(FB 1548878764 Timestamp) My Macbook Pro 17 is nine years old, and aside from 8GB instead of 16GB limitation, it still the best laptop you can buy. Seriously. It’s the best laptop ever made. I love this thing.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548880573 Timestamp) Only four reasons for Microsoft computers: (a) writing code on visual studio (I just puked a little in my mouth) (b) being the prisoner of an IT department that wrote code in visual studio. (gagging…. ) (c) extremely large complex spreadsheets on Excel. (Why apple doesn’t go after that market is beyond me.) (d) gaming (yes, ok, I”ll admit that you can’t really game on apple – but I wouldn’t use a laptop for gaming….) I don’t game. No time. I have you guys to play with instead. lol
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548875653 Timestamp) —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against. I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties. What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change. Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved. One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548878764 Timestamp) My Macbook Pro 17 is nine years old, and aside from 8GB instead of 16GB limitation, it still the best laptop you can buy. Seriously. It’s the best laptop ever made. I love this thing.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548873333 Timestamp) THE RESOLUTION IS IN REVOLUTION —“Life does suck for the attractive, smart, and knowledgeable when they don’t have sovereignty over their own societies because they are ruled by parasites and dragged into quicksand by the underclass…the only solution is obvious. The resolution is in revolution.”—Nick Dahlheim
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548875653 Timestamp) —“I learned years ago to think in terms of what would be beneficial rather that whats good or bad. Good and bad can be argued all day long but determining what is beneficial is quite simple and difficult to argue against. I believe that change in paradigm is aligned perfectly with reciprocity, as reciprocity(according to my understanding) is finding the most beneficial compromise between two or more parties. What people consider to be “moral” is subjective as it varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout time. I haven’t seen evidence to support the idea that there is such a thing as objective or absolute morality since it is subject to change. Perhaps the notion of defining morality or determining what is moral and amoral is a thing of the past and should be updated to include the most beneficial practices for all parties involved. One sided thinking in the extreme has led to most if not all the social issues that plague humanity, in my opinion of course – I’m sure there are plenty who would disagree(in their state of one sided thinking ;p)”—David McCarthy
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548948034 Timestamp) IQ AND WHY SMART PEOPLE AREN’T OFTEN RICH (from elsewhere)(archive) (or “wealth is a middle class occupation”) I think Molyneux did a pretty good job. Here is what I said in response to Taleb: —(a) g measures what we attempt to measure (b) chance of success corresponds to a distribution of traits, (c) plus the utility of those traits, in service of the population under the bell curve within 1 SD.— Which is the only answer that matters, and is something we have known for decades – it’s covered in the Millionaire Mind books and related research. But to an economists it’s fairly obvious. Smart folk don’t amass money that often because we already HAVE an asset. Smart people don’t need anything else to compete. They don’t need anything else to signal with. (I mean, ask andy how easy it is to intimidate, humiliate, or shut down the average person (idiot)) In fact, if you are very intelligent the skill we must learn is now NOT to make people feel stupid, humiliated, or shut down. So a little more color on the subject: People most likely to gain wealth are in the middle and upper middle classes. People least likely to gain wealth are in the lower classes. Our ‘aristocracy’ today tends to consist of relatively invisible academic financial and political families, rather than wealth for this reason. We live in a middle class VISIBLE world but with an INVISIBLE aristocracy. Why? Because you need to (a) be interested in (and not bored by) something (b) there are some number of people interested in, and (c) most people that you can serve are in the middle 2/3 of the curve. So knowing those OPERATIONAL RULES we would expect shortage at the bottom, a steep climb to 2/3, and shortage at the top. Which is what Taleb’s chart shows us. I mean, smart people have MANY, MANY Possible ways of being ‘successful’ (subjectively). For example: I can tell fairly easily that Andy Curzon and Noam Chomsky, or that category of people who can read anything and speak nine or ten languages – all have higher IQ’s than I do. And I can enumerate what each can do that is superior. My particular thing is that I don’t make mistakes, at the cost of limited lateral associations. I remember pretty much everything at the cost of short term memory. And I have trouble with more than one project at a time. But I will absolutely figure out any problem period, … given time to figure it out on my terms. These are not positive academic traits (rate of learning unrelated things, making one an exceptional manager, executive in every field), they are very positive lifetime traits (getting comparative advantage ‘right’ in high risk propositions.) So, for example, as Higgs (Higgs boson) said “I would never get hired by a university today because I work slowly”. And we are creating a large number of ‘sufficiently successful’ college graduates that find safety in jobs that are extra market (which is why you used to go to college – to find income outside of market forces – particularly government, law, medicine, and teaching). So Taleb’s observation is statistically truth and operationally false. Which is pretty much what I try to teach people: any claim that cannot be stated in operational language, is an act of fraud. So for example, no matter what I did,assuming we both invested in it, Andy would defeat me at chess (permutations of states), and Chomsky can give a long running detailed explanation of phenomenon without hesitation in search of words or phrasing (depth (or durability of short term memory) of ‘narrator, observer, searcher’ abilities – which is something that fascinates me). Because while I can undrestand it and imagine doing it I can’t do it – at least for any length of time – long enough time to complete with people like Andy, Chomsky, and say Stephen Fry is someone who comes to mind because of his lateral thinking ability. But here is the thing. Smart people (and I know very many of them) EXIT THE MARKET and live ‘normie lives’ because everything they can possibly want is obtainable under ‘normie’ conditions, an they can devote their spare time to their interests.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548873295 Timestamp) NO. YOU HAVE FAITH IN A FRAUD. NOT REASON. —“….libertarians believe….”— Libertarian Party 0) Everything you subsidize will increase in consumption thereby increasing the overall proportion of productivity used to consume it. The only question is whether like engines of the animal, mechanical or digital categories, they produce higher returns for doing so – or not. 1) Libertarianism persists fallen angel version of man vs the risen beast, slowly domesticated by the violent imposition of demand for reciprocity under that law we call tort. Findings of Law, Legislation, and Regulation do in fact limit scams and frauds. … and …. 2) … so the problem is not law, and regulation, but the inability of the consumer to judge the product delivered to him, and the use of redistribution to compensate those who engage in fraud that takes advantage of that ignorance. 3) This is an example of a common (infantlie) libertarian trope:that the consumer can possess sufficient information to avoid irreciprocity, and that the insurer of last resort should not force due diligence in the service of the market by those who might abuse asymmetry of info. 4) Jewish law, which is the source of left libertarianism, only enforces the demand for volition,and not warranty. European law, which is the source of liberalism, enforces reciprocity and warranty. There is a reason for the historical incompatibility, of the two ethical systems. 5) We are faced today with not only the difference between Anglo classical liberal and reciprocal, germanic reciprocal proportional, french authoritarian socialist proportional, jewish voluntary unwarrantied, but now Islamic Authoritarian irreciprocal law of conquest. 6) Libertarians are wrong. Whether they are wrong because they are infantile, or wrong because they have parasitic preferences is immaterial. There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, the law of tort and jury, violence and defense. 7) Sovereignty exists in fact. Liberty by the permission of the sovereign. Freedom by the utility of the sovereign. And sovereignty has but one source, and that is the organized application of violence to deny all other alternatives. 8) Welcome to the revolution. Those who fight will have sovereignty not liberty or freedom. Those who do not fight will have none.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548873333 Timestamp) THE RESOLUTION IS IN REVOLUTION —“Life does suck for the attractive, smart, and knowledgeable when they don’t have sovereignty over their own societies because they are ruled by parasites and dragged into quicksand by the underclass…the only solution is obvious. The resolution is in revolution.”—Nick Dahlheim
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1548905811 Timestamp) by John Mark The only thing I’d clarify about this is that there are a couple areas where the Left has been operating in reality better than the Right. So:
- Copy the Left’s tactic of gossip rally ridicule shame? No. Maybe to help win an election as a short-term play to buy us time, but not as a long-term solution. (The solution is outlaw pollution of the informational commons with lies.)
Copy the Left’s understanding that identity politics wins, and that racial identity is a more powerful petsuasive force for most people (especially nonwhites) than any political ideology or set of ideas? Yes. The Right has tried to be race-blind with disastrous consequences. The Left’s reality-based success with this (colonize us with nonwhites & play identity politics with them) fools many right-wingers, because the Left lies about race, but their actions & strategy are more in line with reality in this area than the Right’s have been. We must learn from them in this area. (Race matters in political persuasion for nonwhites, more than anything else. We must deal with this reality.)
The Left understands that it is all about holding the reins of power, not about “principle” or teaching people. Whoever makes the rules, rules. Whoever makes the rules, gets what they want. They go straight for the jugular: power. Without regard for anything else. Meanwhile, the Right has been trying to “be principled” and teach people (to explain/educate our way to victory). This is a mistake – truth matters not unless truth-enforcers have power and make the rules. Principles mean nothing without the power to enforce them. The Right must learn from the Left in this area.
The Left knows how to be intolerant, to punish its enemies swiftly and harshly. Certain parts of the Right have tried to embrace tolerance (libertarians, classical liberals), with the predictable result that classical liberals and libertarians have zero power. The Right must learn from the Left in this area.
What confuses the Right is that everything that comes out of the Left’s mouth is a lie. Their communication is all gossip rally ridicule shame (feminine). And we rightly say, “That is not us.” But then we look around and say, “Why do they have all the institutional power?” Well, because their actions (strategy/tactics) have been more in line with reality than the Right’s.
So yes, the alt-right’s “let’s do ridicule better than the Left” is not our long-term answer. But we must recognize the areas where the Left has operated in reality better than we have, and course correct. Without losing our essence (truth).