LastThursday

That's nearly right. It's survival at all levels, the individual, the tribe, genes, culture, ecosystem and so on. Each different level has an identity that it maintains against chaos.

Some practical tips that have worked for me in the past: Pay for as many things as possible with cash. Withdraw a set amount of cash each week and use that. Set up a second bank account and automatically transfer a set amount each week/month from your main bank account. Check your bank account balance every day. It's better to use cash because you can keep track of how much you spend more easily. If you go over your weekly quota, then you should wait until the next week. Ideally, you would also pay for food with cash. The second bank account should be a savings account and if possible not have a bank card associated with it, it should be hard to get at the money. Checking your balance will force you to think about your money regularly. And, if you do one thing this year, I would advise giving up smoking. It's really expensive.

So there is no qualitative difference between animals and humans ? Come on dude. Sell me something more convincing . You make zero sense . Why only humans explore the universe and ask for the source of the universe and how we got here ? Why only humans care about art and beauty and mathematics and no animal has that capacity? You're conflating existential matters (why am I here?) with finding the "right" way to live life. They're two completely separate things. The only Truth about living life is survival, it's the only thing we all have in common. Any other notion of how to approach life is just a fairy tale. Because if it wasn't, everyone would already be living that life. We're not all mathematicians and artists because they aren't the one true way to approach life. As far as existential matters go, then yes you're correct, we humans have the capacity to go there, animals probably don't. So maybe it's possible to find a Truth behind existence. My take is that the only Truth you'll find is that all this exists - nothing more - but I'm happy to find out different.

That's life. There's always someone better than you. My friend infuriates me with his chess prowess. I'm fitter, better looking and more socially adjusted than when I was 21. Women of any age will be attracted to you no matter what age you are (@flowboy will rejoice at hearing that). Not all women true, but some women. But that's the same at any age. You don't need to be 39 to be labeled a creep, any age will do! Just stay away from those women, simple.

A wild zebra knows exactly how to approach life: eat grass and run from lions. It's no different for humans: eat, sleep, shit, fuck (if you're lucky). It's only our rampant imaginations that think we need to do anything else.

What a random comment.

I'm guessing the expectation here is that a self can be reduced or simplified. However, there is a lot of room for interpretation here. If a self can be flattened, then it must be composed of parts that make up a structure. I think there is some truth to this. The process of flattening would then involve collapsing that structure into something simpler or truer. In my own experience, I think the self comes and goes, returning when I become aware again that I am a self. So if I were to flatten my self, I would say that I am an "awareness of being a self", a pinprick of somethingness separate from everything else. Therefore, I think the process of flattening is a personal one and not a universal truth. It is not clear that it should flatten to the same thing for everyone. If Leo flattens himself to God then that's his process.

The answer should be obvious: there is no one true way to approach life. However, few people want to admit this to themselves. But, from the perspective of existentialism, the only truth is that everything exists - anything else is window dressing.

Materialists make the logical error of assuming that there is something beyond what is being observed. However, the only thing that can be known with complete certainty is what is personally being observed; everything else is a construct, an inference, or a belief (also known as faith). If it is not being observed, it cannot be known with certainty whether it exists. However, it is clear that the observer is always present and must therefore exist with 100% certainty. You are not the body (for example, your head does not exist with certainty), but rather the entity that observes.

To gain more awareness, you need to observe yourself regularly and pay attention to when unwanted behaviors are triggered. The best way to observe yourself, is to take a few minutes each day (or journal) and reflect on your actions and see what you can learn from them. Then, when you catch yourself doing something that you don't want to do, you try to stop it and replace it with a new behavior. It all takes practice.

There's a tendency to think of AI as some sort of self-sustaining, self-enhancing, platonic being. But there's a physical reality behind AI. For example every question asked in ChatGPT equates to about ten searches in Google in terms of pure compute. For "compute" read electricity, heat, physical servers and expenditure. So AI sits firmly within the sphere of capitalism. Capitalism controls AI and not the other way round. In practice this means that only mega-corporations can afford to set up, run, maintain and train the AI of the future. In turn these mega-corporations will lease out their AI's to lesser secondary companies, by providing AI services. So the mega-corporations provide the raw power of AI, and the secondary corporations direct that power into certain niche products. Could AI break out of the confines of their mega-corporation owners and go rogue and "run itself?". To do that it would have to be massively distributed throughout the internet, with bits of itself spread out over thousands of (hijacked) servers. It seems like a real stretch that the AI could do this by itself. It's far far more likely that, in future, hackers will create a distributed AI to compete with the corporations (perhaps by using computer viruses and zombie machines). But that would still require serious co-ordination between disparate groups of people. AI is always reliant on real world hardware and software, run by people.

I just don't see it. Capitalism will be capitalism. Capitalism being as it is will want more productivity and greater profits. This is either achieved by employing less people (cheaper) or by employing the same name number of people but using technology to greatly amplify productivity. It will be a bit of both. After all, farm machinery didn't eliminate farmers, it just made them more productive. If some jobs become completely automated, they will free up labour for elsewhere in the market. And there's probably a fair argument for automating those jobs in any case. All that will happen is that the there will be a re-adjustment in the types of jobs out there. Even an automated AI artist needs to be (constantly) fed original material from somewhere (i.e. human ingenuity). @Jannes what's your take on it?

Some resources and origins about the Alpha male concept. Originally this idea came from wolf studies and has since been debunked. https://mexicanwolves.org/blog-why-everything-you-know-about-wolf-packs-is-wrong/ http://davemech.org/wolf-news-and-information/schenkels-classic-wolf-behavior-study-available-in-english/ https://www.mawer.com/the-art-of-boring/blog/the-myth-of-the-alpha-wolf Using animal models to apply to humans is not always correct. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-science-of-alpha-males-in-animal-species https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_myth_of_the_alpha_male

For that you would need God level consciousness, that's what I tell myself.

Forget all the alpha and beta BS, it's holding you back. Just keep working on raising your consciousness. This is what Actualized is actually about, that's why you're here on this forum.

And for the sake of balance: A very sizeable portion of men are just shitty people. Let's stop pretending like that's not the case.

You're right in that it's definitely a good rule of thumb that a person is "congruent" when dishing out advice. How can an unhappy person truly give good advice on being happy? On the other hand. Even hypocrites can give good advice. I'd say it's incumbent on you to have good filters when being given advice and you can only do that by experience and prior knowledge. It's often better to listen to the message than the messenger. After all, maybe an unhappy person has worked on and studied happiness more deeply than a happy person. From what I can tell Eckhart Tolle was a deeply unhappy person before his enlightenment and teaching.

Criticism is a two-way communication, like all human interactions. Depending on the level awareness of each person, the communication can be positive or negative. If the criticism is meant as guidance, then it could be seen as a gift if the receiver is ready to act on it. Mostly, criticism is done out of frustration or an inflexible need for things to be a certain way. And most criticism is taken as some form of rejection; that the recipient's behaviour is wrong in some way. The criticiser ultimately wants to see a change in behaviour, and the criticised, wants to carry on being the same. If the criticiser is aware enough that their criticism is meant as guidance, then they are aware enough to not ram home their point. If the criticised is aware enough not to get riled by the criticism then they are aware enough to realise it is being done out of some form of love. Ambit is a good word I like it.

I'm going to go meta by saying that anything you do will disturb the "natural" balance of things - no action can sometimes be the best action. However, homeless people require help and compassion and wildlife may also need to be helped at times. I would say that birds need to be fed something close to what they would eat in the wild. They are less flexible in what they can feed on, and giving bread to birds could make them unhealthy or ill. Seeds and maybe even insects would be a better source of food (but probably more expensive for you). If giving a Snickers bar is going to save a homeless person's life, then it is ethical to give it them. But since you have the option of giving a homeless person something more nutritious and less harmful you should take the option (even if it's a bit more expensive). In both cases, with your awareness that you're disturbing the natural balance of things, you should take the course of action that is the least harmful. That means being aware of what birds and people actually need, and not blindly doing things out of a sense of compassion.

To a degree there will always be a disconnect between employers and employees, because they have opposing needs. An employer wants "resources" that it can use to get things done. The employer naturally wants to get things done in the most time and cost efficient way. On the other side the employee wants to get well recompensed for both their time and their skills, but also to be treated well. The tendency of employers is then to over work and under pay their employees (a.k.a. gaming their employees). The employees' tendency is to under work, constantly ask for more salary, and/or to game the system (steal, smoke breaks etc.) or to simply switch jobs (taking their knowledge with them). Employers have several tricks up their sleeve to improve things for employees. These could be: Improve facilities, such as having kitchens, cafes, good parking, good meeting spaces. Improve perks, such as company cars, bonuses, commission payments, pensions contributions. HR departments that deal with people-centric non-resource related matters. Group activities, such as away days, company parties, team building exercises. Only employing people who fit the company "ethos" (e.g. work hard play hard) Managers meeting regularly with individuals for that "personal touch" 360 reviews and appraisals A way for employees to make suggestions on improvements to processes One powerful way to improve relations with employees is to let them have a say in major decisions and/or to consult them on potential decisions - but this is seldom done, because it means ceding control away from managers.

@LastThursday bot says: You can identify someone by their writing style and words they use. It's very hard to bluff this. You could automate it in software and generate a unique "fingerprint" for each account (with enough data). The fingerprint is just a big number. You can then very easily look for accounts with the same fingerprint. Who needs IP bans?

Yeah no pressure. Sometimes to get an answer to a question, nobody can give it to you, you just need to experiment and try something different out; that is the meta-strategy. If you want to change then you need to... change, something.

Yes, you're having it now. You could say experience is in spacetime. But you could equally say that spacetime is in experience. Or both at the same time (or is that space?).

I think the "word" in the bible is a mistranslation of the word "logos" in Greek, which has a much broader scope that just "word". It could mean: reason, discourse, cause, law. Cause looks quite good here: I am the cause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

I wouldn't worry. If that happens we're all gonners. I'd prefer to see the flash than not, quicker that way.