hundreth

Any way you spin it, you cannot avoid how catastrophic the end result has been for the Palestinians. Ousting Netanyahu could have only been beneficial for them. But you probably don't care about incremental wins, as anything that harms Israel must be for the greater good even if it harms Palestinians even worse. The Palestinians really gained nothing from this. The Hamas lose lose strategy.

One thing that gets overlooked is how bad Oct 7th was strategically for the Palestinians. Before Oct 7 Israel was mostly in a docile state and not focused on Gaza. They were increasing work permits and focused on removing Bibi from power. He had multiple corruption charges against him, elections happening every few months, etc. It seemed inevitable that Israel was going to oust him in favor of some new leadership. And at this moment what do you? You launch a massive terrorist attack that kills hundreds of civilians. You give Netanyahu exactly what he wants and needs to stay in power. Now it's a lose lose for everyone. Both sides got fucked.

You're conflating things, which is my point. You're bundling present day Israel with the term Zionism. Now you might argue that Zionism in your definition inevitably leads to present day Israel, but large portions of Israeli society would disagree with you and have their own vision of what Zionism means and what Israel could be. If the US stopped supporting Israel, it wouldn't remove Israel's right to exist. They would defend themselves still to the best of their abilities.

I think for most Jews, Zionism is Israel's right to exist. We are here now, we aren't leaving. We can do our best to deal with the wrongs of the past and create the best possible outcomes for the future, but within the parameters of reason. What is Zionism to you? That's the issue with loaded terms like that. You label them bad, and then those with differing criteria and opinions get bundled in. You've now pushed them further towards the other side and increased extremism.

Obviously you aren't interested in the domain of the video I sent lol. That's not the point. Neither is the point whether you knew the information in it already or not. The main idea is how he structured it. Splitting Leo's videos into parts isn't the same thing because a video has structure to it. There's an intro, and eventually some closure. A 3 hour stream of consciousness from Leo isn't as easily broken apart. Where do you do the cut? I don't have to time to go through Leo's 3 hour videos and try to parse out stopping points. Anyways this is just my feedback.

I didn't really get anything out of the thread you sent. What were you trying to say the reason was? That the videos were about more "practical" matters? I think it's less about the subject and more about the flow of information.

This thread might not fit here, as it's not specifically a video request but I couldn't find a more appropriate place for it. I can't really watch Leo's videos any longer. They're too long to be digestible or enjoyable. I understand Leo's perspective that deeper topics require more nuance, information and time to learn - such as in academics. I have no issue with that. But even in an academic setting, lectures are limited to an hour or so. If you had a professor lecturing on for 3 hours straight non stop, it wouldn't be especially effective. There is a phenomena known as information overload. It is very real. To make matters worse, it doesn't seem like Leo plans his videos as an academic lecturer would. They have become more stream of consciousness rants. Often, they are repetitive and meander. This is really meant to be constructive criticism and I hope it is received as much, as I believe Leo has valuable insights. My suggestions would be: Keep videos shorter (less than 1 hr, ideally even 30-40 minutes) If topics require more in depth coverage, split them up into parts or sub-topics Have more of a structured outline for what you want to cover Here is an example of a video which adheres to some of these principles and does a good job. Ignore the cheesy thumbnail. It is in a completely different domain, but the creator is going over a very advanced topic and consolidating a lot of information into digestible bits. Sprinkled in with humor and visualizations of bullet points to help process. When there is a rabbit hole to dive deeper into, he references another video or resource. It's just easy to digest. Anyways, take care.

This statement shows how ridiculous you're being.

You think this is because of some engineered bias within the AI, but actually the AI sees the issue more clearly than you. Obviously it is more practical and reasonable given the current situation to relocate the Palestinians. Of course there's good arguments against it, which it seems to provide. On the other hand, relocating Israelis makes zero sense at all.

Right, so if you have the "right" philosophy then you can have the "right" science? That doesn't sound like science, it sounds like confirmation bias. Why not just follow wherever the truth leads? But yeah, I guess that is a philosophy of science in itself which I believe most scientists aspire to in principal, to be an unbiased observer. In practice, it probably isn't so simple. In that sense self awareness becomes paramount.

Why? The opposite seems like it could also be true. If you're subscribed to some ideology or specific philosophy you run the risk of searching for confirmations. This is what happened with Einstein and determinism. He was so ideologically captured by the philosophy of determinism, he spent half his life at odds with quantum physics.

Good question. The New Age movement has different dimensions, aliens, spirits, anything and everything in between. I think the difference is that in this model, everything is real. In your model, everything is a dream. I mean it isn't your model per se. I would hope the difference is that your teachings are more grounded, but part of me feels like you'd like to say that the new age movement is *too* grounded.

Here's a great example of how the community breaks down new theories from your favorite person, Dave. You can fast forward to 50:00 where he brings on Tim Nguyen, who peer reviewed his work to explain the theory and poke some holes. The entire video is great though. These are typically the frauds who claim they have a new theory of everything. The Weinsteins and the Terrence Howards of the world.

Understood. Yeah, I could totally see that danger. For sure, there has to be room for alternative medicine and intuition outside of current scientific paradigms.

Fair enough, though it seems like your viewership is lacking the prerequisites to distinguish between RFK's beliefs and truth. That's a concerning demographic to add new science skepticism towards.