Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Short Presentation on The Grammars

  • Yves Raphael Burri Demands Platonism

    Mar 18, 2020, 12:50 PM Philosophy is just verbal idealism (verbal sophistry) rather than supernatural Idealism (supernatural sophistry). Science is the application of the process of law to testimony about information itself: epistemology. If you can’t do science: descriptions of operations, then you’re telling fictions. Fictions may be all you can understand, because you lack the training to disambiguate actionability from imaginability, and imaginability from existential possibility. Between Yves, ITV, and closing with CurtD.

    —“But the attack on Platonism is just an infantile cope of autistic people who can’t understand the theory of forms. “If I can’t touch a perfect circle it does not exist” well what’s more real the imperfect circle you actually end up drawing using technology or the perfect circle you aspire to drawing. If anything, the perfect circle came before whatever you ended up doing. Existed while your creation exists and will exists after your creation suffered entropy death. Plato was right in the mental dimension. Aristotle was right in the physical dimension. But at the end both are changing illusions and all that exists is the unchanging infinite out of which both infinities evolved and will involve back to. … It’s even dumber to deny the mental realm than to deny the physicality realm. Materialists are no better than solipsist.— Yves Raphael Burri —“I’m glad you’re enjoying the talks. Platonism isn’t my field of expertise, but I find it hard to believe your “autistic coping” theory. I think the more likely explanation is that you’re just wrong.”—In Truth Victorious —“Well the debate on Mind vs. Matter has been going on since the dawn of philosophy. Now PrOpErTaRiAn’s supposedly have settled it in favor of Materialism? This angers me every time I hear it. People with autism have problems with abstract and conceptual thinking. Some people in this intellectual movement pride themselves to being autistic. Naturally its not a coincidence that they cannot understand the concept of a circle existing even though they cannot find one that they can measure. I am not wrong im just ahead of most people on these subjects and decided to force people out of their ignorance. … You want to save western civilisation and are still stuck in finding laws to guide and limit the actions of the Vaishyas, protect Shudras and overthrow the current order by reawakening the Kshatriyas which the “new world order where there is no law of the jungle” has suppressed into inaction. However the most important thing, the one thing that actually needs to be done first is to reestablish the perennial philosophy and a brahmin class that spreads it. Without this all our attempts are futile. Everybody will eventually come to understand that, I just have already done so.”— —“I dont think I have a problem with abstract and conceptual thinking, or the concept of an ideal circle that exists but can’t be measured. I think the question is, if those concepts aren’t externally corespondent, what predictive value do they have in the material world? … If you promise me that a circle exists that can’t be measured, what is the value of your promise? Your promise means nothing because it can’t be validated or invalidated, and has no corresponding external relevance, no?””—In Truth Victorious —“If I promise you that there exists an ideal, perfect circle, that you can reason with your minds eye although yet you cannot create with your body then over time you will get closer and closer to perfection. I show you the path and you constantly approximate yourself to perfection. >>> Upward evolution”—Yves Raphael Burri

    (He means if I promise you that having experienced a circle you can imagine a circle that’s true. It is not possible as far as I know to imagine an ‘ideal’ circle out of thin air without having experienced one.)

    —“Yes, that sounds like Plato. Why do you think.an autistic person can’t cope with that? Is it possible there is another explanation?”—In Truth Victorious

    Where does it exist? I know the function of the human brain as well as the top .1% of people in the field. So I know how the brain constructs the prediction of a circle, that you call an ‘idea’ or ‘ideal’ circle from memories of circles. I also know how why you think there exists an ideal, and how that sense is stored along with those memories. I also know what causes you to believe that an ideal exists and why the word ideal is attractive to you, and what causes you to confuse the existence of such a thing with the imagination of a thing. These are all purely bio-mechanical processes, occuring in well understood cells, faster and with less persistence than you can introspectively observe, just as you cannot introspectively observe how you make your arms move – and for exactly the same reasons.

    Existence = Persistence = Independent of human perception = independent of human existence.

    A circle consists of a mark = a repeating mark = a repeating mark as a category = a category we have given a name to. But that category consists of nothing more than a sample of observations that are not stored in your brain as images like photographs but an association of fragments stored as patterns of predictions of edges in sequence. We can test this by asking you to draw what you think you imagine. Learning to draw teaches you the scale of illusion of memory just as writing down your prediction of the next few days varies from what you actually do. Thoughts and ideas are constructed and reconstructed in real time by every rehearsal (repetition). The capacity of humans to identify shapes exists The capacity of humans to draw circles exists. The memory of circles exists. The contract for shared experience with others exists. The name of that shared experience we call circles with others exists. That’s all. We are often confused by basic geometric shapes and basic numbers because of their scale independence. We do not make the same mistake with other referencts because they fail at scale independence. The same is true for actionability or many other human traits. But these are just cognitive biases that we fail to test. BTW: When you use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to ‘analytic’ you don’t understand what it means. It means we have greater ability to distinguish between sensation, intuition, emotion, imagination, and observation just like we have greater ability to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE. That’s what a male brain does: compartmentalize. This is why men make better political decisions, make better group observations and women make better individual decision and individual observations. Analytic = break into component parts – which is where tool making comes from. We also know that the female brain cannot compartmentalize or deconflate – especially the difference between desirability and truth. I understand that humans vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive traits, but less so in male and female intuitionistic traits. Here is the reality: you want to desperately rely on intuition and imagination and not measurement and reason. the question is why do you so desperately wish to? The answer is in the structure of your brain, and the training of your brain. The biological revolution of Watson and Crick, the technological revolution of Babbage and Turing, Darwinian revolution and the19th century scientific revolution, the american constitution, smith, locke, hume’s british enlightenment, the english constitution, the magna carta, the traditional laws of the european peoples, the works of aristotle, democritus, and archimedes – were tediously analytic documents. There is no evidence that POLITICAL ORDER requires anything other than science, economics, and law. There is evidence that the female and adolescent mind needs literature, and the child mind needs mythos and fables. The fact that these demands reflect the lateral and longitudinal organization of the brain is rather obvious. The fact that we can train children into adolescents, adolescents into adults at increasing costs is what it is: a matter of cost in relation to stage of development, and limit of possible development (intelligence, conscientiousness).

  • Yves Raphael Burri Demands Platonism

    Mar 18, 2020, 12:50 PM Philosophy is just verbal idealism (verbal sophistry) rather than supernatural Idealism (supernatural sophistry). Science is the application of the process of law to testimony about information itself: epistemology. If you can’t do science: descriptions of operations, then you’re telling fictions. Fictions may be all you can understand, because you lack the training to disambiguate actionability from imaginability, and imaginability from existential possibility. Between Yves, ITV, and closing with CurtD.

    —“But the attack on Platonism is just an infantile cope of autistic people who can’t understand the theory of forms. “If I can’t touch a perfect circle it does not exist” well what’s more real the imperfect circle you actually end up drawing using technology or the perfect circle you aspire to drawing. If anything, the perfect circle came before whatever you ended up doing. Existed while your creation exists and will exists after your creation suffered entropy death. Plato was right in the mental dimension. Aristotle was right in the physical dimension. But at the end both are changing illusions and all that exists is the unchanging infinite out of which both infinities evolved and will involve back to. … It’s even dumber to deny the mental realm than to deny the physicality realm. Materialists are no better than solipsist.— Yves Raphael Burri —“I’m glad you’re enjoying the talks. Platonism isn’t my field of expertise, but I find it hard to believe your “autistic coping” theory. I think the more likely explanation is that you’re just wrong.”—In Truth Victorious —“Well the debate on Mind vs. Matter has been going on since the dawn of philosophy. Now PrOpErTaRiAn’s supposedly have settled it in favor of Materialism? This angers me every time I hear it. People with autism have problems with abstract and conceptual thinking. Some people in this intellectual movement pride themselves to being autistic. Naturally its not a coincidence that they cannot understand the concept of a circle existing even though they cannot find one that they can measure. I am not wrong im just ahead of most people on these subjects and decided to force people out of their ignorance. … You want to save western civilisation and are still stuck in finding laws to guide and limit the actions of the Vaishyas, protect Shudras and overthrow the current order by reawakening the Kshatriyas which the “new world order where there is no law of the jungle” has suppressed into inaction. However the most important thing, the one thing that actually needs to be done first is to reestablish the perennial philosophy and a brahmin class that spreads it. Without this all our attempts are futile. Everybody will eventually come to understand that, I just have already done so.”— —“I dont think I have a problem with abstract and conceptual thinking, or the concept of an ideal circle that exists but can’t be measured. I think the question is, if those concepts aren’t externally corespondent, what predictive value do they have in the material world? … If you promise me that a circle exists that can’t be measured, what is the value of your promise? Your promise means nothing because it can’t be validated or invalidated, and has no corresponding external relevance, no?””—In Truth Victorious —“If I promise you that there exists an ideal, perfect circle, that you can reason with your minds eye although yet you cannot create with your body then over time you will get closer and closer to perfection. I show you the path and you constantly approximate yourself to perfection. >>> Upward evolution”—Yves Raphael Burri

    (He means if I promise you that having experienced a circle you can imagine a circle that’s true. It is not possible as far as I know to imagine an ‘ideal’ circle out of thin air without having experienced one.)

    —“Yes, that sounds like Plato. Why do you think.an autistic person can’t cope with that? Is it possible there is another explanation?”—In Truth Victorious

    Where does it exist? I know the function of the human brain as well as the top .1% of people in the field. So I know how the brain constructs the prediction of a circle, that you call an ‘idea’ or ‘ideal’ circle from memories of circles. I also know how why you think there exists an ideal, and how that sense is stored along with those memories. I also know what causes you to believe that an ideal exists and why the word ideal is attractive to you, and what causes you to confuse the existence of such a thing with the imagination of a thing. These are all purely bio-mechanical processes, occuring in well understood cells, faster and with less persistence than you can introspectively observe, just as you cannot introspectively observe how you make your arms move – and for exactly the same reasons.

    Existence = Persistence = Independent of human perception = independent of human existence.

    A circle consists of a mark = a repeating mark = a repeating mark as a category = a category we have given a name to. But that category consists of nothing more than a sample of observations that are not stored in your brain as images like photographs but an association of fragments stored as patterns of predictions of edges in sequence. We can test this by asking you to draw what you think you imagine. Learning to draw teaches you the scale of illusion of memory just as writing down your prediction of the next few days varies from what you actually do. Thoughts and ideas are constructed and reconstructed in real time by every rehearsal (repetition). The capacity of humans to identify shapes exists The capacity of humans to draw circles exists. The memory of circles exists. The contract for shared experience with others exists. The name of that shared experience we call circles with others exists. That’s all. We are often confused by basic geometric shapes and basic numbers because of their scale independence. We do not make the same mistake with other referencts because they fail at scale independence. The same is true for actionability or many other human traits. But these are just cognitive biases that we fail to test. BTW: When you use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to ‘analytic’ you don’t understand what it means. It means we have greater ability to distinguish between sensation, intuition, emotion, imagination, and observation just like we have greater ability to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE. That’s what a male brain does: compartmentalize. This is why men make better political decisions, make better group observations and women make better individual decision and individual observations. Analytic = break into component parts – which is where tool making comes from. We also know that the female brain cannot compartmentalize or deconflate – especially the difference between desirability and truth. I understand that humans vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive traits, but less so in male and female intuitionistic traits. Here is the reality: you want to desperately rely on intuition and imagination and not measurement and reason. the question is why do you so desperately wish to? The answer is in the structure of your brain, and the training of your brain. The biological revolution of Watson and Crick, the technological revolution of Babbage and Turing, Darwinian revolution and the19th century scientific revolution, the american constitution, smith, locke, hume’s british enlightenment, the english constitution, the magna carta, the traditional laws of the european peoples, the works of aristotle, democritus, and archimedes – were tediously analytic documents. There is no evidence that POLITICAL ORDER requires anything other than science, economics, and law. There is evidence that the female and adolescent mind needs literature, and the child mind needs mythos and fables. The fact that these demands reflect the lateral and longitudinal organization of the brain is rather obvious. The fact that we can train children into adolescents, adolescents into adults at increasing costs is what it is: a matter of cost in relation to stage of development, and limit of possible development (intelligence, conscientiousness).

  • Questions on Falsification

    Questions on Falsification https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/questions-on-falsification/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 21:20:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266117249779326976

  • Questions on Falsification

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:29 PM

    —“Greetings, …. I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: … A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”—

    We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.

    —“What do you mean by underdetermination making no sense?’—

    Underdetermination means (critical rationalism) that all scientific statements are incomplete (open to increase in parsimony), and reorganization into the most parsimonious paradigm.

    —“The problem as I see it is that from what I’ve seen from posts by propertarians, the notion of falsification is heavily depended upon. Now I understand that notion as saying that we can be sure about what’s false even though we’re never sure about what’s true, is that accurate for the term as P uses it? And if it is, I’m not sure how the Quinean point has been answered. Given that the scientist can always either abandon his current theory /or/ change some other one of his theories, the best he can do is to make an “educated guess”. But not only with regards to what’s true (as you rightly point out), but also with regards to what’s false. … As an example: The addition of the deferent and epicycles are revisions or tweaks of the geocentric theory since(among other reasons) it preservers the centrality of the earth and so on(instead of taking retrograde movement as a falsification of the Ptolomeic model, the scientists chose to tweak their theory). They are revision of external rather than internal nodes: “well the planets do spin around the earth but they also have an epicycle and geometrically the earth is not really the center(deferent)”. Likewise when testing a theory that accounts for the movement of some particle, an incongruous result could cause the scientist to abandon his theory(or tweak it somewhat) or he could alter some of his other theories (say, his understanding of what that particle is in the first place).”—

    What does that have to do with anything? What are you asking? What you are doing is trying to get me to educate you by criticism under the pretense that there is any legitimacy at all to justificationism, rather than asking how the method functions by falsification, parsimony, and competition. Testimony requires due diligence against ignorance error bias wishful thinking, loading, framaing, suggestion, obscurantism, sophistry, the fictionalisms, and deceit. There are a limited number of testifiable dimensions against which we can perform due diligence. We enumerate those tests:

    Consistency under: realism, naturalism, identity, logical, operational, rational, reciprocal, empirical, within stated limits, fully accounted within those limits, reversible (restitutable), and within your ability to perform restitution, thereby satisfying the demand for infallibility, Because truth must satisfy the demand for infallibility. If it survives those tests then we have a truth candidate. If not then you may not make a truth claim, nor advocate for the imposition of costs upon others dependent upon the truth of that claim. This test absolves you from restitution punishment and prevention if you err. Theories consist of two components: the search criteria (explanation) and the set of operations (formula). If you state your explanation, state limits, and state formula you are speaking truthfully. The market in application will determine if it is in fact true. Most of the time, as we have seen, and still pursue, gravity is continuously improved (refined) but the direction since ancient times has been correct. Even dramatic failures like humours (phlogiston) was not entirely false, just too imprecise. So, we seek to eliminate error. Because that is all we can do. Because the only method of investigation (epistemology) is free association. That’s the lesson of the 20th century. And while it pains me to say so Wittgenstein was right: philosophy is finally correctly relegated to the analysis of speech. And I would take it further, that philosophy is of no value other than speech regarding the pursuit of preferences. Otherwise Transcendence Law (Evolution), Natural Law (cooperation) and Physical law (sciences: formal-logical, physical, and cognitive) have replaced philosophy. With law (testimony) usurping (or restoring) its role of arbiter of truth.

  • Questions on Falsification

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:29 PM

    —“Greetings, …. I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: … A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”—

    We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.

    —“What do you mean by underdetermination making no sense?’—

    Underdetermination means (critical rationalism) that all scientific statements are incomplete (open to increase in parsimony), and reorganization into the most parsimonious paradigm.

    —“The problem as I see it is that from what I’ve seen from posts by propertarians, the notion of falsification is heavily depended upon. Now I understand that notion as saying that we can be sure about what’s false even though we’re never sure about what’s true, is that accurate for the term as P uses it? And if it is, I’m not sure how the Quinean point has been answered. Given that the scientist can always either abandon his current theory /or/ change some other one of his theories, the best he can do is to make an “educated guess”. But not only with regards to what’s true (as you rightly point out), but also with regards to what’s false. … As an example: The addition of the deferent and epicycles are revisions or tweaks of the geocentric theory since(among other reasons) it preservers the centrality of the earth and so on(instead of taking retrograde movement as a falsification of the Ptolomeic model, the scientists chose to tweak their theory). They are revision of external rather than internal nodes: “well the planets do spin around the earth but they also have an epicycle and geometrically the earth is not really the center(deferent)”. Likewise when testing a theory that accounts for the movement of some particle, an incongruous result could cause the scientist to abandon his theory(or tweak it somewhat) or he could alter some of his other theories (say, his understanding of what that particle is in the first place).”—

    What does that have to do with anything? What are you asking? What you are doing is trying to get me to educate you by criticism under the pretense that there is any legitimacy at all to justificationism, rather than asking how the method functions by falsification, parsimony, and competition. Testimony requires due diligence against ignorance error bias wishful thinking, loading, framaing, suggestion, obscurantism, sophistry, the fictionalisms, and deceit. There are a limited number of testifiable dimensions against which we can perform due diligence. We enumerate those tests:

    Consistency under: realism, naturalism, identity, logical, operational, rational, reciprocal, empirical, within stated limits, fully accounted within those limits, reversible (restitutable), and within your ability to perform restitution, thereby satisfying the demand for infallibility, Because truth must satisfy the demand for infallibility. If it survives those tests then we have a truth candidate. If not then you may not make a truth claim, nor advocate for the imposition of costs upon others dependent upon the truth of that claim. This test absolves you from restitution punishment and prevention if you err. Theories consist of two components: the search criteria (explanation) and the set of operations (formula). If you state your explanation, state limits, and state formula you are speaking truthfully. The market in application will determine if it is in fact true. Most of the time, as we have seen, and still pursue, gravity is continuously improved (refined) but the direction since ancient times has been correct. Even dramatic failures like humours (phlogiston) was not entirely false, just too imprecise. So, we seek to eliminate error. Because that is all we can do. Because the only method of investigation (epistemology) is free association. That’s the lesson of the 20th century. And while it pains me to say so Wittgenstein was right: philosophy is finally correctly relegated to the analysis of speech. And I would take it further, that philosophy is of no value other than speech regarding the pursuit of preferences. Otherwise Transcendence Law (Evolution), Natural Law (cooperation) and Physical law (sciences: formal-logical, physical, and cognitive) have replaced philosophy. With law (testimony) usurping (or restoring) its role of arbiter of truth.

  • The Foundation of All Philosophy

    The Foundation of All Philosophy https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/the-foundation-of-all-philosophy/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 21:19:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266116984858533888

  • The Foundation of All Philosophy

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:36 PM You can appropriate language, philosophy, and theology for your purposes, in order to justify your priors. Sure. You can’t steal the LAWS to justify your priors. Sorry. That’s the whole point of laws. THERE ARE THREE QUESTIONS THAT DECIDE ALL PHILOSOPHY 1 – CHOICE: “Why should I not suicide?” 2 – ETHICS: “Why should I not kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – POLITICS: “Why should we not kill you and take your stuff?” The only answer is “If the proceeds from cooperation past present and future are more valuable than not. Otherwise predation, parasitism or avoidance are preferable to cooperation.” THERE ARE THREE LAWS THAT DECIDE ALL CONFLICTS UNDER THE ANSWER TO THAT PHILOSOPHY 1 – The Physical Laws of Nature 2 – The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity 3 – The Evolutionary Law of Transcendence. All questions are decidable by those three sets of laws. THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL PHILOSOPHY. Really. That’s all there is.

  • The Foundation of All Philosophy

    Mar 19, 2020, 3:36 PM You can appropriate language, philosophy, and theology for your purposes, in order to justify your priors. Sure. You can’t steal the LAWS to justify your priors. Sorry. That’s the whole point of laws. THERE ARE THREE QUESTIONS THAT DECIDE ALL PHILOSOPHY 1 – CHOICE: “Why should I not suicide?” 2 – ETHICS: “Why should I not kill you and take your stuff?” 3 – POLITICS: “Why should we not kill you and take your stuff?” The only answer is “If the proceeds from cooperation past present and future are more valuable than not. Otherwise predation, parasitism or avoidance are preferable to cooperation.” THERE ARE THREE LAWS THAT DECIDE ALL CONFLICTS UNDER THE ANSWER TO THAT PHILOSOPHY 1 – The Physical Laws of Nature 2 – The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity 3 – The Evolutionary Law of Transcendence. All questions are decidable by those three sets of laws. THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL PHILOSOPHY. Really. That’s all there is.

  • Moral *and* Epistemic

    Moral *and* Epistemic https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/moral-and-epistemic/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:52:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266110228090761218