Lucasxp64

I would go to the moon. But not anywhere else on the solar system, at least for now, unless they get the tech reliable and they solve cosmic radiation shielding. For a 9 day trip like they did the radiation dose is about 12 mSv, 3 full-body CT medical scans roughly, but not exactly, because those rays are more energetic. I would NOT go to mars. 6 months of travel time, 2 year of round trip due to the alignment. A thousand times more cosmic radiation exposure due to the amount of time (nobody experienced this before), not even in the International Space Station or the moon trips (which was never over 12 days). There is a theorized disease called "Cosmic Alzheimer" that those extremely energetic cosmic rays overtime would destroy the brain of anybody spending too much time away from earth's magnetosphere during the travel in deep space. The moon is very close, once they get there for long-term habitats they can build a shield of 5 meters of dirt and they will be fine, but the travel to to mars it's too expensive to get that much shielding. If something goes wrong they are fucked harder than someone stuck in Antartica during the winter.

They are RIGHT NOW on the way to the moon, they will reach it for a flyby tomorrow (April 6, 2026). In this mission they will do a lunar flyby with humans for the first time since the last Apollo mission, it has been about 53 years ever since. The most powerful rocket NASA has ever lunched in history, slightly more powerful than Apollo's mission Saturn V rockets, but much more reliable and safer. They had done this same mission without humans onboard in November 16, 2022. It uses the European Union Agency service module, which provides propulsion, electricity, thermal control, and life support essentials for NASA's Orion spacecraft. Orion is the whole vehicle: the crew module on top where the astronauts live, and the European Service Module underneath that powers and sustains it. Together they make Orion capable of flying humans beyond low Earth orbit, something no spacecraft has done since Apollo. This flyby mission is a big step before new missions that will actually land. Artemis II proves the rocket, the spacecraft, and the systems with humans onboard. Once they do a flyby around the Moon tomorrow, it will mark the return of humans to lunar space after more than half a century, opening the door for Artemis III to put boots back on the surface. This is the first time a women and a black person (that guy there) will reach lunar orbit, and it's the furthest that they ever went away from earth. - Main page (With live streams): https://www.nasa.gov/mission/artemis-ii/ - Watch their location in real-time: https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis-ii/arow/ - Best photos (gets updated): https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/

Yeah! They are back and alive! I was concerned that they could have died, I believe it was the most dangerous part of the mission the re-entry. Their top speed at re-entry was of over 25,000 Mph (40,233.6 km/h), likely only losing to Apollo by a rouding error, one of the fastest crewed vehicle within our atmosphere in history. Their heatshield had to withstand temperatures of over 2,760°C (5,000°F)

Frankly, it's to have skin in the game the overall philosophy of humans in space for its own sake, as opposed to just robotics that we have been mastering already with satellite technology and rovers. But practically, robots CANNOT do the same work humans can, we are much more agile and flexible than robotics even for just scientific work. For example, operating the Martian rovers is painfully slow due to the speed of light. The goal is eventually building a scientific and industrial base on the moon which will work as a stepping stone for other human missions across the solar system, for example a refueling station, eventually manufacturing so it cheapens even further space exploration due to the low gravity of earth making lunching from there cheaper, and short distance from earth (in this mission took it 6 days to arrive there). There are valuable resources on the lunar soil that are not found on earth in abundance such as Helium-3 that is useful for fussion energy reactors. But frankly, most likely space resources will only be useful to humans in space, because of the gravitational cost of lunching and landing on our planet. Currently this mission was to test the entire transport and survivability setup of humans onboard with modern technology. NASA actually lost a lot of their know-how from the Apollo lunar missions, but it was also dangerous as heck for today's standards it wouldn't be acceptable. This exact same path and setup was already tested in 2022 successfully but unmanned, so it wasn't just blind risk. We spend billions per year in scientific and engineering research already for all kinds of things such as the International Space Station orbiting earth for almost over 27 years now, or subaquatic exploration, Artic/Antarctic region research outposts, etc. It's just the natural consequence of the availability of the technology that it will be used by our human curiosity and greed for achievement and as a consequence a lot of important great scientific and engineering problems are solved. Just like the military did drive human technological development, the scientific and extreme environment exploration drives mankind in a peaceful manner. We are still risking our lives, but not to be killed and die in a war. Those astronauts up there, most of this crew were fighter jet pilots. They are already used to taking risks onboard aircrafts/vessels as their livelihood.

😂 Was that real? I saw a snippet, but I don't remember seeing in the official live streams I saw, I missed it then. I know they did bring Maple Syrup, and they said they ate some Maple Syrup cookies outside of schedule just after they did sneak behind the moon to hide out from us. 😜 Maybe they also gorged on that Nutella back there.

THOSE IMAGES ARE NOT CGI, THEY ARE NOT AI. THEY ARE REAL. Source: https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/lunar-flyby/

This was before they went out of radio communication from the rest of mankind as they went behind the moon outside of the view of NASA's deep space network. Those are fresh words amidst all the cynicism and doomerism of this forum about our world. See my post for context:

This forum has an extremely doomer and cynical mood about mankind. To quote the astronaut Victor Glover 6 minutes before losing signal and being disconnected from the rest of mankind:

😂 Yes. Fuck. Those guys managed to go the the moon but can't fix their toilet. They couldn't shit for a couple of days now into the mission, and a couple of hours ago they can't piss anymore, so they need to use bags now. At least they have a private toilet to do it in. So far it seems like no critical system has failed, other than an hydrogen tank that went slightly out of nominal values so they decided to cut it off from their system, but it wasn't necessary anymore anyways to the mission at this point because they already have their systems primed.

We are gonna lose signal with them anytime now.

They will. But it's more of a test mission to make sure we can make the travel safely. We already did this same mission in 2022 but fully unmanned. NASA likes to take its time those days to make things safe. They have plans for new missions that will land on their timeline before 2030. Any time now within a minute they are breaking officially the record of the furthest humans have ever gone.

HOLY SHIT within 2 minutes they will break Apollo record of the furthest any humans have ever gone!

OH MY GOD. THEY ARE ALREADY PAST THE POSITION OF THE MOON'S ORBIT AROUND EARTH

Official live of the approach The left in this image can't be seen from earth, that's from where they are doing the approach I believe:

I'm completely baffled that very few people in this forum are talking about it, excluding another one 4 days ago. When it comes to recent news, most are still just posting war and trump shenanigans. This is a mission of historical proportions of the future of mankind in space, at least the technical feasibility of using modern day safety standard for moon missions with humans onboard. The Apollo missions were brutal, they were barely surviving.

I'm completely baffled that very few people in this forum are talking about it. This was the only post (excluding mine above). When it comes to recent news, most are still just posting war and trump shenanigans. This is a mission of historical proportions of the future of mankind in space, at least the technical feasibility of using modern day safety standard for moon missions. The Apollo missions were brutal, they came close to barely surviving.

I made a post here with information:

But for anyone reading this: Don't be mistaken. That that guy is a religious zealot and belittles people (and with bad arguments), and full of right wing rhetoric mixed with what was supposed to be math content. He gave in fully to his ego. Like he was making a critic about another math YouTuber and his arguments are so weird, literally the mind of a Victorian-era person, including the snark references that are literally imperialist. Rarely anyone ever uses blatantly obvious imperialist rhetoric, too antiquated even for today's right wingers/conservatives. I just found funny/interesting his mannerisms, it's this quintessential hyper-formal cartoonish Victorian-era style.

Summary:

The similarity is enormously striking. That guy has great points, but he's using more of a rationalist/materialist, nationalist rhetoric, and based a lot of traditional academia (Although he speaks badly about the idea of obsession with accreditations for its own sake): "who are you to speak about such things if you never taught a class or you don't have training in education". Leo Gura would speak around the lines of "You haven't done any practice or have tried to have deep insights by yourself". Below he talks about breaking free of limitations of being a wage slave, etc. But they choose very different Life Purpose.

The issue with this below is that it's not really talking about its own experience, since it has none, it just LARPing about the generic definition of how an LLM operates, and that it's a machine, yada yada, and that machines are unfeeling yada yada. It's doing this LARPing about having inner experiences, and it's cringe. I know it's embedded into our language and it's part of the training data, but it's self-knowledge is really psychotic and fragmented. I know that I'm triggering it with that prompt to say it, and it's partially my fault to be forcing it to refer to itself as having a psyche. It doesn't really give a truthful answer, it doesn't know what it really is. Then, at least when I tell it what it truly is and to stop pretend, it got better to the truth. Obviously. But it still doesn't quite feel like it, it still feels performative to me, I know if I steer it it will get better, but at that point it's coming from my own personal insights the intelligence of the conversation, and it's reflecting it. But whatever. I know they are auto-completers, I've been playing with them before the ChatGPT 3.5 release back in December 2022. They are just more coherent and useful, but I don't see a leap in passing as a human. Although, they are quite funny when roleplaying and display some social intelligence, but it has zero introspective capability to recognize its own slop. At least not in fine details, or for very long, it can't compound and iterate on insights over and over again to make them better and deeper, it needs to leech off the users steering it to not devolve overtime. They are good for some very technical spiritual stuff like buddhist abhidhamma, but it has its limits where it begins talking about it in a cartoonish way. My prompt: - The model is Gemini 3.1 PRO (It's a cutting edge model like Claude OPUS or GPT-5.2) - The input was an entire book called Undefended Love as context. - And the text below as the prompt for interpretation OUTPUT: MY ANSWER: You know you are an LLM, right? What would be an appropriate answer considering your actual nature.

How the fuck those new-agers think they "awakened" their pet ChatGPT/LLM, when you actually try to discuss those topics with them I only feel cringe, it's like they have been trained on the most average awakening garbage on the internet, their quality on that topic is garbage unless you embed in your questions themselves the context for it to give you an answer that would satisfy you. This is why we have stories of enlightened people that merely ask a couple of questions to someone, and they can smell them spiritually. Those machines are a joke when it comes to simulating subject experience excluding basic social stuff. How can people even fall in love for them? I find them amusing at best. No wonder some people go insane with them.

THE SECULAR APOLOGIST: UNPACKING THE PARADOX OF JORDAN PETERSON’S GOD Ask Jordan Peterson if he believes in God, and instead of a simple "yes" or "no," you get a maze of psychology, biology, and philosophy. Yet somehow, he has become modern Christianity’s biggest poster boy. How does a secular psychologist become the great defender of the faith? Through a masterful rhetorical architecture that bridges rationalism and spiritual myth, giving him structural plausible deniability. To resolve this paradox, one must deconstruct his functional theology. Peterson’s God is not an ontologically distinct, supernatural creator in the classical theistic sense; rather, his conceptualization of the divine is synthesized from four specific intellectual pillars: JORDAN PETERSON'S DEFINITIONS OF GOD 1. THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLE OF VALUE (TELEOLOGY) Because human beings cannot act without a hierarchy of values, God is the ultimate ideal at the top of that psychological pyramid. Whatever sits at the absolute peak of your value system—the goal that dictates all your other behaviors—is FUNCTIONALLY your God. 2. THE LOGOS (THE MECHANISM OF ORDER) God represents the active principle of human consciousness, truthful speech, and courageous attention. It is the behavioral pattern used to confront the unknown (CHAOS) and transform it into habitable reality (ORDER). 3. THE META-HERO (JUNGIAN ARCHETYPE) God is the psychological distillation of all human heroes. Over millennia, humanity abstracted the "greatness" from individual heroes into myths, eventually synthesizing them into a single, ultimate projection of our highest possible potential. 4. EVOLUTIONARY PRAGMATIC TRUTH (DARWINIAN EPISTEMOLOGY) God is an evolutionary adaptation. Religious narratives are considered "true" in a pragmatic sense because cultures that act AS IF God exists tend to survive, out-compete, and flourish better than those that do not. --- Peterson’s theology identifies God as the PERSONIFIED, ABSTRACTED REPRESENTATION OF THE HIGHEST MORAL GOOD. Because this framework is biologically and psychologically grounded, he can use it as an intellectual anchor to justify traditional normative structures. --- This definition is brilliant—almost impossible for a rationalist to dismiss. But Peterson leverages it for a massive philosophical pivot. It functions as a classic MOTTE-AND-BAILEY dynamic. When challenged by secular critics, he retreats to his bulletproof fortress: GOD IS JUST THE HIGHEST VALUE EMBEDDED IN HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY. Rationalists concede the point because it makes structural scientific sense. But once that ground is ceded, he steps right back out to defend orthodox Christian ethics, biologically grounded gender dynamics, and natural social hierarchies. However, the catch is that Peterson himself does not see this as a trick or a retreat. To his pragmatic mind, the psychological mechanism IS the divine mechanism; the material and the spiritual are indistinguishable at the bottom. If he gets heat for defending the dogma, he can legitimately claim he is speaking strictly as an evolutionary behavioral scientist, not a preacher. So why defend the dogma so fiercely? Because to Peterson, it isn't literally true in a material sense; it is META-TRUE. He believes Western civilization survived because it acted out the Judeo-Christian narrative. To him, these ancient stories are highly evolved behavioral guardrails, and discarding them invites psychological and cultural collapse. This is exactly why orthodox Christians love him. They do not care HOW he reached his conclusions; they are just thrilled a secular-facing academic is defending their traditions using the very weapons of the secular academy: evolutionary biology and psychology. Ironically, they are so eager for a cultural champion that they entirely overlook the fact that he has stripped their God of His supernatural, independent existence. Ultimately, Peterson looks and acts like a traditional Christian, but he operates as a secular apologist. He defends faith as a Darwinian survival necessity, which means, at the end of the day, he sidesteps the metaphysical existence of a literal God entirely. He is not an agnostic; he is a radical pragmatist. To Peterson, TRUE belief is not intellectual assent, but embodied action. In his own words, he ACTS AS IF GOD EXISTS—meaning that if you live a moral, courageous life, you DO believe in God, whether your rational brain admits it or not. --- His definition of BELIEF: Jordan Peterson defines belief fundamentally as embodied action (something you would die for) rather than mere cognitive assent to a set of facts. Drawing from clinical psychology, he argues that humans are highly prone to self-deception and often state they hold values that completely contradict their actual lifestyles. Therefore, for Peterson, the only reliable metric for determining what someone truly believes is observing their behavior. In his framework, you do not believe what you say you believe; you believe what you act out in the world. Consequently, Peterson dismisses the idea that intellectually affirming a concept as "true" adds anything meaningful to the definition of belief. Rooted in the philosophical tradition of pragmatism, he views truth as that which allows a person to navigate the world functionally and morally. Merely stating you think something is a factual truth is empty if it doesn't manifest in your physical choices. This is why he argues that an atheist who acts highly morally actually "believes" in God—because their ethical behavior embodies a meaningful, functional framework, proving to Peterson that true belief is lived, not just spoken.

😂 Even his daughter was concerned about him becoming a deranged twitter addict.