Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • ISLAM VS CHRISTENDOM In our western civilization all that matters is whether a s

    ISLAM VS CHRISTENDOM

    In our western civilization all that matters is whether a statement is true or not. A man has no right to respect if he speaks dishonestly, if he speaks falsely, if he speaks stupidly, or if he speaks in ignorance.

    This is why our people are so much more successful, wealthy, healthy, comfortable, trustworthy, smarter and truthful. They must learn how to speak truthfully (scientifically) and honestly or they are punished with disrespect whenever they speak.

    This is one of the greatest differences between our cultures.

    The Pillars Are Designed By The Devil To Impoverish And Enslave

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-27 04:01:00 UTC

  • MERGING TALEB AND DOOLITTLE : WE SOLVED THE PROBLEM THE PREVIOUS GENERATIONS DID

    MERGING TALEB AND DOOLITTLE : WE SOLVED THE PROBLEM THE PREVIOUS GENERATIONS DIDN’T

    Nassim Taleb is doing an amazing job narrowing in on the various means by which pseudoscientific frauds are conducted in the 20th and 21st centuries.

    His writing as a philosopher is another example we can use to illustrate that all of us speak in the languages of our cultures – our enlightenments – and we cannot escape them. Nassim speaks in an interesting combination of Mediterranean loading, continental framing and the empirical and mathematical, but never quite ventures into the analytic and legal. As an American, of course I do the opposite, I speak in the analytic and legal without loading or framing, and I avoid the mathematical whenever possible except to explain philosophical concepts in the clearest possible terms

    Taleb makes multiple true statements, and some that he just hasn’t quite taken far enough yet:

    ORGANIZATIONAL ANTI-FRAGILITY

    1 – Organisms and Organizations consist of various biological networks that gain greater survival potential when resources are regularly devoted to growing adaptations against multiple conditions rather than overloading(exhausting) adaptation to any individual condition. (Unlike static systems). (Efficiency is a chimera.)

    JUSTIFICATIONISM

    2 – Measurement of probability (justificationism) is pseudoscientific, whereas measurement of fragility (criticism) is scientific. And our sciences are heavily infected with measurements of probabilistic mathematical justifications that export risk onto others, and they do not consist of measurements of operational criticisms fully accounting for export of risk onto others.

    In other words, the justificationary demon is not yet purged from what we call the sciences.

    NOTE: I don’t think he makes the (obvious) point that between Hayek(anti-fragile/shocks) and Keynes(fragile/probabilities), that ‘we are all Keynesians now’ because of the failure of Poincare, mises, Brouwer, Bridgman, and Popper, and now Mandelbrot, from solving Taleb’s observation and my solution.

    OPTIONS

    3 – He correctly identifies that we operate by consistent option-seizure, and that we justify it post hoc with explanations and plans. He does not take this to the next conclusion that all epistemology works by free association (searching for matches), hypothesis (survival from wayfinding), theory(survival from personal criticism), law (survival from market for criticism). That different logical claims (apriorism, deducibility, probability, induction, and abduction are just special cases in this process – just as prime numbers are special cases of natural numbers). And that human beings evolve in moral conditions where they justified their actions. We evolved in conditions where we explained causal relations to others in ordinary language. We evolved in conditions where repetition of past successes saved us energy. So we evolved with justificationary (cheap) means of calculating, while modernity we live in a more causally dense world, consisting largely of phenomenon beyond your abilty to sense, perceive, cognate, and act, and that to understand such phenomenon beyond human scale, and beyond human limits, that we must spend the majority of our efforts eliminating error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, overloading, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit. In other words, we must transition from our innate dependence upon justificaitionism at human scale, to criticism at beyond human scale.

    SKIN(pre/voluntary) VS WARRANTY(post/involuntary)

    Taleb’s Skin in the Game (investor-speak) and my Warranty of Due diligence (Legal Speak) are relatively identical propositions. However, my solution is institutionally sufficient (informational commons, testimonialism, universal standing) to correct this defect.

    OPERATIONAL SOLVES INDESCRIBABLE

    Nassim isn’t quite right in his criticism of the scientific, versus the intuitionistic, or what he calls the limits of language. This is simply false as I think I’ve pretty thoroughly demonstrated elsewhere. It’s just that he wasn’t able to solve the problem of expressing human acquisition, property in toto, moral intuitions, operational (scientific) language, so that the experiential is described as ‘when I do this’ rather than ‘the feeling of this’.

    He doesn’t make the connection that the limits of human perception, cognition, speech, and action, are themselves units of measure, and that cooperation (with warranty), is the only equals sign in the equation. He comes very, very, very close.

    Why? Well, he started out with programming/modeling(operations), math(measurement) and finance(gains and losses) and writes in essays, and I started out with Programming, Rule of Law, Micro Economics, and the Philosophy of Science, and as such I basically write in operational ‘proofs’ that people WISH were essays.

    SOLUTION

    So we fix the problem of pseudoscientific interpersonal frauds (unethical pseudosciences) and pseudoscientific public(commons) frauds: privatization of commons / socialization of losses (immoral pseudosciences), by the extension of the forcible warranty that we apply to goods and services, to public speech.

    And no, that is not difficult. Which is what Taleb is saying as a general ambition and I am saying as a specific solution.

    What due diligences must exist in public speech that are testable in a court before a jury of peers?

    1) Identity: Categorical Consistency

    2) Logical: Internal Consistency

    3) Empirical: External Consistency

    4) Operational: Existential Consistency (Operational Language)

    5) Moral: Moral Consistency (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, limited to externalities of the same criteria)

    6) Scope: Full Accounting, Limits, Parsimony.

    The first three (identity, logical, empirical) are things we already know how to test thoroughly. Our law does test moral (by natural law) but not sufficiently in scope (property in toto), and conflates natural law (natural, common, judge discovered law) with legislation and regulation, and all too often opinion.

    The fourth, Operationalism, is already practiced in the hard sciences and is slowly being adopted elsewhere. But think of it this way: if we can discover an empirical pattern, yet we cannot explain it as a series of rational human actions, then we do not know about what we speak, because we have not demonstrated that such actions by participants are both possible and moral(objectively legal). This issue remains the great failure of the twentieth-century philosophers. Because while understood in physics and math where it matters only a little, in the social and psychological domains(economics, politics, law, sociology, psychology), where humans perceive and act, it is extremely important. And what appears to have occurred in retrospect, is that the purchasing power of financial fraud throughout the world was of greater utility than the defense against the consequential fragility provided by a requirement that we protect the information quality, sovereign choice, and various forms of capital in our civilizations. (How do you price the frauds of the 20th century?)

    Where I’ve tried to add clarity is in how we can test for fraud, and prosecute it, and where Nassim has tried to add clarity is in demonstrating how fraud is conducted, and how we can reform the pseudosciences by transferring from justificationary to critical methods of measures.

    So most of that added clarity comes in Full Accounting. That is, that if we take all forms of possible capital (assets) available to man, then we must demonstrate what occurs as a consequence of any prescribed action (or fraud) both good and bad. In this way we show that most ‘sales’ are safe bets with little or no return, but big risks, and the salesman’s (politician’s) commission is taken either way.

    If I take Nassim’s tests of pseudoscience and add them to the tests of full accounting, that means we have a sufficiently complete system for the enactment of law that prohibits fraud by pseudoscientific and pseudorational means.

    And it’s a failure to fully account for consequences both good and bad that has allowed the pervasive expansion of the pseudosciences in the twentieth century, of which Nassim only touches lightly:

    Boazian Pseudoscientific Anthropology, Marxist Social Science, Socialism and Keynesian Pseudoscientific Probabilism, Cantorian Restoration of Mathematical Platonism, Freudian Pseudoscientific Psychology, and Adorno/Frankfurt Pseudoscientific Aesthetics, and the many thousands of consequences that have occurred from the use and abuse of innumeracy, rationalism, and pseudoscience to overwhelm the human ability to reason, therefore demanding we rely on intuition, which is, unfortunately, extremely fragile in those matters beyond human scale.

    MY CRITICISM IS MORE HARSH AND BROADER THAN TALEB’S

    I view the 20th century as did Hayek as the second attempt to conquer western civilization. This time, not using Oriental Mysticism and scriptural religion that has plagued the world with ignorance for over two thousand years. But using pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, innumeracy, loading, framing, and overloading made possible by governments at large scale using various forms of data collection and record keeping, and using various forms of new media which by repetition and consumer incentive, has created the second great fragility for civilization.

    THE WEST EVOLVED FASTER FOR INSTITUTIONAL REASONS BOTH INFORMAL AND FORMAL

    The reason the west evolved faster than the rest in the ancient and modern worlds, is our reliance on Sovereignty and Heroism, which as a consequence required we solve all matters of decision making not through authority but through markets and productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, that do not provoke retaliations regardless of success or failure:

    A market for dispute resolution: natural, empirical, discovered law, independent judiciary, and jury of peers.

    A market for the production of commons: houses for each classes in which trades could be conducted for the development and provision of commons.

    A market for enfranchisement: public service in exchange for the franchise.

    A market for leadership: the judge of last resort: monarchy.

    A market for reproduction: voluntary marriage and family.

    A market for access to productivity: manorialism required married couples and a person of character.

    A demand for martial (empirical) truth (testimony) in the face of harsh punishment. (American courts still punish falsehood in court more harshly than the original crime).

    Markets calculate faster, common law adapts faster, high trust because of truth telling and strong courts encourage risk. Anglo post-hoc law (common law) adapts faster than continental propter-hoc (heavily regulated) law.

    WE ARE DONE SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES. THE PROBLEM NOW, IS THAT IMPOSING THE CURE TO PSEUDOSCIENCE BY TRUTHFUL SPEECH WILL BE AS GREAT AS THE ENLIGHTENMENT CONQUEST OF MYSTICISM BY EMPIRICISM.

    But I bet you didn’t realize that we were saving western civilization by doing it. And maybe the entire world from another dark age.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-27 03:50:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS (very important) Everything e

    TESTIMONIALISM ALL OF MY WORK IS REDUCIBLE TO THIS

    (very important)

    Everything else is education

    THE REASON FOR WESTERN EXCEPTIONALISM: SOVEREIGNTY, TRUTH, AND MARKETS PRODUCE VELOCITY.

    1) Individual Sovereignty. (Not liberty from immoral rule, not freedom from immoral command, not positive freedom from nature’s constraints – but sovereignty. )

    2) Testimonial (performative) Truth: The Development of (unforgiving) Martial Epistemology (of the brotherhood of warriors) into a universal commons, and from that the discovery of objective Truth, and Debate, Reason, Greek ‘science’, Empirical Science, and now Testimonial Truth (‘complete science’).

    3) Cooperation at scale under sovereignty can only be achieved by the use of voluntary markets, and reciprocal insurance: a market for consumption(labor, craft, organization, decision making), a market for production(goods, services, information), a market for reproduction(marriage and family), a market for commons (territory, resources, built capital, information, norms, traditions, ‘laws’, and institutions.), a market for dispute resolution (natural, empirical, common, judge-discovered, law, decided by jury), a market for polities (different group competitive strategies accessible through voluntary association and disassociation).

    4) Just as only truth survives when we eliminate ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, prosperity survives when we first, collect in groups so that we reduce the opportunity cost of cooperation, and second when we eliminate the frictions of unpredictability in our attempts at cooperation increasing the velocity of cooperation and extending our plans and production cycles further into the future, where less change is required in the present to cause greater change in the increasingly distant future.

    5) A small, relatively poor group of people can use force of arms to create Sovereign Rule (Aristocratic Egalitarianism), as an industry and as a profession – and it is the most profitable profession yet invented by man.

    6) By incrementally suppressing all nonsovereign acts using natural, judge discovered, common law, as those nonsovereign acts are discovered (the imposition of costs), then humans are increasingly forced out of parasitism and into production, with transfer within kin groups the limit of that legal reach. Kin insure kin.

    7) The unproductive are prohibited from reproduction. The problematic are hung. The excesses are eliminated by starvation, disease, and war. Thus incrementally reducing the costly lower classes that lack both ability and will to engage in productive labors.

    8) The enlightenment seizure of power by the middle class from the aristocracy using the equalizing power of guns, in the hands of the numerous and common man, destroyed (a) the multi-house government that served as a market for commons between the classes. (b) The ‘truth’ of the four or more classes as cooperating not competing. (c) the cost of the entry into the franchise of property owners as demonstrated by service in the military(the market for property franchise) – joining the company of insurers of last resort. (d) the cost of entry into the political franchise by the ownership of real property. (the market for the political franchise by demonstrated success at productivity) (e) the cost of reproduction as demonstrated by productivity sufficient to obtain a marriage (the market for reproduction), (f) the incentive to limit rule to the minimum interference, and the universal demand for increases in the power of rule to force submission rather than resolve differences by calculation: cooperative exchange. (g) the suppression of natural law by the rubric of monopoly majoritarian rule. And the conflation of law with legislation and regulation(commands). (h+) and many more.

    The consequence of which has been our loss of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom (and soon consumption), in exchange for vastly increasing the scale of our underclasses, and increasing the transaction costs of cooperation, and spending down millennia of genetic, institutional, legal, normative, cultural, civilizational, artistic, territorial and every other form of capital that we inherited from those who had accumulated it.

    -The Six Warranties of Due Diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    -The inclusion of Moral Due Diligence: Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities that are productive, fully informed, warrantied and voluntary.

    -The inclusion of Full Accounting of Changes in Property In Toto(demonstrated property) in the consideration of Moral Due Diligence.

    – The writing of laws using strict construction from the first principle of natural law: non-imposition of costs against property in toto.

    -The Defense of the Informational Commons against the imposition of costs by use of universal standing in matters of the informational commons.

    TRUTH

    The problem of the second Great Deceit.

    Solving it through demand truth in public speech, prosecuting as fraud just as we prosecute all other frauds.

    The problem is creating legal due diligence criteria.

    Solving it through tests of due diligence in all possible dimensions

    Testimonialism provides a list of those due diligences.

    We already know most of those due diligences.

    But we add Morality and Full Accounting to the list.

    Morality requires productive, informed, warrantied voluntary transfers limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    Full Accounting requires that we enumerate the changes in state to all forms of capital (property in toto).

    LAW

    When we discover new law we write it using strict construction from the first principle of morality (above).

    We start with the intention of the newly discovered law (scope), and we continue with definitions(declarations), and processes(functions.)

    Law must be then constructed, operationally, and it must be fully calculable – essentially a programming language of law that is just as complete as are computable formulae.

    This creates a non-interpretable, but expandable, fully testable, legal system, open to continuous improvement and correction.

    To ensure the enforcement of this system, and to ensure constant correction of it, as it applies to the informational commons, this commons must be open to defense under universal standing.

    The same criteria applies to all contracts, including those involuntary contracts we call legislation and regulation.

    Meaning that any and all citizens can compete with legislators and regulators, and the judiciary to force truthful and moral operation of that industry that we call government, that produces that product and services we call ‘commons’. Or stated in the legal vernacular: the people must always possess juridical defense against law, legislation, regulation, and contract -without exception.

    MARKET FOR COMMONS

    The other significant advice that I’ve given consists in the methods of restoring the use of government as a market for commons between the classes by various means, all of which eliminate the monopoly production of commons under that worst of all possible tyrannies: democracy.

    ALL THE REST IS EXPLANATION

    Everything else I have written is to EDUCATE by explanation the causes of the principle of universal sovereignty and the market society that is the only solution to persistence of sovereignty, and why the west in both the modern and ancient worlds, was able to innovate so much faster than the rest, despite being a small, poor population on the edge of the bronze age.

    THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO UNDERSTAND

    But one does not need (as I do) to understand the entirety of why this solution is sufficient to restore the west to its strategy of sovereignty and by consequence markets for consumption, production, reproduction(family), commons(govt), population(countries), and leadership (monarchies). Nor does one need (as I do) to understand the entire history of why this is all so. One needs only understand that the solution is to evolve our law to match the increases in the industrialization of information distribution, so that any informational product of any kind enters the market for information regulated just as we regulate any other product or service: that it must be truthful.

    AND IT ISNT COMPLICATED

    Now, I do not have the faintest idea why any of that is hard to grasp.

    Nor do I understand why testimonialism is hard to grasp:

    1 – Identity: Categorical Consistency. I don’t see why we aren’t great at this already. (sensibility)

    2 – Logic: Internal Consistency – although when I say this I mean that logical consistency does not refer to ‘meaning’ but to existentially possible statements. There is nothing new here that isn’t largely in eprime and performative truth. (reason)

    3 – Empirical: External Consistency (Correspondence). I don’t have to teach the world about empiricism for goodness sakes. (reality)

    4 – Operational: Existential Consistency. This takes a bit of practice but again, it is easily solved by writing in eprime in first person voice, as a sequence of operations and observations. This is already done in the physical sciences. (human action)

    5 – Moral: Voluntary Consistency. All transfers consist exclusively of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same criteria. The only novelty here is in full-accounting of property in toto. (cooperation)

    6 – Scope: Scope consistency. Consisting of (a) limits, (b) parsimony, and (c) full accounting. Where the only novelty here is a full accounting of property in toto. (scope)

    SURVIVAL VS UNDERSTANDING SEEMS COUNTER INTUITIVE

    What is counter-intuitive, that most people seem to have trouble grasping, is the difference between the false comforting certainty of justificationism, and the true but uncomfortable uncertainty of survival from criticism. We are taught to prove things. to get the right answer. But the universe does not work like that. Anything that is not false might be true. Law works by the same means: if there are criteria by which a thing is illegal (false) than that which survives those criteria is legal (true).

    TESTIMONIALISM MERELY INCREMENTALLY EXTENDS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF PROVIDING A WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, AND DECEIT

    So testimonialism extends the scientific method into social science, law, and politics. As long as you have done your due diligence as a producer of a good, a service, or information, then you have broken no natural law. If you produce a good, a service, or information, and have not done due diligence, and done no harm, then you have broken no natural law. But if you produce a good, a service, or information and someone claims harm, then you are liable for damages. And the problem you face, is that damages done by disinformation are extraordinarily hard to repair, compared to those done by goods and much harder to repair than those done by services.

    Testimonialism is reducible to the requirement that we test all dimensions that humans can possibly sense, perceive, and act against.

    WE ARE, OURSELVES, AN INSTRUMENT OF MEASUREMENT

    Why does that matter? Because with any testimony we are trying to create a description that through a process of reconstruction, the audience envisions that which you claim to have envisioned. So our bodies, senses, minds function as units of measure. Therefore reducing the world to descriptions that are subjectively testable by a jury is a test of your descriptions. We humans are the unit of measure because we are marginally indifferent – at least in groups – in what we can sense, perceive, understand, and sympathize with.

    Imagine you are looking at a scene, and describing it. And you are talking to someone who sees 100 scenes (or an infinite number for that matter), and he is trying to identify which one you’re describing, but you can’t hear him. He can only hear you.

    If he can correctly choose the one you’re describing your testimony is ‘truthful’.

    THE NECESSARY PART OF MY WORK IS ‘DONE’

    So I don’t believe that I have more work to do in explaining the central insights provided by my work. I may have much more EDUCATION to do. And I can create more educational content. But the central thesis of sovereignty > markets > truth > informational commons > strict construction > universal standing > market government with houses for each of the classes does not seem to be very hard to understand.

    YOU NEED TO USE YOUR VIOLENCE

    If you want to know the answer – I just gave it to you. You just need to withdraw from the state the deposit of your violence, and use that violence in every way possible to disrupt economy and infrastructure and rule until your demand for truth is met.

    Or that’s the amount of energy I have to put into this tonight. You don’t need to understand more than that in order to understand how to restore western civilization from the second great utopian deceit: cosmopolitanism: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno and the many others of their ilk.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 15:15:00 UTC

  • That feeling when someone understands a deep question of philosophy and you feel

    That feeling when someone understands a deep question of philosophy and you feel your life isn’t futile. #tlot #tcot

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 12:19:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780018923878150145

  • a rule of thumb and an analogy are true enough but not True. Cantor speaks in ru

    a rule of thumb and an analogy are true enough but not True. Cantor speaks in rules of thumb: analogy not truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 12:16:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780018188553752576

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness @JimmyTrussels

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779708630685749252

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Outsideness

    @JimmyTrussels @curtdoolittle Set theory, diagonal argument, the continuum hypothesis … get a grip.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779708630685749252

  • My job is truth. Math is proof. Sorry. Proofs are not truths. 😉

    My job is truth. Math is proof. Sorry. Proofs are not truths. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 12:15:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780017897158610944

    Reply addressees: @NickLand7 @ReactionaryTree @Pale_Primate @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779468550452817920

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779468550452817920

  • there exist no existentially possible infinities, and no sizes. These are word g

    there exist no existentially possible infinities, and no sizes. These are word games.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-25 12:14:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/780017577510731776

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness @NickLand7 @ReactionaryTree @Pale_Primate

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779498637135007744

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Outsideness

    @NickLand7 @ReactionaryTree @Pale_Primate @curtdoolittle (The attack on Cantor is ridiculous IMHO.)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779498637135007744

  • Math=Proof not truth. Truth requires correspondence with reality. A math stmt ab

    Math=Proof not truth. Truth requires correspondence with reality. A math stmt about reality itself may be true.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-24 18:26:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779748964115550212

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

  • Sets are the problem w 20th c thought:escaping reality.All can be said existenti

    Sets are the problem w 20th c thought:escaping reality.All can be said existentially without invoking Platonism

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-24 18:15:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779745979822202884

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

  • this is a profound conceptual difference between imagined language and demonstra

    this is a profound conceptual difference between imagined language and demonstrated actions. Words vs reality.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-24 18:13:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779745511850987520

    Reply addressees: @JimmyTrussels @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/779718728615428096