A big enough operation that wants consistency inevitably becomes a bureaucracy:
Putting aside the object-level, the situation of studying someone who you think should believe something else is inherently difficult, and it would behoove us to consider how many studies are really just that:
Strategic interaction is normal, here’s some media where you can feel it take place seamlessly, empathizably 🧵:
“Wikipedia is not a source” didn’t really work out…but the result has put us in a funny position:
Visions of utopia are always revealing as to what people think the fundamental bottleneck to happiness is:
Eugenics, as above, is a great concept to examine how people think power works, clarified elegantly here:
A lot of arguments use equivalencies that are assumed on good faith, here’s a literal example:
Your situation in life often gives you “free computation”, because you’ve become a library for the things that you’d need to know and can “look them up” by looking at yourself; what if you’re an outlier, though?
Woof:
A new ecosystem of labor?
Karl Friston: “the free energy principle is what it is — a principle. Like Hamilton's principle of stationary action, it cannot be falsified. It cannot be disproven. In fact, there’s not much you can do with it, unless you ask whether measurable systems conform to the principle.”
Aguilera et al.:
Immersion™, now for more than just foreign languages:
On the Origin of Cakes
The only reason kayfabe feels weird is because you’ve been taking people literally:
Emptiness can be a confusing message, because you have to read the background instead of the foreground:
Perfect tweet cut-off:
Art by Chris Pirillo