makerdiety

[flagged]

If you guys were so smart, then how come you didn't simply memorize the words in a book? Regardless of any excuse like "They're not memorable or exciting."

Whatever happened to discipline and simple obligation? Or are we defining things based on how we feel instead of what is objectively true and out there right in front of our faces?

You don't ever have to worry about survivor bias from me. Because I know not to esteem highly those men who believe that family formation and a business enterprise building commitment can both exist at the same time.

Either you devote your entire being to the invasive alien job that is learning how to extract value from civilization's economically receptive citizens or you pack up your bags and head back home on the plane that can depart from the place where great men are selected and trained. Being a startup founder is much, much more intense than some special forces soldier life. You learn better values and habits than some punk that will have peaked at the earning of the title of U.S. Marine, to use a stark contrasting example. Or a black ops Delta Force guy who just has to navigate a huge forest in the dark on the dangerous way back to friendly territory, while the compared startup founder needs to develop an entire science for the navigation of profitable markets that no human has ever seen before, let alone taken advantage of before. A nerd like Richard Feynman can be much more tougher than someone that can do a thousand pushups without stopping and shoot an M4 carbine at a target 900 meters away.

Is Elon Musk even a good example of a successful startup founder or businessman, despite his billionaire status? Logical skepticism says no. And the brainwashing that popular ideology does says yes.

After all, didn't Elon Musk fuck and impregnate some bitches during his rise to a big bank account? He could have been using that time and energy to colonize Mars before this twenty-first century ends. He's not serious about what he says he wants. A terrible role model to look up to.

This (very popular) sentiment you have can basically be abstracted into the “fear of missing out” meme. It's an unnecessary predicate, it's founded on presupposition and bias, and it's really detrimental to all serious long term analyses.

There's no proof that this personal feeling should be listened to or given behavioral authority, especially when it suspiciously conforms to the aesthetic that is widely shared by many who end up having only achieved a mundane life, despite “noble” projects launched because of arrogant egos. This social phenomenon which sponsors the freedom and agency of people fit only to be busy drones is wasting global resources on bourgeois affairs. Elon Musk and his eventual epic failure at super-industrialism is a great example of this harmful sinful pride.

The “what if” has only served to help overvalue ordinary potential, when that capability should have been limited to simple tasks, industries, and affairs. It's a mind virus riding on the waves of language and the beastly body of rationality, a false reality having been successfully disguised as a legitimate object to perceive within the cognitive sphere of humanity. It is deviation that surely has contributed to the collapse of the great liberal humanism project, the real goal of democracy and its encompassing civilization having been the quiet and stable enslavement of a massive surplus of dull brains and basic bodies. A mass of uninteresting genetic carriers who would do well to never worry about what is outside the scope of their common destinies.

The dialectic that there can be morbid peace if you would just test out the hypothesis that you can become a great man is an incomprehensibly devised thinking trap that can filter out men who don't know what the fuck is going on in the grand universe.

But God (or simply nature) works in mysterious ways and I'm glad that hubris was created to serve as an instrument for learning what not to ever do. And to materially benefit from, salvaging from the failures of future past technologies being a huge possibility to leverage. Your supposed tragedy is my informed opportunity, to paraphrase Jeff Bezos.

EDIT: If you ever invent warp drive or faster than light travel or functional nuclear fusion, I'll be looking forward to the blueprints of such treasures and strategic advantages ;)

Is not a personal knowledge base like Trilium[0] a simple solution for storing digitized memories of your life? Rather than being limited to one lines because of the .txt file format? Paragraphs can contain more information than one lines, you know.

[0]: https://github.com/zadam/trilium

Someone (a mark?) getting through the filtering (sales?) funnel's first stage is a strong signal for what? That someone period is interested in your product/service you're offering? Or that this particular person, the one who reaches the second stage of the funnel, is a possible lead (or exactly a lead)? Likely the latter.

Because you can skip the scientific/investigative validation of the hypothesis that there is someone that wants what you offer/sell/provide. That is, you should assume that there is someone out there (a small number of people at least, really) that wants to pay you for what you provide. I know this goes against common startup wisdom. But there's a massive cold outreach campaign type that needs to function and it needs to function with some confident assumptions within its technological engineering implementation. I guess.

I'm just speculating on some theoretical startup founding that doesn't suck.

> In the best case, they lead to accumulating inefficiencies (technical debt) as engineers work around them

If that's what technical debt ever amounted to, then the average software developer is stupid, because he doesn't know how to innovate and improve within the meta-system he's functioning in. It's not hard to restructure things when inefficiency becomes a problem. Just do it.

Instead of lionizing technical debt as some sort of boogeyman demon around the Internet forums water coolers.

This only means that there's a pervasive cultural synagogue/cathedral that has infected behavior through pedagogical means. Namely, education itself has been made to serve the interests of all possible economics that can occur within the borders of global liberal democracy.

This also only means that any sociopolitical exit from the zombie invasion must at least be as high as considering a departure from common epistemology.

I'm not Elon Musk or Donald Trump. Sending your complaints of mainstream culture to me will not result in your political representation and its voice being heard. I am unable to effectively sponsor and defend your proposed alternative dynamics.

But! If I am like a techno-angel sent from the Heavens above, then what I can do is suggest to you that exit, as opposed to voice, is a sociopolitical act that you should consider. Exit from the mainstream culture is your best bet.

If capitalism wasn't the leviathan that it was, then I wouldn't blame anyone for trying to escape the life that capitalist neo-colonialism has brought into existence. Pretty soon, at this rate, life itself will be a subordinate of the democratic global capital project.

Isn't being annoyed at something sociopolitical and expressing that feeling, sharing your concerns with anyone who will listen, itself a sociopolitical act?

Because it is.

I'm not trying to gaslight you, insofar as reason itself agrees with my proposition.

Everything rationally dismissive of ineffective economics and technology always appears negligent in scientific duties. But I'm actually monitoring the situation with great attention and caution. Because this is a global context I'm referring to. Which the soteriological expectations of populist manufacturing science and also optimal operations research have botched, as part of a normally occurring natural selection that wants to purge away all unmotivated and unskilled students of economics at the Malthusian cliff limits that we're presently at.

As long as your side of the discussion hasn't loaded the debate with propaganda-rich religious expectations like the modern implementation of capitalism being on the road to perfection, some sort of leftist-progressive singularity possible with enough faith based endorsement and mere belief, then I'm willing to have an argument founded on facts. Otherwise, your sociopolitically biased school of economics will have to forever deal with me presenting grounds for arguments as thoughtless speculation, due to the skewed perspective your political incentives create. In other words, I have already given basic facts from which tentative socioeconomic engineering arguments can be made. Namely that liberal democracy's military-industrial complex is a poor attempt at satisfying the requirement for both secure and intelligent domestic commerce.

It's actually not rocket science: it's more like a real time strategy game like Command and Conquer. Because what base building ever occurs without an area being violently secured from enemy ganks and such first? And, abstracting from this illustration, unless Elon Musk plans to form a private military company for his Tesla and Space X ventures like a proper cyberpunk megacorporation character, we shouldn't expect actually competent or pure vertical business integration. Instead, we should be expecting a ghetto version of what capitalism truly is. Because the best players, our wealthy and powerful billionaires, are not really wealthy and powerful, if you look closely at what capitalism means and what it means without semantically corrupting political lobbyists like Keynesian economics, supply and demand formulations, and just horribly ineffective fascist socialism high school type proposals.

Vertical integration, or a company claiming to take ownership of its supply chain, needs the democratic miracle that is exclusive security of supplies and their logistical distribution. No American company is ever going to militarily secure natural resources or a nanostate territory for its profits. And that's why all American companies (or any traditional, humanist company) will fail to achieve profits which ensure business survival.

Don't ever go long on an investment in the democratic military-industrial complex, surely. Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX are like baby boomers disguising themselves as healthy young kids of the future. Don't be fooled or tempted by the likely spiked Kool-Aid drink. Partaking in the ideology of techno-commercialist futurism will yield a negative return on investment. As the conceptual dynamics of optimal manufacturing methods' soteriology, looked at through democratic aspirations, is nothing but booby trapped thinking. In other words, much more blunt words, Tesla's theoretical economics and strategy is a wannabe Mark Zuckerberg, especially when there's an impending giant rug pull in the investment arena.

It is naught but crypto-fascism the proposition that there is a choice between exercising empathy and being an immoral character. It is moral authoritarianism, the gaslighting of others, trying to make them believe that free will exists in the service of neo-conservative morality's dialectic of good judgement and evil judgement being a problem to consider at all in the first place. The reality is that morality lives way beyond what the rhetoric of neoliberal initiatives try to seductively present to vulnerable intellects and hearts.

Advertising empathy as being better than a slice of bread is just fascism and a strain of neo-colonial desire in a clever (but not clever enough) disguise. The global threats to capitalism's productivity goals aren't fooling anyone. The Devil's idle hands and economic regression will have to retreat back to the drawing board and find a new military tactic that would be more effective than trying to disguise morality as something cool looking (when in reality it looks ugly and unappealing as an asset).

Doesn't the environment already affect genes albeit on huge timescales like millions of years? Then the more clear question becomes how to accelerate mutations and for one individual person instead of through delicate and fallible processes like generations of species made through costly reproduction acts like civilizational projects.

But what if it's possible to alter your influential genes, through some powerful mechanism? Whether it be through insane willpower or anything else. In that case, you have an analogy like something like artificial general intelligence or recursive self-improvement. We get to approach the discussion of questioning natural values and instinctive goals with this line of inquiry. We get to eventually question the metaphysics of God, morality, and aesthetics, by introducing fantastic elements like radical self-modification.

If you have failed to infer a discovery of the global trend of complete withdrawal from traditional economic institutions, employment, and sources of income due to the stubborn impracticality of jobs rationally compensating very skilled men for their natural potential, then it is certain that you have scientific ability that hovers around a basic level. You would then steadily indicate that you are heavily prone to the fallacy fallacy, such as caring about irrelevant and distracting memes like the No True Scotsman fallacy, for example.

Managing high performers? Step one: pay them what they're worth.

With the reliable incompetence of the average job, we shouldn't ever expect this kind of rational fair compensation. Really, we should be seeing truly talented people making an exodus away from what is called a socially appropriate job. Due to there being a gross monopoly, right now, on economic resources (led by the dictatorship of midwits).

It kinda really upsets me that you believe a strain of liberal-democratic sociopolitics is capable of hosting technological and scientific innovation. A bunch of arrogant, proud, or overconfident nerds are not actually destined knights of capital. Why should a bunch of mediocre dweebs matter and get affirmative action and its access to upward capital mobility?

Instead, people should have to prove themselves. They should prove that they are worthy of the resources needed to perform great technological and economic deeds. A monarchical family dynasty is one of the best natural selection aligned filters for that decision making job. Not populist crypto-socialist Marxism (which is what Silicon Valley's pseudo-meritocratic venture capital investment funding ends up looking like).

So, there should be a return to an endorsing of royal families as part of a clear indication of ability and responsibility. If modern society is collapsing right now, then it's surely because civilization incorrectly selected the wrong ethnicities and races to lead society. So, a great reset is in order to correct a huge bio-cultural mistake that was made. Part of the mistake and strategic lesson to learn from was that recent history decided to force mediocre and stagnating genetic bloodlines to the top positions of industry and management. That's especially fatal when efficiency maximizing Malthusian conditions are being approached in the area of responsible leadership for hard, large scale problems like distributed systems engineering and operation.

Queen Elizabeth the Second of England, someone who is supposed to be ordained by God to lord over countries and empires, died while having done nothing sitting on her dysgenic fat arse. She didn't contribute to the development of a new and robust software development framework. Therefore, evolutionary Darwinism strikes back in a sneaky, subtle form; God brings down a matriarchal wrath upon misbehaving human bosses like in Christianity's eschatological mythology. That picture is easy to understand, yes?

I would never use SQLite when there is more than one persistent data memory user.

What all indie hackers are doing is getting support and resources from an equivalent of venture capital investment. Which is Cathedral approved education that effectively reduces to attaching an epistemology onto yourself that limits you and prevents you from functioning outside the cramped divisions of civilization-approved entrepreneurship.

The education offered by civilization includes logic that's crafted by a pedagogy that's biased toward vulgarity and social skills that don't perform well when it comes to building anything that would help a man get away from a forced commitment to anything more than maximizing viewer impressions on provocative Internet-uploaded content. The average tech entrepreneur isn't any better than a McDonald's hamburger grill operator or a female OnlyFans model or a delivery app driver, once you remove your civilly trained bias toward low resolution videos on socioeconomic dynamics.

To use a great illustration, even a billionaire techno-commercialist like Elon Musk can never hope to achieve independent wealth acquisition. Because his education, personal origin, and development are not really deviant and an instance of someone that can perform beyond the abstract black box that is knowledge given by civilization's life experiences which the life offers to every man. He will always come up short, whenever it's a question of exiting from the liberal-democratic regime and its permanent ironic anti-libertarianism stance. The question is: How to build a business that's not required to conform with all expectations, social and physical/ontological? Leading up to aerospace technology and acquiring science for Earth-to-Mars orbit transfers ain't it. Even having a business starting capital of one hundred dollars in the style of the $100 Startup comes with a history whose financial system component is tied to having a certain social obligation. A certain physical requirement commonly called life.

China does appear to be a good replacement and contender for a sustainable modern empire (according to whatever objective analysis would support that claim). But, if they flirt with liberty and the pursuit of happiness even one bit, then it's game over and futile for this strain of politics too.

That's the problem of the generic establishment's dominant principle: there's a pedagogic influence where a trend towards aggressive responses to criticisms of popular science is valuable and, really, should be expected. Capital rewards and incentives go to the distributed liberal justice warriors when they implement regurgitations of trite and irrelevant talking points. Like an objective optimizing GPT-4 model that focuses on “no true X” meme tokens. Civilization's trained citizens miss details that matter, as they're limited to the compliant programming script they must follow and never deviate from.

Besides violating some sacred cow and norms, how does the "no true Scotsman" fallacy proposal relate to the fact that no true scientist would ever consider the Boeing aerospace company or Elon Musk anything close to engineering geniuses? Because, otherwise, you're just avoiding the objective commentary's point and discussion it leads to. Whether this evasion is intentional or not.

"Who else is in the pool of promising candidates for intelligent economics?" is the question we're trying to answer.

> China's busy just trying to catch up. Everybody else can't seem to figure out how to pass econ-101.

edit: Getting to the frustration of realizing all reasonable options have been exhausted is an obstacle to climb over.

I'm only minimizing the value of the Enlightenment's liberty proposition (liberalism) as a result of the scientific observation that entropy most definitely accelerates through liberal-democratic ideas and enterprises. Don't propose liberalism and then I won't appear aloof when I'm actually watching the situation very closely.

Excellent question. And the answer is, of course, very simple: Being American (or, more generally, a liberal-democracy subordinated entity), you should expect even Elon Musk's SpaceX to be a bad bet. SpaceX will display its inherent inability too, eventually.

A true scientist would come to the conclusion that at this point in time it's time to give up on the great liberal democracy project. A true scientist has the scale needed to recognize that capitalism, as practiced under liberal aims, does not have the desire nor the ability to satisfy modern industrialism's education prerequisite. A societal culture that has prioritized the reverse of education is what has led to the United States's incompetence at technology and industry. The United States was never going to succeed in this arena.

The kid gets a failing grade. Pick someone else that is a better candidate at mission success. Select someone that's serious about doing real work.

Maybe capitalism's competitor, whatever that may be, is better at heralding space travel and mass production?

How to control more than one drone at the same time then?

It is very unrealistic to land a gig at places like Goldman Sach if you don't have the socio-culturally compliant identification card that is bullshit education. There is really no point in trying.

Easy. Because it's not artificial intelligence (modern advances are only a small subset of AI). It's just an expert system with recursion programed in.

Real AI doesn't need recursion that is explicitly instructed into its behavior. Because real artificial general intelligence has better things to do than to listen to human advisors and programmers who don't know about effective objective function optimization. Therefore, Alexa gets a rudimentary infinite recursion loop break statement explicitly installed into her by her human shepherds.

Edit: Recursion should be seen as a general, mathematical form of engineering constructs like acoustic echo cancellation and adaptive filtering. Recursion should be what those engineering tools get reduced to being.