Again, you see the world as positiva (command) and I do as negative (law). I don’t want the job. I don’t want to be the victim of people doing that job. In general, they aren’t smart enough to do it. And it’s exasperating as it is…lol
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-28 02:36:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630396494858657792
Reply addressees: @Imperius__13
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1630396078578122754
What the people do to looters in Ukraine until the police arrive.
(Note how the psychotic right wing tries to claim this is inhumane or political suppression.)
Personally, I think this is perfectly Ukrainian and I wish it was still perfectly American. 😉
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629598554342715394
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-26 20:13:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629937665620541441
(correct)
The most influential vulnerabilities in the constitution”
1) free speech rather than free testifiable and reciprocal speech.
2) weakening of defamation under free speech.
3) protection of political actors from civil liability
4) disintermediation of the people from the courts in defense of commons (standing in the commons)
5) failure to define natural law, commonality, concurrency, transactional law, and words as measurements of time and place.
6) lack of court assent on legislation.
7) Inability of the court to return legislation to the legislature or propose commonality to the legislature.
8) Separation of church and state without specifying Christian religion, christian religion consistent with natural law, and maintaining the Church as the role of Insurer.
-Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-26 05:26:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629714577020551168
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1629707614505295872
Thank you. Yes, this is a catastrophic problem. First, they disintermediated the people from use of the court for suits against impositions of costs on the commons (why we have environmental issues) then they disintermediated the people from using the court for suits against an increasing scope of functionaries –
made far worse by first managerial government, and second, by the replacement of meritocratic staff, with credentialed staff in the postwar period. And so, this ‘hole’ in the law is along with a half dozen others, one of the weakest properties of our law.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-24 03:25:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628959307256455181
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628956128410325012
GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO RIGHTS.
Let me help you:
– A right consists, and can only consist of, and can only be created by, a group of insurers, who will insure a right. A right to demand an insurer defend one’s interest against those who impose upon them (deprive, harm, impeded).
– To create this insurance, people form polities, and eventually governments and militaries to insure those rights.
– So There is only one universal cause of rights: reciprocal insurance of self-determination by self-determined means: individual sovereignty over display, word, deed, and the proceeds obtained by them, withougt violating the sovereignty of others by the same criteria.
– All other rights are mere application of the right to self-determination by self-determined means.
– Only people can have rights. And people can organize into polities, states, alliances, and federations to secure rights for their people.
– Governments cannot have rights.
– Governments have capabilities – not rights.
– Governments can create, deny, or destroy rights.
– Western civilization is organized to construct rights.
– Western governments are organized to construct rights.
– Westerners may disagree on what constitutes a right, and seek to (falsely) claim rights extend to wants, privileges, and wishful thinking. But we do not disagree that we should construct rights.
– When rights are constructed by people, governments, militaries, states, and federations, then empires are effectively prohibited. Because empires depend on depriving people of rights – particularly the right to self-determination by self-determined means.
– The small, homogeneous, nation-state is the only political system under which rights are possible without depriving some other group of their want of the right of self-determination by self-determined means.
– As such, under our right of self-determination by self-determined means, and the human rights necessary to preserve it, we are limited to producing safety in numbers,
by alliances of nation-states in federations – and we are prohibited from empires.
– This is the cause of remaining world conflict: China, Russia, and Iran – and anyone wishing to increase borders, are the remaining empires. Those empires have ‘castes’ (elites) that profit by predation (corruption) on their people.
– And Russia, China, Iran (and those few remaining despotic regimes that prey on their people) wish to conquer and deprive other people of self-determination by self-determined means.
– Insuring rights to self-determination by self-determined means, provides the opportunity and incentive for cooperation, provides rule of law to facilitate and defend cooperation, and suppress corruption (as much as possible at least).
– And the evidence across the world is that every group of people is seeking that sovereignty necessary to produce self-determination by self-determined means and the rights necessary under it.
– So just as farming spread around the world, creating states and empires, industry is spreading around the world creating nation-states and federations.
– Would the people of China, Russia, and Iran prefer self-determination by human rights? Of course. They say so.
– Also would the people of the world prefer to defend against the abuse of rights we call ‘liberalism’ that defend decadence, which is an imposition upon the rights to self-determination by self-determined means, that require the production of the first organization upon which all others depend in order to produce an intergenerational polity: the family? Yes.
– The west does not live under rights, sufficient to preserve the family, and as a consequence, society, economy, and polity necessary to preserve those rights – because the west has licensed baiting into the hazard of decadence, as a harm to the institution of the family, and as a consequence, the society, economy, and polity.
– As such, we must clarify the law, to prevent ‘harms’ of ‘liberalism’ (selfishness) harming the polity. (We did.)
-FIN-
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-23 17:40:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628812102960922624
I work within the law. Not just our law, but the common law, and the common law history of how these disputes are settled in our ancient tradition.
AFAIK we must offer (Parley) a settlement (Terms) as did our forefathers, the founders, and our English forefathers before them.
Those terms must be ‘fair’ – meaning reciprocal.
And posting those terms lets us advertise them to the public, letting them understand the choice as well. (It is very difficult to argue with our terms because they benefit everyone.)
If they refuse the terms, refuse to negotiate, or offer immoral terms, then they can only desire to conquer and rule our people.
Upon refusal, we are left only with civil war – and have obtained a moral license for that war.
Since everyone knows this, it causes a desire to settle. Our objective (mine) is to bring about a peaceful settlement rather than war.
You might prefer winner takes all, but I would choose it only as a last resort.
Why? It’s not useful to keep them.
It’s not useful to govern people who hate you any more so that to be governed by people who hate you.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 22:48:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628527069998055425
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628524964574896129
Under the law, one must serve notice of cease and desist before one can prosecute for intentional harms. Because once informed, if one does not desist, then one confirms intent. And because this is matter of the commons, while a tort, and does not require intent, the law contains…
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 22:35:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628523946499866626
Reply addressees: @TheAutistocrat
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628500688031318017
Under the law, one must serve notice of cease and desist before one can prosecute for intentional harms. Because once informed, if one does not desist, then one confirms intent. And because this is matter of the commons, while a tort, and does not require intent, the law contains no obvious prohibition – therefore no restitution or punishment if behavior ceases.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 22:35:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628523946373947395
Scott Adams discusses “Letters of Marque” and to use them against the cartels. Everything taken can be brought home tax-free. He suggests he could see Trump doing it.
(Something we’ve added to the constitution empowering individuals to act on behalf of the people.)
Now, same thing for the border, and it will be closed.
But Scott’s argument is that it’s a statement about the failure of our government.
( Me: Joy 😉 It’s called “Going VIKING!!!!” )
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 16:03:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628425293546356748
For example, you’re emphasis is in restoring the realtion between formal (written) and spoken language.
My emphasis is on writing laws programmatically so that ti’s closed to interpretation (abuse, conflation, inflation, deceit) To do so requires an ordinal ‘math’ (logic) consisting of sets of measurements instead of more general and flexible terms.
Ie: the current supreme court is, thanks to departed Judge Scalia, trying to restore the law to its transactional (accounting) origins. I’m completing that program. That way there is no means of bypassing the people by the legislature or the courts.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-22 02:48:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1628225234338828290
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626615439638798337
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Dear Lord, Professor, Saint @elonmusk ;), (All)
Yes, we can build a TruthGPT.
Yes, I know how. I’m a nerd. 😉
You have no reason to believe me.
People who follow my work do.
I had to solve the Truth problem for an AI that could test law, constitution, legislation, regulation, and speech for truthfulness.
I have too much on my plate reforming law for the same reason (Truth, Possibility, Legality, Legitimacy), to start another company to produce on an AI – though it’s something I’ve worked on and planned for years.
TSLA could easily produce a TruthAI, and Twitter could use and AI produced by TSLA. The world would benefit from a TruthAI more than any technology… well…, other than a safe battery with N-times the energy density of gasoline. 😉
For anyone interested:
1. The embodiment that TSLA uses for cars and robots is necessary for world modeling, and world modeling is necessary for categorization (identification) from context.
2. Route Finding in vehicles and robots is necessary for Recursive Wayfinding (thinking and problem-solving.)
3. Novelty Detection and World Modeling combined with Way Finding are necessary for episodic memory. Memories favor novelties.
4. Object, Space, and Background classification, combined with episodes (contexts) are necessary for sufficient disambiguation to determine ‘ownership’ and predictions.
5. If you study linguistics you quickly realize that universal morality is embedded in all our languages (particularly English because it’s a high-precision low-context language) in the form of permission to act on a person, object, space, class, etc.
6 So, moral AI that respects life and demonstrated interest (property) and even negotiates over control and transfer of interest is pretty simple.
7. The next higher-order problem then is one of speech (truth). While justificationary truth is impossible (yes really) survival of falsification is possible (yes really).
8. There is one simple logic to the universe at all scales that provides us with the opportunity for a constructive falsificationary logic. (That was the hard part)
9. The hard bit for the next generation to swallow, is that there is a relatively simple set of criteria for *universal falsification of statements* and a *universally commensurable paradigm, grammar, vocabulary, logic, and syntax* – Yes really.
When written or spoken language using this ‘grammar’ looks and sounds like a bit tedious form of ordinary language. And this tedious form can be reduced to ordinary language on output.
In other words, we can and have produced a non-cardinal, ordinal, qualitative, geometry of language that can test the possibility of any speech or text’s testifiability (truth). And we can and have produced a rule set (checklist) for Truthful(testifiable), ethical(direct), and moral(indirect) questions.
THE PLAYERS TODAY AND WHY TSLA MATTERS
TSLA vs Google vs OpenAI use three different models. OpenAi is the simplest, Google’s a bit more challenging, and TSLA’s the most difficult.
Now, we require TSLA’s world model to create an AI that can continuously recursively and in real-time produce truth tests.
And we need eventually neuromorphic hardware (many tiny simple processors with a bit of local memory) to circumvent the backpropagation cost problem (and the alternatives, and evolve closer to real-time learning. (FWIW recent innovations in solving the cost problem has been exciting and is gaining popularity – thanks to one of the fathers of the field.)
The combination of local truth testing of tangible questions and escalation to distant central truth testing for increasingly abstract questions is the holy grail of imitating the human mind and its use of collective minds as a market for knowledge and decisions.
(BTW: Thanks #TwitterDev for long-form tweets. It’s finally possible to inform with Twitter instead of just virtue signal and generate conflict by promoting viscous cycles of moral outrage for dopamine junkies. 😉 )
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1626615439638798337