Davino

Of course. I shared more good material for contemplation, in case anyone finds value.

That's why you gotta observe the crocodile at action and get insights into it. Poking the crocodile and reading between the lines. If you watch a hundred of those interviews you'll start to the see the self-deception and good advice as well. It's the intermingle of truth and falsehood what makes it so interesting to inquiry. This smells bad

Smells bad...

This channel has interesting short interviews with millionaires: Check it out, interesting content, got many insights on the rich psychology from the shorts

Lmao this killed me

I have to admit it has swag

Thanks for sharing the creativity video. Really liked it!

I'm happy to hear you've contemplated independently

Anyways, just wanted to leave my perspective for the record. Everyone makes up their mind. I might be terribly wrong at the end of the day, it wouldn't be the first nor the last time.

Let's see how the experiment goes. You make it sound so much more nefarious than what it is, given the current ecosystem. It all depends one the measuring stick I guess, and I think it's the wrong one. Who would pass our standards Leo? I'm trying to promote a more omnisided view. You have to recognise he's adding value. Some ridiculous one sided comments have been made. Let's acknowledge both realities. Say everything, the signal and the noise. And again, if we had to truly talk who would be left, not even ourselves.

Just for the record, I think Bryan Johnson is the wrong nail to hammer. Sure he is full of inadequacies, but given the epistemic trash of public figures rn on social media, he at least is promoting healthy habits. Yes we can speculative about ulterior motives, but imo he is making a net positive in society. I've benefited with some good health content he's made and most people here would too if they cared to watch his content with an open mind. He's doing unconventional stuff, that's why all the buzz, but we should know better, moreover in his beginnings he made plenty of basic solid health videos, without that context the current stage looks eccentric. Leo does seem to have a shadow on health topics, biasing lightly but noticeably his views. The rest of forum members just seem to be unconsciously conforming to his views here, that's the only reason this topic is relevant in the first place. My final thoughts are that Bryan is a decent figure in the current state of the events and that I support his experiment. I'm curious to see his evolution and I sporadically get value from his content.

It's all about understanding Oneness. Holarchies and holism is the base but at some point you gotta realise it's all One. It's not anymore systems, or holism, it's oneness and you are not a holon anymore, you become the Oneness, ending all chains of inquiry just to arrive at the very beginning. Everything becomes self-explanatory, as it must be due to Oneness. Check Leo's video on Strange Loops, and really try to grasp that as an insight, if Reality is a strange loop, how does that radically recontextualize understanding? Understanding strange loops is like kissing your ass backwards, everything connects perfectly.

On the other hand, how is it possible to truly reach clarity without undergoing that messy process. I'll explain how my sense making has evolved over the years. It's necessary to be lost in systems for a few good years before starting to intuit holistic thinking. Once you reach holism everything starts making much more sense, however your understanding hasn't fully reached completeness, it's necessary to close the loop so to speak. The next level is strange loop thinking, at this point you understand how all of reality is self-contained and self-explanatory. The snake has found its tail. However, still the snake hasn't fully realised what it means to be self-contained, everything connects within itself, but it doesn't know itself. Then you realise, Infinite Mind and the Sense Making Game becomes literally Infinite.

The Goat

New Space, in a top research centre. There’s currently a big shift happening with nanosatellite Low Earth Orbit constellations. In the past, only space agencies like NASA or a few large organizations could afford to build and operate satellites, which were typically large, very expensive, and placed in high orbits to last for decades. Now things are very different. Thanks to miniaturization and cheaper launch options, it’s possible to deploy small satellites for a few thousand euros each. This opens the door for much more flexible uses, from Earth observation to communications and scientific experiments. The trade-off is that these satellites are much simpler individually, so large-scale services (like global internet coverage) require hundreds or even thousands of them working together as a coordinated network. This introduces a new engineering challenge: managing not just a single complex satellite, but an entire distributed ecosystem in orbit. Each satellite is already a layered system (hardware, software, onboard processing, and reconfigurable or programmable components) and when you multiply that by a large constellation, the complexity grows significantly. My research focused on this problem. I developed a theoretical observability framework across all these layers; meaning a structured way to monitor and understand what is happening inside each layer of the satellite and across the whole constellation. The idea is to define how information should be collected at every level, how it can be communicated between heterogenous layers, and how system-wide behavior can be inferred efficiently from that data, given very short windows of earth communication. After developing the theoretical model, I implemented and tested it in a real nanosatellite payload, and also used a virtualized environments to simulate large-scale network interactions. This allowed me to validate that the approach is technically feasible in realistic conditions. I was the first to openly publish a solution to this problem. It is believed that companies such as SpaceX have developed similar capabilities internally, but because they provide a significant competitive advantage, those solutions are not publicly disclosed. The good thing of public research centres is that I got all the very expensive infrastructure needed to conduct my research and then the solution was freely published (after of course very well mentioning in my paper whose funds helped me to do so). This kind of work is particularly important as New Space companies continue to scale up the number of satellites in orbit and need more efficient ways to manage them. After I finished this work I left the research centre, I was just there for the mental high challenge. PD: Really bad experience to write a paper and get it published. I particularly disliked by how autistically peaky the format and paper had to be written in, you make a wrong table format and a year long work doesn't get published. What most annoyed me was finishing all the work, writing the paper and then see how all the research bosses and higher peers sneakily signed the document as co-authors and you couldn't do shit about that. Of course some colleagues I wrote myself the name as they really contributed with their expertise, but the other 8 who just signed, lmao. It's me who has been nights without sleep trying to solve this problem, not you who just signed the paper; I thought to myself.

One of the most eye opening realisations I had about how truly science works is undergoing the process to get published in the Institution of Engineering and Technology. Science stops being this glamorous champion of truth and it's seen as any other company, with self-interests, money and reputation hungry, and ass tight about the way you should do science to get published, both in format and content. My colleagues at that time where quite critique about the system, the older the researcher the more skeptical, when the youngsters asked how could it be made better, they answered we've tried and contemplated how to improve the system, but for now it's the best we can do given the conditions of science and economy. If anything, it's sad that many brilliant mind get trapped like rats in maze of breadcrumbs.

I'm not claiming they are right nor wrong, or the degree of their realization. Just as a contrast with how Osho talks about God. (ParamaShiva=God)

@Stick The video isn't talking about God

This man has been going through a very difficult spiral. I used to like his content but somehow I stopped watching it and every few years I see a video of some bad news that happened to him. I really wish him the best and hope he can comeback stronger.

I deliberately don't want to give my view on this thread, I wrote the minimum necessary for context. I want to share content for your contemplation.

Can't you think for yourself? Contemplate on your own, these videos are food for thought. Digest them yourself.