of functionality but there were no improvements in software, its all hardware based. Anyways, are there no good ambassadors for science in 2025? What a strange thing that is, eh.

I think you completely misunderstood the question. Past eras had Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Tesla. Who is a good ambassador for science in the year 2025 It seems you cannot name a single name. In which case we might conclude science as an institution is in a decline.