This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
Pretty shit for women 💀🥹 Exxy as fuck. I purchased proper hairdresser scissors from Japan (short and long) and have been cutting my own hair since. I cannot afford $100 bucks + each go. You learn through practice. I looked like I went for a spin in the lawnmower the first few times. Lots of online resources now (not as many when I started). Male cutting and styling techniques - if try there 😊 I don't have many tips and the type of cutting and styling for women is totally different. Just time and practice. I've saved about $7k over the years
-
How do you know they're lying? Don't be an epistemic pervert, lol.
-
Thought Art replied to Salvijus's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I was thinking about this today. You guys sound like fools to me who know nothing. A wipes his nose and sniffs a bit and you guys believe in spinters. You have no clue. edit: it does look like he sniffed something 😂 I don’t know guys. And I don’t think any of you really know either. -
Yes, they are a rare mutation which are 3 to 4 times more powerful than standard psilocybe cubensis.
-
A wall of bricks isn't valuable because it is useful, although it can be useful too. It's valuable because it creates a fundamental separation between two spaces; one space in front of the wall and another behind it. That's one way to look at it. The wall's capability to create two spaces is inherent in its existence. You literally can't remove this feature from walls. You have to knock down the wall for that effect/value to disappear.
-
Carl-Richard replied to AION's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Do you have inherent value? Do you deserve to exist? -
Most people think value is only relational or utility-based. This leads to transactional relationships and self-esteem problems. The totality of value is larger than utility. It's in what enables utility in the first place. The mere fact that something exists makes it inherently valuable. It's hard to explain this but it is true.
- Today
-
The absolute most attractive quality is steady confidence/certainty that evokes feelings of safety and security.
-
Yes. Everything is inherently valuable. And humans are part of everything. A rock sitting in the road has inherent value. It fundamentally affects your perception. Value is more fundamental than utility, and is not bounded or defined by it. Value is existential.
-
I haven't used it much but you might explore DeepSeek. It's free.
-
Yeah Yeah replied to Yeah Yeah's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
I've read your replies, and I appreciate the different perspectives. However, I'd like to continue developing another criticism of the spiritual teachings I've been examining, particularly those concerning suffering, reincarnation, pre-birth planning and the supposed necessity of spiritual lessons. Something I've increasingly struggled with is the assumption, repeated by several spiritual teachers and some Near-Death Experience accounts, that human existence is fundamentally an educational curriculum. The general narrative seems to be that souls choose their circumstances before birth, deliberately select difficult experiences and relationships, and enter physical existence to learn particular lessons. Suffering, trauma, disability, addiction, abandonment, poverty and bereavement are sometimes interpreted as opportunities for spiritual development. Some accounts even suggest that suicide doesn't allow someone to escape these lessons, but instead results in another incarnation in which similar challenges must eventually be overcome. Robert Schwartz and other proponents of pre-birth planning seem to draw upon this general framework. Other accounts describe reincarnation as an accelerated way of completing spiritual lessons, while remaining in the spirit realm supposedly allows the same development to occur more gradually. But why? If the spirit realm is supposedly an environment of unconditional love, expanded consciousness, peace and greater understanding, why would spiritual development be slower there? Why would entering a limited physical body, forgetting one's previous existence, experiencing illness, financial insecurity, psychological trauma and potentially horrific circumstances be a more efficient educational arrangement? It seems almost backwards. If consciousness already has greater clarity and understanding outside physical existence, why would it need to repeatedly enter a condition of limitation to acquire something it could presumably understand without suffering? And if God is infinite, omniscient, complete and unconditional love, what exactly does God need to learn? Why would an eternally existing divine consciousness need to educate itself about compassion by experiencing abuse, or learn about love by experiencing abandonment? Why would it need to become temporarily ignorant, vulnerable and limited in order to rediscover qualities that are supposedly already inherent in its nature? I can understand the idea of voluntarily exploring a challenging experience. For example, consciousness might choose to experience creating music within a particular historical period, learning an instrument, developing new technologies or exploring a reality with physical limitations and finite resources. There could be genuine creativity, discovery, experimentation and adventure in that. But this is very different from suggesting that suffering is necessary for spiritual development. Why would someone need to experience sexual abuse, rape, homelessness, disability, torture, addiction or the suicide of a family member to learn something about compassion? Why couldn't consciousness explore, create, develop relationships and experience novelty without requiring those things? I've experienced homelessness and housing instability multiple times. I've experienced abuse and displacement. Yet these experiences haven't somehow educated me into a condition where I can no longer encounter difficult circumstances. I can move into another home and still encounter mistreatment. What exactly was the necessary lesson? How many times does someone need to experience homelessness before the curriculum is considered complete? Sometimes suffering doesn't produce wisdom. Sometimes it produces further suffering. I also question the idea of pre-birth soul contracts. If someone supposedly chooses to experience abuse or trauma before birth, but then enters physical existence without remembering that agreement, what does that agreement actually mean for the person who has to experience it? And how can we establish that such an agreement ever existed? Some NDE accounts describe people supposedly discovering that they chose their difficult lives, or that they and their abusers arranged to exchange roles for spiritual development. I find these interpretations particularly difficult to accept. I don't necessarily dispute that someone might have had an extraordinary experience during an NDE. But I question whether their interpretation of that experience is necessarily an accurate description of objective reality. Perhaps people interpret unusual experiences through their existing religious, philosophical and cultural frameworks. Someone who already believes in karma, reincarnation, soul families and pre-birth planning might interpret an experience through those concepts. There is another possibility worth considering: human beings spend much of their lives inside educational and bureaucratic institutions. School, university, employment, examinations, qualifications, performance assessments, progression and continual self-improvement dominate much of human existence. Could some of our expectations about an afterlife simply reflect the conceptual frameworks we've become accustomed to during physical life? Why do so many spiritual descriptions of the afterlife resemble another educational institution, complete with lessons, assessments, spiritual advancement, guides, contracts and compulsory progression? Why should existence itself be organised like a school that nobody is allowed to graduate from? I find myself much more attracted to an alternative conception of divine existence. Suppose God is already complete. Suppose consciousness doesn't need to learn how to become loving, compassionate or whole because those qualities are already inherent in its nature. Creation could then be an expression of abundance, creativity and exploration rather than a response to some deficiency that needs correcting. There could be countless forms of existence, different environments, different experiences and different expressions of individuality. There could be physicality, adventure, romance, humour, exploration, creativity, novelty and pleasure without making suffering, death, disease, abuse and compulsory reincarnation necessary components. A challenging experience could be voluntarily explored without requiring trauma. Difficulty could exist without cruelty. Individuality could exist without requiring someone to lose their identity or merge into an impersonal state of consciousness. This brings me to an interesting contrast with the teachings attributed to Jesus. Jesus doesn't appear in the Gospels to present existence as a compulsory reincarnation curriculum. His teachings repeatedly emphasise God's mercy, forgiveness, compassion and the availability of the Kingdom of God. Consider the parable of the prodigal son. The father welcomes his returning son rather than demanding that he complete another series of lessons before being accepted. Consider the thief crucified alongside Jesus. In Luke's Gospel, Jesus promises him that he will be with him in paradise. There is no requirement to complete another lifetime, repay a karmic debt or demonstrate that he has reached a particular consciousness level. Jesus also repeatedly challenges religious authorities when he believes they have prioritised legalistic observance over mercy and compassion. His statement, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," is particularly relevant here. I'm not suggesting that Christianity has no teachings about judgement, repentance or eternal destiny, nor that Jesus explicitly outlined every aspect of the alternative metaphysical model I'm proposing. But the emphasis on divine mercy seems quite different from the idea that souls must repeatedly return to physical existence until they have completed their spiritual education. The distinction I'm interested in is this: What if divine love isn't something that has to be earned through suffering? What if compassion doesn't need to be learned through cruelty? What if someone doesn't need to experience abandonment to understand love, or abuse to understand kindness? What if divine mercy is already available rather than something granted after completing an enormous spiritual curriculum? And what if death doesn't automatically mean another assignment, another examination or another incarnation? I particularly struggle with the suggestion that someone who dies by suicide must return to experience similar challenges again. I don't see how that can simply be presented as an expression of unconditional love. It seems to introduce an enormous amount of speculation about the afterlife while potentially making an already painful human experience sound like a spiritual failure. I find the idea that a spirit must now return to repeat difficult experiences deeply troubling. There is no reliable evidence that this happens, and I don't see why I should accept that interpretation simply because certain spiritual teachers confidently describe it. I'd much rather consider the possibility that consciousness can be welcomed into peace, love and freedom without being subjected to another compulsory physical existence. Ultimately, I keep returning to one question: If God is infinite, complete and unconditional love, why would suffering be a prerequisite for experiencing existence? Why must the universe be a spiritual classroom rather than an expression of creativity, freedom, exploration and love? Perhaps spiritual development can be voluntarily explored, but it doesn't follow that it must be compulsory. Perhaps existence doesn't need to be an examination. Perhaps we don't need to become worthy of returning to God because we were never separate from divine love in the first place. I don't claim to know precisely what happens after death, or that my alternative is an established description of reality. But I do think the spiritual curriculum model deserves considerably more scrutiny than it generally receives. I'm not convinced that suffering is a necessary educational tool of an infinitely loving God. And I'm certainly not convinced that compulsory reincarnation is the only, or even the most compassionate, way to understand existence. -
I want an AI that helps me discover where I'm wrong so I can improve my thinking. Gemini is probably just as accurate as the other models, but the issue is it's not critical enough. It's still a great tool though. I'm not sure if you can adjust response settings, but if so I'd experiment with that and try to get a good balance. I just asked Claude and Gemini what it thought about an idea I've been working on. Gemini responded: Compare that to Claude's: As you can see, Claude highlighted potential errors right away. Whereas with Gemini, it might not surface them at all unless you ask for them.
-
Regarding the Spanish Inquisition, I think it demonstrates the vacuous nature of baptism. Supposedly it is meant to make me clean or reborn, but in practice this clearly isn't true. If I were baptized, I would need to keep in mind that I lack Christian blood or was not Christian my entire life. Therefore it does nothing prove any purported faith on the surface. Action becomes irrelevant. Ultimately, it was a form of magical thinking since the beginning with no real fundamental change. The ritual could have instead been any number of imaginable things and still empty in the end like the purported faith. I could always be called a fake Christian anyway.
-
I only half check the good hygiene box. I'm tired Lol.
-
I know.
-
True. i cut my own hair for 3+ years now after i was frustrated by the lack of design vision of barbers. most motherfuckers are just technicians. but i didn't learn it anywhere, it was just intuitive to me, because i used to draw and paint. i just work on it like an art piece, trusting the process and figuring it out as i go.
-
OVERSTIMULATED AGAIN AAAAAAAAAAAA! I’m communicating with and meeting people a lot lately. For the first time in a long while, I feel like I need time alone. Which is usually my default. Oh, and drinking alcohol is fucking retarded. Discovery of the century, I know. I didn’t feel good after yesterday’s wine - to hell with it. I guess I drink so rarely that I forgot how fucking stupid it is. I MUST SMOKE WEED INSTEAD! 👹
-
Then why did the Chinese market lose 480 billion. Even when cut of from western markets, a profitable technology shouldn't lead to such a bloodbath. That graph is like an executioners axe.
-
They lie! They count some of the compute cost as "marketing". No way are they profitable.
-
.thumb.jpg.dfa4df5fd1dea426d385a8b7298c703c.jpg)
AtmanIsBrahman replied to AtmanIsBrahman's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
I get the idea. It just sounded kind of funny, and I honestly don’t know if it’s true. How would you know if such a thing is true? A similar example he uses is that if you are worried about disaster, you are more likely to end up in a plane crash than somebody who doesn’t think about it. My question is, how would I know if this is true? -
I use Gemini for routine searches. If I am doing research on controversial or sensitive subjects, I find Grok to be the least censored.
-
😂
-
First half of this year, Anthropic spent 8.95 billion on compute and generated 16.3 billion in revenue from that compute, and efficiency will increase, so it doesn’t seem too expensive to generate profit. What’s expensive is maintaining their position on the frontier.
-
It’s a big book. It doesn’t teach how to do seduction, it just shows you the mechanisms and patterns, IIRC. I’m not a fan of wasting my time on all his historical examples to extract the mechanisms. I like examples to illustrate points, but wasting 10-20 minutes on each example is annoying af. I would use AI to extract the mechanisms. AI can replace most books these days to cut through all the fluff and bullshit. So I would acquire the book’s outline and ask AI what each section is about, and learn from the bottom up.
-
We’re literally not allowed to do that anymore without explicitly asking first and getting a very clear verbal yes. It’s not 2005. Maybe guys who know what they’re doing can afford to take the gamble. Touching without a person’s clear verbal consent can and does land people battery charges. I’ve never done anything like this before. See this is what’s so infuriating. While I’m sure what you and others keep telling me is largely valid, it’s also one of the number 1 things that kills my state. The fact that it has to be this way makes it challenging to not fall right back into blackpill and misogyny. You would think that after billions of years of evolution we would’ve been equipped with a better mating system than having to guess subconscious cues, perfectly analyze what all the little signals mean in real time and with no room for error, know how to go after what you want from her but in a way that’s not too pushy but also not passive and somehow figure out where exactly that line is with each new date without just plainly asking. Or instead of blaming evolution, could it be the more recent metoo sensationalism we can thank for creating this tangled labyrinth?
