LordFall

Oh forgot I was following you already! Your point on SD daring to articulate migration issues first is spot-on from a memetic standpoint. How receptive are the older S party figures to ditching the old taboo and approaching integration strictly through a lens of state capacity and social survival?

I think you should fundamentally build your life around accomplish your goals, not finding ways to rationalize not being able to get them. You can reassess your priorities in terms of a random car not being that important to you but I mean building a great relationship with a high quality woman or just tons of sex with hot chicks is more valuable than that. People give up on their dreams too early, it's common not just in terms of settling for a mediocre relationship or no relationship but also in terms of building a great business/career as a life purpose.

Very good. What's your socials, I'll follow you. Looking forward to the new Swedish world order you will bring 🫡

@Inliytened1 Here is a post I just read where a man admits to his main partner that he's falling in love with another woman and she's reflecting on her feelings on it and the concept of loving two people and ends up happy for him just a bit envious that she's not falling in love with her 2nd boyfriend as well yet.

@something_else Being able to see an image of the asset somebody else owns is pretty limited though. You don't get much of the value of that yourself. Here is a picture of a million dollars, enjoy. I think your point on copyright is the strongest but the legal system will eventually adopt it if the trend starts taking off. Crypto is being legislated across the US federal system as we speak. Digital assets are obviously worth a lot. You can argue that your money in a bank account is the best example that's so mainstream that it's hard to remember that once upon a time people thought that digital banking was a scam and would never take off. My own dad has never shopped online because he thinks it's too likely that he'll get scammed. Amazon seems to be doing just fine without him. Not that along ago people were confused about the internet and some prominent and smart people flat out came out to say it was a fad and a pretty useless technology. Paul Krugman (Nobel Laureate in Economics) In 1998, Krugman wrote an article for Red Herring stating: "By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's." He argued that e-commerce growth would stall as people realized that moving physical goods was still bound by traditional logistics. I think NFTs will most likely be the same thing. Why on earth do we trust random corporations that fundamentally have different incentives than us to hold our assets? It makes no sense. A universal ledger that keeps the account of everything impartially just makes sense.

It is possible. What are you gonna do about it?

Absolutely. If you get a return on your donations, then you can afford to do it continuously. This is how people end up starting powerful non-profits that change the world. If your donations are not sustainable then it usually ends up being a one off that makes you feel better but doesn't end up really impacting the causes you care about and solving the problem. An average worker quietly donating 5% of their paycheck saves a handful of lives over a decade. A creator like MrBeast monetizing the process generates millions of dollars in production leverage, sponsors, and AdSense, funding hundreds of wells. The moral purist focuses on personal virtue; the operator focuses on total capital deployed to the problem.

Hyggelig å møte deg, Jan Fredrik. Gratulerer med å komme ut på Actualized.org, et veldig modig steg. 🫡 If you're cute maybe we can hangout sometime

Yeah, you're right it takes a lot of research to understand. Around that time I researched around 200 hours of crypto and read a book on it and I basically gave up because I realized it was still too complicated to bet my future on and some dudes smarter than me spent 20,000 hours researching it and had millions to hire teams of analysts so I couldn't really find a competitive advantage. I was a big fan of video games growing up and I was a semi pro gamer at once called League of Legends and I actually mostly quit when I got into pickup and business to your point on the other thread about taking women as a conquest haha. Fundamentally though I do believe video games had peaked as a medium for the past 10 years almost and there haven't really been new innovations until now over the next years with AI npcs, generative graphics, web 3 economy, augmented reality and virtual reality. Fortnite was basically the peak of the medium in terms of mainstream appeal but the next big hit will incorporate one or many of the things I mentioned I would and will bet on it.

I'm not really interested in pokemon cards themselves. 3 main concept interest me: 1) Why are Pokemon cards worth so much as an emerging asset class? What makes people go crazy for them? 2) What other similar products will similarly rise in value over the next 10 years and become viable businesses/investments out of thin air? 3) What lessons can I learn from it for the products I'm building myself? Influencers will shill whatever is hot and shiny, I got into crypto myself around that time so I remember how the market moved. I never bought NFTs but I researched them.

@Joshe You don't need to be friends with chicks to get laid though. Completely possible to creampie someone within 3 hours of meeting them. Some do it faster with nightgame but it's not really my forte. I like online dating because a lot of girls are DTF right away, you just need to worry about logistics and escalation and you're good to go. My roommate in Toronto was way smoother than me. He would meet girls at the bottom of our building, start making out with them up the elevator and walk past us as we were watching TV in the living room and fuck within like 10 mins. A few times he got the girls to agree to a gangbang and we fucked them too. Chicks are usually even freakier than men, you just have to give them the opportunity to unleash it.

Of course. Fighting is just an elevated concept of competition. Competition is a great survival strategy as it lets you outcompete people and take their value. I think Leo talked about it in his libertarianism video but wars and slavery started after the agricultural revolution. Beforehand wars and tribal warfare were a net negative, tribes didn't have much wealth and you had a high likelihood of dying and getting injured through fighting. Agriculture let humanity store massive amounts of value in predictable timeframes. So a group of bandit could fuck around and just raid farmers in the Fall in the harvest season and outcompete them. If you take them prisoner and get them to farm for you then even better you don't even have to raid them each year. Until our current era of technology that's gotten so effective to the point of world wars killing millions and the interesting mechanism of the nuclear bomb that makes true conflict suicide for everyone involved. There is a very scary concept that's about to come out that might end this balance and bring back the era of warfare: killer bots I think it's extremely important that we see this coming and make strong peace treaties and build mutually beneficial arrangements so there is no incentive to start waging wars en masse with these cheap weapons of destruction. With the way geopolitics is going right now though that seems optimistic. Ironically seems like reality was all predicted a long time ago. The Bible talked about 7 years of tribulation before AI came to earth. To me that sounds like 7 years of WW3 until we have an AI post scarcity utopia world peace.

Those are more than fair criticisms. It's very important to understand how things are sold and where the value comes from. The classic case used for this concept is the California Gold Rush where most people lost their time and money and apparently shovel makers made a killing such as Samuel Brannan. What I'm pointing to though is that Gold was never the scam. I'm not saying to go out now and buy X or Y NFT project cuz it's gonna FuckIng GoCrazYBro IPromise(although maybe tbh) but it's more of a discussion to predict the phenomena and how we can best position ourselves from it. My fundamental thesis is this, 2027 will be the year that generative AI products start booming. Both games and animes/show built around it will start popping up. It will be the start of the wave and 2028 and 2029 will be when it really starts to grip society. That plus AI agents that start to labor for you 24/7. I think that will be great for the consumer, we'll start to get the best entertainment we've ever had. How does that really help us though? It doesn't unless there is value added to our lives around it. That's where I think trading collectible assets make so much sense. Pokemon cards are the proof of concept for it. There are plenty of people that don't have jobs, they just build Pokemon card businesses! That's just the start and I think in 2030s it will become a wide industry just like becoming a Youtuber/Tiktoker is now. Think about it, idk if you guys are gamers but Pokemon Cards actually fucking suck. I have some I bought some to check it out and I tried to play it. It's actually ass of a product. It's just the best there is now. In 10 years from now there will be 20 other competing products that will be way better and augmented reality/virtual reality will take over to create great products around it. It'll be a mainstream thing fully integrated into social media. The next Pokemon will be worth 10x so $1.5 trillion instead of the $150 billion that Pokemon has generated lifetime. It could very well be Legend of the Abyss boys and girls stay tuned I'm taking down these clowns

@Scholar I agree. Also I think the easiest train of thought to go down is murderers are bad. Kill murderers = good! I think we can surely do better then that. Let's actually examine the facts around this issue. As I've said criminology is a widely studied field and the question of the death penalty has been heavily debated since 1764 with the philosopher Cesare Beccaria releasing On Crimes and Punishments so we're not starting from scratch here.

We switched the goalpost here. We went from killing animals creates an imbalance in the spiritual world to killing them is fine but only if you don't have self-awareness. If a bear eats someone's kid I think it's gonna create quite an imbalance in that family whether or not the bear has self-awareness or not. Are we not just trying to apply human concepts to the universe as a whole here?