Source: Twitter X

  • (NLI Humor) Curt: “See this video about faster than light communication…” Mart

    (NLI Humor)

    Curt: “See this video about faster than light communication…”

    Martin: “I can’t even get behind that at this point because I know it would immediately turn into faster than light virtue-signalling.”

    Ouch 😉

    (cc
    @AutistocratMS
    )


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 23:17:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035496146614005938

  • lol

    lol…


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 23:01:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035491965681463692

  • (RUNCIBLE) COMPARISON OF AI’S – MORNING TEST RUN 1. OpenAI (deep, insightful, be

    (RUNCIBLE)
    COMPARISON OF AI’S – MORNING TEST RUN
    1. OpenAI (deep, insightful, best understanding)
    2. Grok (deep, current, but a touch glossing)
    3. Gemini (shallow)
    4. Anthropic (far behind)

    What we do is very hard for LLMs. It exposes their abilities partly because we’re between novel and revolutoinary so they can’t regurgitate existing patterns.. So it has to reason quite a bit more deeply.

    We are at the stage of development where we’ve provent the Runcible governance for LLMs works, and we can just add additional protocols (tests, gates, outputs) to expand the breadth.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 14:03:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035356742435889232

  • Sabine Hossenfelder Fixes Physics 😉 (A woman in science that really, really, ma

    Sabine Hossenfelder Fixes Physics 😉
    (A woman in science that really, really, matters.)

    The first physicist to explain what’s wrong with physics, our understanding of it, and why, and largely what to do about it.
    Please have a watch, It’s worth it. Simple, clear, and direct as she always is.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=B7Pc0LQHu38…

    I my own work I came to the same conclusion but I can’t warranty it as other than a logical analysis of how humans engage in ignorance error bias and deceit – even for the best of reasons. Since I spend so much time cataloging human error I tend to see it whenever its present.
    In physics that error is what we call ‘mathiness’ in economics, idealism in philosophy, and the confusion that Einstein was describing light and perception not physical bodies independent of them in our general interpretation.
    Now if we can just get to the point where space is a medium, and that there is at least one or two layers beyond the quantum background (that medium) and figure out how to conduct experiments with it, then we might get somewhere. 😉

    Thanks to Sabine for her work.
    The value of the german mind at work. 😉

    cc:
    @skdh


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 13:29:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035347953444102197

  • Good Idea. i’ll try to fit it in. (Which given my workload is a lofty ambition.)

    Good Idea. i’ll try to fit it in. (Which given my workload is a lofty ambition.) But I suppose it’s for the greater good. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 13:27:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035347472957251874

  • “Open the pod bay doors, HAL”

    “Open the pod bay doos, HAL”


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 04:41:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035215278024663502

  • DAVID’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF AI-AGE ECONOMICS @DaveShapi David. Sorry man. Love y

    DAVID’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF AI-AGE ECONOMICS

    @DaveShapi

    David. Sorry man. Love you, but you’ve malinvested in an unlikely determinism because you cannot imagine, despite historical evidence, what could be done if in fact much white collar labor is replaceable. But you have overcommitted at this point and won’t correct because of that malivestment and overcommitment: you’re a normal human.
    We will, like the Athenians and Egyptians reallocate labor from text to action and improve our commons. Eventually we will find new opportunities that favor a different set of status signals and their pursuit by a different category of production.

    RE:


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-21 02:09:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035176917788500299

  • I don’t do hate. I do frustration. I do exasperation. I do pragmatism. I do pain

    I don’t do hate. I do frustration. I do exasperation. I do pragmatism. I do painful realism. But I don’t do hate. Like fear, hate is a mind-killer, and it rots you from the inside out. Instead, identification > recognition > choice > determination > planning > struggling > making it happen. In many ways, indulging your emotions is a means of doing nothing and congratulating yourself for it.


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-20 18:42:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035064459983823125

  • CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

    CONGRATULATIONS!!!!


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-20 16:58:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2035038241901224342

  • Contrast Anglo-American Liberalism with German Thought I would not contrast Angl

    Contrast Anglo-American Liberalism with German Thought

    I would not contrast Anglo-American liberalism with “German thought” as though each were a single block. The better contrast is between two different civilizational solutions to scale.
    The Anglo-American solution, at its best, is bottom-up, common-law, anti-discretionary, and reciprocity-bearing: natural law, rule of law, divided powers, rights tied to obligations, and sovereignty distributed through institutions rather than concentrated in a theory of the state. In my framework, its virtue is not “freedom” as sentiment, but freedom as the institutional byproduct of reciprocal constraint. That is the point of common law, adversarialism, federalism, and the prohibition on arbitrary rule.
    The German 19th-century tradition was solving a different problem: how to produce cultural unity, state capacity, education, industrial development, and national coherence in a fragmented continental setting under pressure from France, industrial Britain, and later mass politics. On that terrain, it produced real strengths. Humboldt saw that the state should not smother the person, but should create conditions in which cultivation and association are possible. Fichte saw that a polity cannot live by abstraction alone and that labor, education, and national formation matter. List saw that markets do not emerge in a vacuum and that nations in an early stage of industrialization may need coordinated development.
    So no, that tradition was not merely “flawed and destined to fail.” It contained genuine strengths that Anglo liberalism often under-supplies: administrative seriousness, educational formation, long-horizon industrial policy, public capacity, and a more explicit understanding that a nation is not only a market but a historical and institutional inheritance. Germany’s later welfare and social-insurance achievements show part of that capacity.
    But where that tradition becomes dangerous is where culture, nation, or state cease to be instruments under law and become ends in themselves. The recurring German temptation was to over-credit reason of state, civil service, national mission, philosophy of history, or cultural destiny, and under-credit the Anglo lesson that liberty survives only where discretion is broken up by law, rights, procedure, and distributed sovereignty. Within my framework, once sovereignty is no longer reciprocal and law no longer stands above political will, the whole system begins to slide from cooperation into managed hierarchy.
    So the German tradition is complementary to natural law where it contributes capacity without violating reciprocity: education, competence, disciplined administration, industrial coordination, and national continuity. It is incompatible where it subordinates the person to the state, replaces law with historical mission, treats rights as grants of membership, or confuses collective destiny with moral legitimacy.
    On National Socialism specifically: it was neither the simple fulfillment of Humboldt, Fichte, or List nor wholly unrelated to the broader German line. It was a catastrophic late mutation that drew on some available materials—nationalism, statism, racial myth, autarkic and expansionist thinking, anti-parliamentarianism, postwar humiliation—but radicalized them into a racist, anti-democratic, total state aimed at domination, exclusion, and extermination. That is why it must be discussed, but not allowed to retroactively erase everything else in German political development. Humboldt’s defense of individual development, for example, sits much closer to liberalism than to Nazism. Fichte is more ambiguous. List belongs more to developmental nationalism than to racial-totalitarian politics.
    If that German line had continued in a healthy direction rather than through the catastrophes of 1914–1945, its superiority over Anglo liberalism would likely have been in coordinated development, educational depth, bureaucratic competence, and the integration of economy with national survival. Its inferiority would likely have remained in its weaker defenses against concentration of political discretion. In other words: stronger at formation, weaker at limitation.
    So my answer is: the best of the German tradition is not an enemy of natural law. It can supplement it. But only on the condition that nation, culture, and administration remain subordinate to reciprocity, truth, sovereignty, and rule of law. Once they are elevated above those constraints, they cease to be complements and become threats.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2026-03-20 16:53:32 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/2035037034726007251