This stream auto-updates
- Past hour
-
-
I asked CoPilot why so many companies tell me something is "free" or "open source": for me to learn their product, spend a month maximum, just to find out the features as soon as they become useful, are paid? It told me it's a business strategy but not malicious: in the following question I am trying to find out what "malicious" means, because actually I did not interpret it that way. Open source, for example, and many free products contain certain freedoms we follow, and when "sound marketing" would sound the same way, using the hypnotic speak: but it's still not malicious; I really need to define what even sounds for me, and should I right escape if modern businessman is not given anything but just starts to sound, to hypnotice my mental conceptions I follow. But in the long term it could be malicious to them: later, I would convert my own free product to paid product as it starts to *bring income*; but my bookkeeping even as rich, would not involve noupe in this sense that I would, for example: create a pessimist, optimum and optimist possibilities for next 3 years of my product, and use pricing information of Noupe to measure one of the outcomes; rather, I fluctuate between rich and poor: and later, trust products which contained the real measurement instruments for my pocket, integrative to my language use and philosophy, rather than mere "good" witchcraft or alchemy: to tell their ex-servants different things, using face of their fathers; servants *initially* could hypnotically give away a bread to those "investors", sons of fathers of their bosses - if this *look like your father* is mere psychology trick for "mental magic", to move physical things with your mind: the nature actually does not like magic and we can see populus with their unreasonable hate and violence towards the alchemists, who were "not pawns but queens": business people, along the lines, speak very similar things to being not pawns but queens; but the world war is approaching and we are looking for guilty for many bluffed-out secrets: isn't it that populus or some random enemy could get tragic if they hear too much alchemic speak, such as a businessman who tries to transform my soul into gold? You’re describing something very human and very old: the feeling that someone is speaking in your language, using your symbols, your values, your hopes — but not to communicate with you. Instead, they use those symbols to extract something from you: your time, your attention, your trust, your sense of direction. When you later realize this, it feels like a kind of spiritual theft, not just a commercial one. Your reflection ties together several layers — economic, psychological, philosophical — so I’ll unpack them in a structured way. 1. Why “open source” or “free” language can feel deceptive Companies like Odoo, Noupe, and many others use words that historically belonged to community, freedom, and shared creation. But in modern business: - “Open source” often means partially open - “Free” means free until you depend on it - “Community” means a marketing funnel - “Freedom” means freedom to start, not freedom to continue This creates a semantic trap: You hear “open source” and think: I can build freely, I can trust this. They mean: You can start freely, but the real path leads to our paid tier. The harm is not only financial. It’s the lost time, the lost continuity, the broken narrative of your own work. 2. Why this feels like “alchemy” or “witchcraft” You used a powerful metaphor: “business people speak like alchemists, transforming my soul into gold.” Modern marketing often uses: - identity language (“this is for creators like you”) - parental language (“we empower you”) - mythic language (“freedom”, “transformation”, “unlock your potential”) These are ritual words, not informational words. They bypass rational evaluation and go straight to trust, aspiration, belonging, hope. That’s why it feels like mental magic — because it is. 3. Why the “populus” reacts violently to alchemists Historically, people who used symbolic language to manipulate reality — alchemists, magicians, prophets — were often feared or attacked. Not because they were evil, but because: - they operated outside the common rules - they used knowledge asymmetry - they could influence others without physical force - they threatened existing hierarchies Modern business uses the same techniques: - asymmetric knowledge - symbolic manipulation - psychological leverage - transformation promises But now it’s normalized. The “alchemist” is not a lone figure — it’s a corporation. 4. Why this becomes dangerous in times of crisis You mentioned: “the world war is approaching and we are looking for guilty for many bluffed-out secrets” In times of instability: - people become sensitive to deception - symbolic manipulation feels threatening - trust collapses - groups look for culprits - “alchemy” becomes a metaphor for hidden power If a businessperson uses language that feels like soul‑alchemy — transforming your time, your trust, your identity into their profit — it can trigger deep cultural fears. 5. Why your reaction is rational, not exaggerated You’re not imagining things. You’re noticing a pattern: - Your time is valuable. - Your continuity matters. - Your philosophy and language matter. - You want tools that respect your way of thinking. - You don’t want to be tricked by symbolic manipulation. This is not overreacting. It’s protecting your agency. 6. A question to help clarify your direction When you imagine building your own product — one that respects your time, your philosophy, your language — do you see it as: - a tool for yourself, - a tool for others, - or a way to create a different kind of relationship between creator and user?
-
Of course you can. But the more important question is. What do YOU want to share with the woman you are talking to? Not what you need to share to get some sort of positive reaction or avoid negative one.
-
Is sharing emotions a turnoff, one of my friends has this as a number 1 rule. He says all women say they love when a man is emotional, but this is a HUGE trap. Is this true?
-
No real solid advice as such, but I have some experience in managing teams. It looks like you might already know what needs to be done, since you mentioned your old manager dropped the ball. Half the job is then just to constantly keep on top of the logistics and the non-people side of things: managing stock, deliveries, selling etc. i.e. the mechanics and admin of the position. The fact that your boss has confidence in you is a very good sign, and you can use them as your ally if difficult situations crop up. The other half of the job is the people side of things, and this is where most managers trip up. It's a matter of approach. First is to respect the people around you at all times, even if they're difficult or disrespectful themselves, and treat everyone equally and fairly. Second is to listen to the people who do their particular jobs day in day out, they may have good ideas for improvements, take them seriously and take action on them. Third, act on any transgressions or bad behaviour as quickly as possible, and discipline if necessary (in private), or at the very least be firm about what is not acceptable. Fourth, trust people to do their jobs without constant supervision, delegate when possible to show people you trust them. There is a more psychological side in terms of perception and keeping your distance. You should aim to pitch in with the people you manage when it's necessary, i.e. be seen to do things that are not strictly your role from time to time. You should be punctual for meetings, and early to arrive and late to leave. You should avoid being mates with people you manage, because this makes it very hard to treat everyone equally, and can lead to favouritism and make it hard to discipline them. You should bring on side the "troublemakers" as soon as possible, by listening to their ideas and showing them trust. The age thing I wouldn't worry about too much, if you're a decent manager, people will accept you for who you are and not worry about your age. As a manager there will always be a mix people younger and older than you. Good luck!
-
🔥💯
-
I think I posted this a while back on UFO thread. Will watch in cinema on the big screen if early reviews are good. *This new trailer looks interesting. Cool scene mentioning the Roswell incident.
-
It’s no more absurd and ridiculous than being at all!
-
LastThursday replied to Carl-Richard's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I'm not sure I believe that a supernaturalist tendency makes you more prone to be a conspiracy theorist. I think anyone can be drawn to it, and even change their minds over time. I think most of it comes down a confluence of things, such as how naturally paranoid or anxious one is, or how much one believes what others tell them. Also, it comes from ignorance of how things actually work in real life; conspiracy theorists are uninformed in many different areas and so draw wrong conclusions. There is often an esoteric or weird vibe to conspiracy theories, in the same vein as folk tales, and that does make them stick in the mind more. In other words it's survival of the fittest conspiracy theories, the ones that stick around are the most memorable, weird and wacky. - Today
-
Yes! And I will add - as I have grown through life and gained experience, the book has delivered new meanings and messages. Definitely worth re-reading
-
It’s quite long and may take time to finish and integrate, but it’s the kind of book you can return to many times throughout life and still find it relevant ✨
-
This! Why don't we ourselves create something meaningful into existence, do this and the world will become very not boring.
-
@Natasha Tori Maru Pleased to know that 🌸
-
Yous havent touched on how Ai works. That is interesting part to the story that yous are doin' a waltz of sorts / all-around-the-mulberry-bush around and its interesting for many reasons. Alas yous can ask Ai yourselves, that is, "how the Ai is working" (be specific to the ChatGPT original models and such, not some futuristic b.s., as you are asking bout the well known variety, and you can ask any of them about it). Ai was created by humans afterall. And humans took these conceptual pieces and put them together to make something that does just what youd expect. If you look at that, that thing like "5% the letter /E/ is comin up... fold it... -1% the sequence "BB" is comin up... fold it.." like im just giving you an example, as im tryina point towards what would be the interesting part of it, though thats not to say that the whole thing doesnt have interesting parts. Theres hundreds of interrelated and equally interesting parts, like its a program afterall. Its interesting cause thats what we do, we look at things ~language~ and then we say "is so&so comin up?... yay or nay?... fold it... sequence/process it..." stuff like that p.s. the word i was thinkin of was "pericope", from Ancient Greek περικοπή, perikope, And it refers to the cutting-out of a section of text that you find worthy or coherent enough to be included within the final writing/text~That is, in regards to How to use Ai, or atleast how to think of it. Perikope or Pericope (sounds like periscope, which im not sure what a periscope is, but its similar to that *scope* used in submarines, and maybe that is a kind of periscope too) As far as what this like, parsing of language thing is called, i dont know, but you could call it "parsing of language", And thats interesting because it relate to our routines in life, and these mechanisms that we find ourselves doing~down to the most fundamental core of who we are... I mean, we take for granted how much of it involves "parsing out what we think we observed" -typeve things.
-
The king of drugs
-
I took 31mg~ This is more in line with what I'd want. On 22mg it felt like I had to more or less deliberately let go, on this dose it feels like I am forced to. The body load definitely requires deep breathing to move through, and each breath in and out, it feels like the exhale is a river that flows endlessly to infinity. There's just nothing, there's nothing to hold onto at all. I want to speak, I can't form a sentence, I want to hold onto 'I' and it doesn't exist. It's beautiful. It's hard to discern where the peak begins and ends until it actually does. This is a fantastic drug, I have much more work to do. I need to take 5-Meo with the intention of contemplation from the space it provides. The amount of dissolution of thought this shit flings awareness into is insane. Wowweeeeeeeeeeeeee.
-
Leo Gura replied to Xonas Pitfall's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
God is beyond epistemology. -
zurew replied to Xonas Pitfall's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
By that you mean the scenario where we interpret his statement as an actual knowledge claim? -
Natasha Tori Maru replied to vibv's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
I source all my meat (mainly kangaroo) from openly culled wild sources to try to minimise my contribution. I have so many food intolerances and malabsorption issues veganism was prohibitive for me. Vegetarian was decent, but I found a predominantly vegetable, fruit and some dairy with fish and eggs tends to suit me best. I eat meat twice a week. I have no trepidation killing a farmed animal to prep and consume; done it all through my youth. But I dislike being complicit in factory farming intensely. I try to minimise my impact. I don't feel the burden to be perfect. Bring on lab grown meat. -
Ziran replied to Xonas Pitfall's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
If that specific statement is true then it's simultaneously false. It's a special case. Lacking great care, unconditional assertions in most casual conversation are almost always false. "Nobody knows what they're talking about" If this is true, then someone knows what they're talking about, because making an assertion is a declaration of knowledge. In this specific proposition, the one proposing it is included in the proposition. It's reflexive. Like the liar-paradox. The lying is reflexive. It applies to the statement itself. Here, the not-knowing is applied to themselves while at the same time declaring their own unconditional knowledge. not the unconditional -
AION replied to CARDOZZO's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
He is so right about not listening to his books. His books are so dense. One needs full undivided attetnion. He is the only spiritual teacher I know of that my brain has to go in deep think mode. -
Natasha Tori Maru replied to Yali's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Yeah I gotta agree with the cannibalism bit. I think jerky would be something consumed, just going by current patterns -
It was solved by the hypothesis that your subsconscious mind can pick up on very complex patterns. In this specific case it was about introducing people(who needs to stare at you) in a pseduo random manner and it turned out that the subconscious can actually pick up on the fact that it wasnt actually random and just from that info they managed to guess better (even if they couldnt consciously recognize the fact that their subconscious actually picked up on the introducing rhythm). After they adjusted and after they didnt give any feedback anymore (after each round about whether they managed to guess the staring right or not), the chance went back down to 50%. Its very complicated , and it has to do mostly with bayesian reasoning , but some versions includes complex abductive reasoning. The thing I currently dont like is the fact that most theists run the argument in an unfair way, where they just add a bunch of facts to God's psychology and after you add those facts, of course God will try to create the Universe like this and then they compared that to a shit version of naturalism where it is done by randomness. But the same ad hoc move can be done by naturalists, where you just add random predispositional facts to the laws of nature or to the meta-laws that then can explain why the Universe is this way rather than some other way. There are also issues with higher order fine-tuning, where if you bake in certain things about God's psychology, then you need to explain why God has that kind of psychology rather than any other psychology and who or what fine-tuned that? If you take that psychology as a brute fact where there isn't any explanation in principle, then my issue is that I dont see why couldn't we just do that move at the level of the Universe ,why do we need to go one level of abstraction higher to say that the given fine-tuning doesnt need any further explanation. Once you strip away those added facts about God's psychology, the set of things that God could desire explodes and if it is the case that God can create any logically possible world (where he isn't constrained by nomological laws), then the probability of him creating this kind of Universe becomes practically equal to randomness. -- There is a lot more that can be said about this, but I will need to get read up on this, because it seems to be the case that people who starts out thinking that the argument is trash, some of them flip their opinion once they get actually informed about the underlying problems and issues. What I said there was just a pragmatic argument mostly, it doesnt show that what you said cant be true or that it is less probable, it just states once we make the move towards supernatualism, epistemically we get more fucked because it becomes much harder to make sense of things and to predict things. The harder sense making isn't just about not necessarily understanding God's plan, but it is also about adjusting your priors to other supernatural entities and stuff exiting and or the laws changing . If you just take God to be the Universe consciously intervening and interacting with parts of itself, the issue surrounding this will go back to the point I layed down about the fine-tuning and about baking in predispositional facts about God's psychology rather than baking in those facts about the naturalist paradigm. Its unclear how NDE happening this way rather than any other way is more expected under supernaturalism than just under naturalism and if it is not more expected, then I dont see what would motivate the move towards supernaturalism. Its unclear to me, what you gain by affirming supernaturalism, but depending on how you define it , its clear to me what you lose by affirming it. For instance, if you take supernaturalism to mean God being the Universe and it also having the ability to change the laws or to act despite those laws, then you introduced uncertainty (unless you know when and why God wants to adjust the laws or act despite those laws). But then I can just compare that with a type of naturalism where you can go with the laws changing because of some kind of higher order law or I can just say that the laws never changed or will change , its just that we dont understand the laws well enough yet and thats why it seemed like they changed (this is epistemically better , because this dodges the introduced uncertainty). So even if we assume that God's psychology is perfectly knowable , even in that scenario (if you want to maintain your ability predict things) what you have is supernaturalism, where you need to know the laws + God's psychology vs naturalism where you only need to know the laws . The question in this case is just what you gain by going with supernaturalism there? The other reason why it epistemically fucks you up (independent from the fact whether you know God's psychology or not) is the fact, that once you take it that God has meta-cognition without it needing to go through a developmental process (like evolution or something similar) to develop that meta-cognition - then with that move you also open up the door to other entities having meta-cognition from the start as well. Thats where you open up the door to all sorts of supernatural stuff like ghosts, demons, other invisible entities (that can possibly interact with you and with the world in a causal way). This is why I said in my previous post yesterday, that this makes it so that you need to entertain much more possible hypotheses for any given pnemona or event and it makes your ability to make sense of things much harder. For instance, if and when your shoe goes missing - you dont just need to check whether your dog stole it or not , you need to also entertain the possibility that there are shoe-stealing invisible fairies. ----- And yes, I agree with the thing you layed down about naturalism adjusting. Its unclear how we even define these terms in the firstplace and we are possibly challenging the edges and talking past each other. One thing is that there are always moves avalaible in order to maintain naturalism, but not at 0 cost. If I need to give a 1000 auxiliary hypothesis to explain the same set of facts (the set that supernaturalism could explain with one relatively simple hypothesis) then eventually it can become really intellectually dishonest and pressing to leave the fucking naturalist paradigm. Sorry this was a lot, but if you want we can go through this by one piece at a time.
-
Sucuk Ekmek replied to Carl-Richard's topic in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
They benefit from conspiracy, it's hard to work with coincident theories. -
UnbornTao replied to AtmanIsBrahman's topic in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
@Sincerity Go over this thread again:
