blast

https://app.twenty.com/ just gives me a blank page right now in multiple browsers.

The author got betrayed by her headline writer. She's not offering a "map" (she's not a moron) nor is she presuming to tell men what to do. She's making a respectful attempt to understand social realities behind the rightward swing of younger men (the appeal of Peterson, Tate, etc.). But she has to wrap it in so many pieities and disclaimers for her fragile audience that the article ends up unreadable. If you're masochistic enough to read it closely anyhow, it's clear that she's quietly undermining the dogma (see "I, a heterosexual woman, cringed in recognition") and is rather sympathetic to the people she's writing about. But you have to be a Kremlinologist to detect it because it's what you can't say in the WaPo.

One guy writes all the top comments?

This is cool! How did you end up working with Ullman? I guess "being a Stanford dropout" explains how you met him, but there must be an interesting story here. Can you share how that happened and what the process was?

You might look into neurofeedback. It has helped some people regain brain function. When it works, it can work well, and it's non-invasive so you don't have to worry about side effects. The book Symphony in the Brain is probably the best intro. There's also a chapter in the book The Body Keeps the Score.

Looks like a plaid of Plaids

Could you say more about why?

Here's Philip Weiss's classic 1989 article from Spy Magazine about going undercover at Bohemian Grove. As I recall, it is hilarious and there is much public urination.

https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/bohemian_grove_spy.ht...

Chomsky does a good job in the video linked here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36367082

> Kissinger was a war criminal so I tend to regard this kind of verbatim report as reflecting two criminally minded geniuses shooting the breeze together.

Of course he was / they were. But guilt v. innocence is too crude a distinction to say anything meaningful about history. There's a lot going on that that distinction can't account for. In the end, they're all guilty, and we're all guilty, and only a childish craving to see oneself as innocent and project all badness onto others imagines otherwise.

p.s. This is not a criticism. I enjoyed your comment.

His brilliant short about polishing a car is rather hard to forget.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW7Dk4z2oiQ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kustom_Kar_Kommandos

The article is obviously about postwar art.

The next obvious question is who funds it.

Is https://www.engine.is/ an industry lobbying group? That's what it looks like.

There's no single definition of addiction. Gabor Mate's sense of the term seems serious enough, and screentime/socialmedia habit certainly fits: a behavior that gives relief or pleasure but in the long run causes harm, and you can't give it up despite those negative consequences.

Yes, but that general sense is not how the word is used there. If it were, it would be redundant. He's talking about a specific subgroup (budding Ivy League entrepreneurs?) that he finds annoying in a specific way. It's a class distinction.

Agreed. The tell is the word "annoying" in this sentence: "Nor does Hsieh’s time at Harvard prove to be particularly illuminating: he, like many annoying undergraduates there, tested out his entrepreneurial chops in his dorm room". Only a member of a competing subgroup would use the word "annoying" like that. I'm surprised an editor didn't catch it. It gives away that the subtext here is inter-elite competition (media vs. tech, arts vs. business). The article is a stroke against one elite group (Hsieh and tech entrepreneurs) by another (the author on behalf of his New Yorker audience). You could write the same thing in reverse, bashing the author and questioning how he got in at the New Yorker, the same way he questions how Hsieh got his seed money. It's a deliciously nasty takedown and a perfectly chosen topic: equal parts envy and schadenfreude, and risk-free because the dude can no longer defend himself.

"We dont have better algorithms, we just have more data" - Peter Norvig

The author describes his learning process in detail and explains what's exciting: he got a basic understanding of the subject within minutes, after being frustrated by Wikipedia, a physics education site, and some other site. Getting through the surface level is a big deal for someone who's new to a subject.

OpenAI may have those internally though.

This reminds me of the church scene in "They Live".

You've got a good point. I'm not sure. I guess if I met someone who didn't seem religious in their way of being non-religious, that would interest me.

He's brilliant and how he comes up with that stuff is beyond me.

At the same time, he's creepily aggressive with guests, I find him excruciating to watch. (Not because of the speech mannerisms.) If they don't do what he wants, like repeating his little do-doo thing at the end, he really ups the ante on them.

They're probably doing it unconsciously.

Didn't you know that when you took the money?

That's the charlatans' fault, not Kent's.

"more agreeable authors" sounds normative to me, and "they were replaced with more agreeable authors" sounds menacing

Poutine isn't spicy.