integral

@Emerald seriously you could just take whatever you're writing, put it into a text to speech generator, and then upload it straight to YouTube with some basic video editing. The writing perfectly flows for retention. lol I would kill to be able to write like this.

HAHAHA I accomplished absolutely nothing. 🤣 Most truth can only come from massive suffering. I wonder if that's by Design.

@sda is it normal in your culture to give people money if you make a mistake? If not I don't think you should be paying anyone lol, it sounds like you're being taken advantage of. But it's dangerous, I don't know if you're associated with a gang?

Yeah I definitely I tend to do that lmao, maybe I'll add vibe detector to the comment box that will warn me when my tone is counterproductive.

You can find seemingly rigorous scientific evidence supporting completely opposite conclusions. You can find compelling studies showing: - Vegan diets are optimal for health - Carnivore diets are optimal for health - Paleo diets are optimal for health - Mediterranean diets are optimal for health And so on... So in nutrition specifically, treating studies as "just another anecdote" isn't about confusion or lack of system - it's about recognizing that even apparently rigorous nutrition science often can't resolve these contradictions. The field is uniquely complex because: - Individual variation is huge - Variables are nearly impossible to fully control - Long-term studies are rare - Funding often biases research - Self-reporting is unreliable There is a huge problem and in order to solve that problem you need to be able to narrow down all the variables without knowing. There is no "truth" to help you hold your hand when navigating this. That doesn't mean you can't take pieces of important knowledge like the importance of vitamin C on the skin, and not incorporate foods high in vitamin C into your diet. You have to do the best you can with the knowledge that you have available to you. When I say you have to take everything as anecdote I am also saying use all of it to come up with an effective strategy on your body through experimentation and testing on your body. But you're not going to sit there and take an omega-3 supplement and just assume that you're now healthier. In 4 months from now you might get dizzy and feel light-headed all the time and not know why and then realize that the omega-3 you were taking thinned your blood. Trial and error.

That's a failure in the way the AI extracted the epistemology from Emerald. I'm aware holism has been unlocked already. But there's so many levels to holism that it doesn't really matter. Domain specific insights don't happen just because you can do a bit of holism. You can prove anything with nutrition science. Carnivore, paleo.. It doesn't matter it's all true according to nutrition science. Reframe all the science you have learned as anecdotes and everything that you have learned on this topic as anecdotal. Integrate your personal anecdotal experiences of science, with all personal anecdotal experiences of positive and negative veganism, and all anecdotal experiences of others, both positive and negative. Narrowing down all of that data, unbiasedly. Carefully use science as a anecdotal guide, everything taken with a grain of salt to make an educated guess on where you should take your health. Carefully test many approaches, carefully observe your own behavior change and physical signs and mental signs, self-assessment. Study people who have made mistakes along the path and avoid making those mistakes yourself. Everything is anecdote, everything is partial truth, everything has to be narrowed down in a blender without bias. Nothing is sacred. Everything is full of shit. All of science, personal experiences, external experiences is understood as just a piece of the puzzle to guide your own personal experiment on your own body. Now you're thinking like a scientist, with a fresh paradigm.

StopWork.ai is a browser extension that lets you control and interact with the web using your voice. It offers a wide range of features including speech-to-text, AI-powered summarization, navigation, writing assistance, and interaction with various platforms. You can use voice commands to do things like summarize videos, navigate tabs, analyze text, search social media, play music, and even get help with homework. The tool also allows for custom voice commands and integration with other AI platforms. It's available for free with limited features, and a lifetime premium option unlocks all functionalities.

The points about malnutrition I made were to advise on being very careful to avoid it. My position is not that veganism is impossible. My position is to make sure everyone is doing it right through rigorous experimentation, observation, testing, and to consider all the factors of failure cases to avoid them. This is why I'm placing veganism at a status of very difficult and requiring a lot of experience and expertise and money. If you're doing this in a cheap way, you're doing it wrong. Because you're taking your health for granted, and you don't realize the risk you're putting yourself into. And you're not spending money or doing the work to make sure it is 100% happening correctly. You can be doing veganism wrong for a decade before problems show up. This is why it's difficulty is so high.

I said it multiple times now. You think I'm literally crazy because I don't share your epistemology.

I know.

No, your functioning at the scientific evidence level. And you've stated scientific evidence over and over again. The sage level strongly considers large scale pattern recognition. And you guys are not interested in that. Because that's why you think my epistemology is insane, because I value the patterns Strongly, while you think it's literally crazy. "and the science disproves it" How your current epistemology system works is scientific evidence is placed at a importance of 9 out of 10, and pattern recognition is placed at maybe a one or two out of 10. Can you see how the sage is not doing it this way?

https://claude.site/artifacts/45fce8fd-9047-49cf-8060-84114c7a9e16 Okay I created the ULTIMATE SHEET.

I agree it wasn't my best work. But I think the concept has potential. Because it allows two people to understand each other's epistemology. And I think there's a useful tool here. Maybe I'll make some kind of actualized.org AI integration. So people could go past surface level differences.

Why would this be easy? I have never seen a conversation with vegans that was easy. Also I'm not Leo. I can't distill things easily.

How would you know? You're assuming what I'm saying is crazy because I don't share your epistemology. This is very important. When someone else doesn't share your epistemology, your reactionary mechanisms are to assume it's completely crazy. So the only conversation that we could possibly have is to take the time and understand each other's epistemology. But I already know your epistemology because I inhaled it my whole life. And believed it for a portion of my life. The scientific consensus evidence-based approach has grotesque limits. And most people that are in love with this whole concept have not had the real world experiences of when Theory does not match up with practice. You will only know that science got it wrong after you have direct experience showing you that it actually doesn't work in practice. But at this very moment that will only happen after you experience a health problem on the vegan diet. Even if I showed you thousands of videos of people who failed veganism. It will not be enough, it has to be personal. Until then you will never need to question anything. It's when you're survival is at stake that you're forced to question what you know and how you know it. LFMAOOO 🤣🤣 I genuinely laughed so hard when I read this. Mostly because I get your perspective and it just looks like a super one-sided biased sheet. There's a misunderstanding. There's no point talking about the content. If we talk about any specific point we're just going to go back and forth in an endless loop. Arguing endlessly back and forth going nowhere. That's how every discussion of this kind happens. The only healthy conversation that we can have is about epistemology. Until then we're just going to be talking past each other.