Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Jedi is out on torrents. The video quality is fine. The movie is unwatchable. Em

    Jedi is out on torrents. The video quality is fine. The movie is unwatchable. Embarassing. Its pure Bollywood meets Hong Kong with american production designers and budgets. It makes my skin crawl.

  • Cc Eric Danelaw

    Cc Eric Danelaw

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-18 11:55:00 UTC

  • Yep. About three weeks left. lol For something totally innocuous

    Yep. About three weeks left. lol For something totally innocuous.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-17 22:59:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942529778866905088

    Reply addressees: @eruditenights

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942523275871006720

    IN REPLY TO:

    @eruditenights

    @curtdoolittle you got fb banned again?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942523275871006720

  • Curt Doolittle, Analytic Philosopher of Political Economy, Ethics, Epistemology,

    Curt Doolittle, Analytic Philosopher of Political Economy, Ethics, Epistemology, Truth. (quora objection?) THE CORRECT ANSWER While descending from two widely separated waves “generations” that moved out of Africa, Whites have succeeded in significant juvenilization (Neoteny). Asians have succeeded in far greater juvenilization(Neoteny). Asian women are the most juvenilized women on earth. To the point at which they have even gained extended lifespans by delaying the depth of and onset of sexual maturity (compare to central asians, arabs, and sub saharan africans that have NOT engaged in juvenilization.) Secondly, for reasons I am not sure I am confident in addressing, Asians distribute their fat more evenly. And thirdly, Asian IQ is slanted to our educated classes (I suspect it is a narrower distribution because of the juvenilization – and the asian predilection for killing off malcontents in large numbers). So between a ‘more immature look’, more petite look, better weight distribution, and higher average intelligence, the pool of asian women is objectively better than the pool of available white women. Conversely asian women pay a price for mongoloid facial features, and in places like eastern europe where women maintain their weight and walk a great deal, and dress well, asian women lose their advantage. That’s just how it is. (I spend an absurd amount of time on mating patterns.) That said, it’s largely asian women and white men that account for the increase in American race mixing, since the other numbers are remaining relatively stable. (relatively). This is yet another example of the fact that all human behavior can be reduced to some statement analogous to economics. Asian women are a better ‘buy’ than white women for average males. White males are often a much better buy than equivalent asian males who have their own decreased market value. Largely because asians seem to require high context culture (which I won’t go into) and whites thrive in low context cultures. (as is evident in our languages). So asian men in asia and here are at a disadvantage. cheers

  • Curt Doolittle, Analytic Philosopher of Political Economy, Ethics, Epistemology,

    Curt Doolittle, Analytic Philosopher of Political Economy, Ethics, Epistemology, Truth. (quora objection?) THE CORRECT ANSWER While descending from two widely separated waves “generations” that moved out of Africa, Whites have succeeded in significant juvenilization (Neoteny). Asians have succeeded in far greater juvenilization(Neoteny). Asian women are the most juvenilized women on earth. To the point at which they have even gained extended lifespans by delaying the depth of and onset of sexual maturity (compare to central asians, arabs, and sub saharan africans that have NOT engaged in juvenilization.) Secondly, for reasons I am not sure I am confident in addressing, Asians distribute their fat more evenly. And thirdly, Asian IQ is slanted to our educated classes (I suspect it is a narrower distribution because of the juvenilization – and the asian predilection for killing off malcontents in large numbers). So between a ‘more immature look’, more petite look, better weight distribution, and higher average intelligence, the pool of asian women is objectively better than the pool of available white women. Conversely asian women pay a price for mongoloid facial features, and in places like eastern europe where women maintain their weight and walk a great deal, and dress well, asian women lose their advantage. That’s just how it is. (I spend an absurd amount of time on mating patterns.) That said, it’s largely asian women and white men that account for the increase in American race mixing, since the other numbers are remaining relatively stable. (relatively). This is yet another example of the fact that all human behavior can be reduced to some statement analogous to economics. Asian women are a better ‘buy’ than white women for average males. White males are often a much better buy than equivalent asian males who have their own decreased market value. Largely because asians seem to require high context culture (which I won’t go into) and whites thrive in low context cultures. (as is evident in our languages). So asian men in asia and here are at a disadvantage. cheers

  • Curt Doolittle, Analytic Philosopher of Political Economy, Ethics, Epistemology,

    Curt Doolittle, Analytic Philosopher of Political Economy, Ethics, Epistemology, Truth.

    (quora objection?)

    THE CORRECT ANSWER

    While descending from two widely separated waves “generations” that moved out of Africa, Whites have succeeded in significant juvenilization (Neoteny). Asians have succeeded in far greater juvenilization(Neoteny). Asian women are the most juvenilized women on earth. To the point at which they have even gained extended lifespans by delaying the depth of and onset of sexual maturity (compare to central asians, arabs, and sub saharan africans that have NOT engaged in juvenilization.) Secondly, for reasons I am not sure I am confident in addressing, Asians distribute their fat more evenly. And thirdly, Asian IQ is slanted to our educated classes (I suspect it is a narrower distribution because of the juvenilization – and the asian predilection for killing off malcontents in large numbers). So between a ‘more immature look’, more petite look, better weight distribution, and higher average intelligence, the pool of asian women is objectively better than the pool of available white women. Conversely asian women pay a price for mongoloid facial features, and in places like eastern europe where women maintain their weight and walk a great deal, and dress well, asian women lose their advantage.

    That’s just how it is. (I spend an absurd amount of time on mating patterns.)

    That said, it’s largely asian women and white men that account for the increase in American race mixing, since the other numbers are remaining relatively stable. (relatively).

    This is yet another example of the fact that all human behavior can be reduced to some statement analogous to economics.

    Asian women are a better ‘buy’ than white women for average males. White males are often a much better buy than equivalent asian males who have their own decreased market value. Largely because asians seem to require high context culture (which I won’t go into) and whites thrive in low context cultures. (as is evident in our languages). So asian men in asia and here are at a disadvantage.

    cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-17 00:54:00 UTC

  • Repeating Myself (Bitcoin), Trolls And Stupid People

    I’m not doing well with trolls lately. Last week some idiot on discord trolled the hell out of me, and succeeded in making me furious. Tonight some idiot tried to debate me about bitcoin. I ended up having to cut him off. So, really, I’m going to just do my thing, and cut the trolls out immediately. I’ve finally surrendered as have most public intellectuals. It’s just not worth debating amateurs. I’m going to let my work speak for itself. WHY IS THAT? Well, you know, I build a foundation for my arguments, and it takes me quite a while to establish that foundation. And I am very precise with terms. And that is just not useful for colloquial conversations. BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. My problems are with BTC are: (a) BTC is a novel invention that combines the properties of token money and shares in a speculative startup, to create fractional shares backed only by demand for such shares, and the existence of that network. This mens that yes, it can serve as a medium of exchange, but that it is a ‘money substitute’ that is highly dependent upon an institution that poses a threat to the world order. This is a purely technical observation that is of interest only to people who want to understand where BTC fits in the spectrum of financial instruments. (b) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute persisting outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The long arm of the USG is very powerful worldwide. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (c) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (d) There is an exit problem because of these issues. It is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. e) IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also. Now, precisely what have I said above that either 1) is false, or 2) says that BTC will fail? Nothing. SO: 1) If BTC crashes something will replace it. 2) If BTC survives it will be well funded enough to reform (refactor). 3) If something supersedes BTC before it can reform, then they best way to make that superior technology beneficial is to trade BTC fractional shares for fractional shares of that digital substitute. (as far as I know that tech exists, and is just not far enough along yet.) 4) If somethig gets too far out of hand such that black market activity and money laundering are too effective for the state to police, AND BTC crashes, AND there are prosecutions, then it will take a few decades to recover from that – not technically. But politically. And we need this technology. So please don’t come to the table to argue with me without knowing what I am arguing. THE WORLD IS TOO STUPID FOR ME TODAY. Sigh.

  • Repeating Myself (Bitcoin), Trolls And Stupid People

    I’m not doing well with trolls lately. Last week some idiot on discord trolled the hell out of me, and succeeded in making me furious. Tonight some idiot tried to debate me about bitcoin. I ended up having to cut him off. So, really, I’m going to just do my thing, and cut the trolls out immediately. I’ve finally surrendered as have most public intellectuals. It’s just not worth debating amateurs. I’m going to let my work speak for itself. WHY IS THAT? Well, you know, I build a foundation for my arguments, and it takes me quite a while to establish that foundation. And I am very precise with terms. And that is just not useful for colloquial conversations. BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. My problems are with BTC are: (a) BTC is a novel invention that combines the properties of token money and shares in a speculative startup, to create fractional shares backed only by demand for such shares, and the existence of that network. This mens that yes, it can serve as a medium of exchange, but that it is a ‘money substitute’ that is highly dependent upon an institution that poses a threat to the world order. This is a purely technical observation that is of interest only to people who want to understand where BTC fits in the spectrum of financial instruments. (b) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute persisting outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The long arm of the USG is very powerful worldwide. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (c) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (d) There is an exit problem because of these issues. It is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. e) IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also. Now, precisely what have I said above that either 1) is false, or 2) says that BTC will fail? Nothing. SO: 1) If BTC crashes something will replace it. 2) If BTC survives it will be well funded enough to reform (refactor). 3) If something supersedes BTC before it can reform, then they best way to make that superior technology beneficial is to trade BTC fractional shares for fractional shares of that digital substitute. (as far as I know that tech exists, and is just not far enough along yet.) 4) If somethig gets too far out of hand such that black market activity and money laundering are too effective for the state to police, AND BTC crashes, AND there are prosecutions, then it will take a few decades to recover from that – not technically. But politically. And we need this technology. So please don’t come to the table to argue with me without knowing what I am arguing. THE WORLD IS TOO STUPID FOR ME TODAY. Sigh.

  • REPEATING MYSELF (BITCOIN), TROLLS AND STUPID PEOPLE I’m not doing well with tro

    REPEATING MYSELF (BITCOIN), TROLLS AND STUPID PEOPLE

    I’m not doing well with trolls lately.

    Last week some idiot on discord trolled the hell out of me, and succeeded in making me furious. Tonight some idiot tried to debate me about bitcoin. I ended up having to cut him off.

    So, really, I’m going to just do my thing, and cut the trolls out immediately. I’ve finally surrendered as have most public intellectuals. It’s just not worth debating amateurs.

    I’m going to let my work speak for itself.

    WHY IS THAT?

    Well, you know, I build a foundation for my arguments, and it takes me quite a while to establish that foundation. And I am very precise with terms. And that is just not useful for colloquial conversations.

    BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION

    My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution.

    My problems are with BTC are:

    (a) BTC is a novel invention that combines the properties of token money and shares in a speculative startup, to create fractional shares backed only by demand for such shares, and the existence of that network. This mens that yes, it can serve as a medium of exchange, but that it is a ‘money substitute’ that is highly dependent upon an institution that poses a threat to the world order. This is a purely technical observation that is of interest only to people who want to understand where BTC fits in the spectrum of financial instruments.

    (b) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute persisting outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The long arm of the USG is very powerful worldwide.

    The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks.

    (c) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model.

    (d) There is an exit problem because of these issues. It is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish.

    e) IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.

    Now, precisely what have I said above that either 1) is false, or 2) says that BTC will fail? Nothing.

    SO:

    1) If BTC crashes something will replace it.

    2) If BTC survives it will be well funded enough to reform (refactor).

    3) If something supersedes BTC before it can reform, then they best way to make that superior technology beneficial is to trade BTC fractional shares for fractional shares of that digital substitute. (as far as I know that tech exists, and is just not far enough along yet.)

    4) If somethig gets too far out of hand such that black market activity and money laundering are too effective for the state to police, AND BTC crashes, AND there are prosecutions, then it will take a few decades to recover from that – not technically. But politically. And we need this technology.

    So please don’t come to the table to argue with me without knowing what I am arguing.

    THE WORLD IS TOO STUPID FOR ME TODAY.

    Sigh.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-16 23:14:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle’s answer: China is a very poor country. But it has more populatio

    Curt Doolittle’s answer: China is a very poor country. But it has more population than the Western world, more population than the African world, about the same or more than the Indian world, less population than the Muslim world, and perhaps most importantly, greater racial and cultural homogene…