How many unknown innocents would some mercilessly slaughter to protect those they love? Empathy has its own dark side. This is not a simple Hero vs. Villain fairy tale.

That was the problem, some of them are available to the "public" now.

Here I thought I was in a quarantine within a quarantine withing a quarantine...at least there is one less to worry about.

can you post the comments from whomever you replied to with:

The point of "women's week" among aliens like the Naigaje is to weed out young men willing to kill innocents, or allow...

I definitely do not, I guess the censorship creep has reached this door.

I can not see who you are replying to, it says "comment removed by moderator" to me. I would share a screenshot if it wouldn't mean doxxing myself.

Why were the comments deleted by a mod? I am late to this party.

​

I also do not like defending sociopaths...in fact, I am a quite surprised to find myself in this position. Sociopathy can actually thrive if there is an intellectual baseline along with an education where logic is applied at a high enough level. Evolution gets to the same place, it is why "empathy" exists... it fills the space where the higher level logic may not be obvious when it concerns the continued existence of a species.

I agree that there are sociopaths who operate on a basis that is purely destructive to society, and society will not miss their removal... but if you agree with this then you must accept that there are also some that understand the greater logic of how "empathetic" types of actions also empower a stronger society. If you were to remove the latter types, society would suffer. How are we so basic in our judgements? "Naigaje" are not role models...stop worshiping them as such.

I actually do have an idea that isn't a pedantic rebuttal. The concept of "Robinhooding" is actually a quite effective counter to greed in any system.

scatter brain

Seems so, he isn't wrong about "quantum" snake oil though. However, I find myself growing tired of academic debates regarding basic physics and math.

Literally every decision you will ever make is based on assumption.

You never disputed my logic, only that I made an assumption. I do not dispute that it was an assumption, since everything is.

Shall we continue on this merry-go-round?

I don’t get the impression that his world is overpopulated at all.

This is literally an assumption.

You can't run an island of 10 people if you kill everyone all the time. He never said it was overpopulated, but there is a thing called logic.

There is more than 1 way to run a society.

We need to have a system that punishes the behavior, not the makeup of the individual. Can't you see how putting all sociopaths into the same bucket is similar logic to the Hutu's view of the Tutsi's?

The world that RD describes clearly depicts a world massively overpopulated, therefore life is of little value. Step out of line, death. Drunk in the street, death. Sneeze and too much mucus hits the sidewalk, death.

It should be a warning, not something to aspire to.

So your argument is that 100% of sociopaths are bad/evil; and no atrocities were ever committed by any non-sociopaths?

I have seen more people use "empathy" and their feelings to justify atrocities that are further reaching than some sociopath beating their own path through the jungle.

The reality is that our females already control breeding selection to a large degree... they just don't always accept the responsibility of properly raising the thing they "selected" for; or even "selecting" based on what is best for the future of the species. I can see how having a week like this where they have to "own up" might change that some... but it is extreme and shouldn't be necessary if everything is properly in place.

I'm with you on a merit based system in theory, but in practice it succumbs to the same pitfalls. How to build and maintain a society once it emerges into times of abundance is a difficult problem.

I don't get all the hate on sociopaths, sure MOST of them are bad... but not all. They are just obvious symptoms of a failed social structure and shitty education system.

Our "Women's Week" would just be a bunch of dudes in drag wanting to get in on the killing.

We should do this, but instead of killing our youths we should be allowed to remove undesirable billionaires and politicians.

Any currency will be abused by greed...leading to all the same problems.

Better to ask "Got any greed reduction ideas?"

I do not follow, in fact you've completely lost me. We seem to be talking about different things.

You seem to also miss the point that sometimes the honesty is what kills the belief, rendering the effect useless. Those whose belief isn't lost by exposure to the Truth don't need the tonic in the first place as they already command the "placebo effect" at will. Better to just then explain and demonstrate the effect itself... but then you aren't selling "snake oil" anymore, are you?

Selling "Snake Oil" can be a shortcut to the lengthy explanation/training otherwise required...but it is also a way to create dependence on a product that isn't actually needed. The intent is what determines the ethics.

What if instead of using it to cure your cancer you silenced a squeaky wheel with it? It is oil after-all, maybe it is a great one at that.

The key ingredient in a placebo is belief, so if that is what you are selling packaged in a harmless flavored tonic...where is the ethical line? You can not sell the belief by saying "this is just a harmless tonic with no medical properties" since it removes the key ingredient. The universe is filled with such paradoxes.

Are you insinuating that snake oil doesn't have its uses?

When it comes to future-casting, you'd be better off reading the Farmer's Almanac.

Soon^(tm)

Wait till you try beer made with alien spit and sentient yeast...

it is our intention to bring beer when we reveal ourselves to you as it is a high ritual to us to share beer

This is a high ritual for me as well, at least some aliens know how to first contact properly...

Disclosure of "Aliens" is basically the final card they have to play without taking direct measures that remove the buffers to their power and secrecy. Using war to achieve their aims no longer has the same probabilistic chance of success as a shock-and-awe "Alien" calamity.

IF they play this final card of disclosure, they will ensure it comes with a cementing of the power structure and a shoring up of annoying individual freedoms that often get in the way of the march towards totalitarianism. Everything is already in place to ensure a "smooth" transition... even the most tuned out are starting to notice, but these losses of freedoms sold as conveniences are apparently too good to pass up.

Greed's a helluva drug.

Eisenhower warned us, Kennedy tried to show us, LBJ paved the way for the future puppets and fed the machine.

Disney's dirty little secret has always been the massive amount of research they do at the park. It is basically a huge laboratory where people pay for the privilege of being experimented on.

Holding my breath in anticipation...

Thought for sure the "EBO whistleblower" would have been the stronger bait...

A decent goal for just about any society is to have a public life that approaches "normal" in order to maintain "orderly" function; but also the freedom of private life not bound by consensus'd public norms. Everyone is responsible in the maintenance of these rights.

It is when the system is abused and exploited for personal gain in a way that is not only wrong but abhorrent, one can not help but ponder intent. It is also perhaps an important reminder that society occasionally needs maintenance from time to time.

Men pretending to be women, alien pretending to be human... all looks the same from my vantage.

Found one for OP

I've been leaning toward zombie apocalypse lately.

Doesn't bother me. I no longer have any desire whatsoever to answer this beacon. The "Milkmaiding" ethos here leaves much to be desired.

In fact, I am beginning to hope that humanity never answers this fucking thing.

There is more than one way forward.

Generally speaking, if I can not answer a question I try to proffer a reason why.

So, why are you not at liberty to discuss that here?

>I am not at liberty, nor under any obligation, to discuss that here.

Then what is the point?

>Can you clarify this with any examples?

You just listed some examples, do you need more? Do you deny that RD is meddling in human affairs? I don't understand the confusion here, he has stated it outright.

If RD is setting himself up to force fulfillment of prophecy so he can benefit (as you mentioned), how is that motive not clear? Profit doesn't have to mean acquisition of resources. So "profit motive" can easily be acquisition of power, information, influence, prestige, etc.

My point was that the "Allies of Humanity" message is a bit less thirsty...

Also, how can you be so CERTAIN that you know what will happen if the beacon gets answered as prescribed? There is a difference between "hope", "belief". "knowing", and "Truth".

It just amazes me that anyone here can speak about these things with such certainty... when to my mind nothing about this is certain.

The only thing we have control of is ourselves, and our world is a fucking mess.

sorry, I compiled my response into a more concise reply. bad timing on the deletion.

>This is basically the overarching message of both this sub and
>
>r/reptiliandude
>
>, though.

Except here, RD and his kind are actively meddling in our affairs. Hell, he is living among us and is always humble-bragging about how he influences people of "power" . "They listen to their Dragons." He has clearly shown his "profit" motivations, and a clear greed for prestige and "currency". The messages are not really the same, are they?

I know the argument is that They broke it, now they have to fix it; but we have clearly gone full circle with our now broken society and corrupt governments.

One of the first things I attempted to get clarity on from RD was the "Laws" (actually they are clearly only rules) that they are bound by. He would not elaborate. Tell me what fair society holds its members to rules that they are not allowed to know or have influence over?

If they are bound by OUR rules, then what gives them the right to actively implement legislation either directly or via human proxy? What are their governing rules regarding these actions? Good luck getting that answer.

I find it hard to believe that answering the beacon will summon anything different. Meet the new boss...

>Any post that encourages us NOT to answer the beacon is highly suspect.

Well, place me in that bucket.

As I have said before, handing the leash of our slave collar to another isn't freedom.

If aliens are here and meddling in our lives, and they claim to be so at our asking, then they should fully disclose themselves and all their actions. If they are truly here at the "request of the people" then such a disclosure surely wouldn't hurt their position.

They don't do that, because they know that they are not here by our choosing. They also know that their operations here will not endear them to us.

The logic of the situation is fairly easy to understand. If they can't do what they are doing in the open with the full support of everyone, they can get the fuck out... by our Rules and theirs.

When it comes to every version of alien meddling I have encountered, I have to admit that I most closely align with the message of these "Allies of Humanity". They want nothing from us other than for us to maintain our autonomy... likely because they have seen the bland existence that emerges when societies consolidate these vast amounts of resources and power into one mono-culture.

RD has even said to be wary of those with hidden agendas...even though he himself clearly possesses one. The message from these guys ("allies") is vague, but pretty basic:

"you are in a world of shit, hope you can figure it out or your fucked. You have to kick these bastards out on your own. This warning is all we can do to help, good luck."

As far as aid goes, it is pretty weak... but if this is the reality of the situation, take what you can get.

I think I got through the bulk of the material in 2 morning coffee sessions. The first book is probably all you need to read to get the gist.

No specifics are spoken about, just a general warning that species from the "greater community" are here and meddling. They say it is on us to save ourselves as they had to save themselves from the same, and that is the only way to maintain our freedom in the long run.

When I read it my thoughts were basically "yea, no shit Sherlock". Common sense to anyone wading in these waters.

The only thing that is actionable in a way is that they mentioned how the rules work (something I was never able to get any specificity from RD on). The "Greater Community" or any individual group, "Collective", as they call it is not allowed to operate here unless they are invited. If it can be shown that we do not want them here, then they have to leave.

Of course, it could be that there are some here helping that without the aid we may be very well fucked... and asking them to leave would be detrimental to us, but that is always a risk.

I'm not an expert, but I did read through what is published on the site. The only help the "allies" will give is to tell us of our predicament, they will not intervene as it will make us dependent upon them. There is nothing really of substance, just the same warning repeated ad nausea.

I do not know how the author is "contacted". Likely voices in the head or some other unprovable wu-wu.

Personally, I am all for anything that throws some more caution at this whole mess. The warnings in the writings do not lack common sense, in fact they seem like sound advice.

Sometimes forgiveness requires Justice.

The problem is that individualism as a system is difficult to build with a set of rules/ethics that can endure long enough to mature into a functioning society. The universe is plagued by a greed that is not easily overcome by a free-sharing of resources or ideas.

I believe that an individualized free society, though more tenuous, has the greatest potential for growth ("Knowledge", by yours and classical definitions) beyond the stale-mate that a collective/drone/military/imperial type inevitably falls into. Systems of harsh control are by far easier to maintain at massive scale, but if that control fails the system fails. The difficulty is not trading freedom for convenience or security.

This, I believe, is one of the cruxes of life in this Universe.

The copy/paste lost some of the exponential formatting, so the equations may be confusing, just look at the original here for clarity:

https://www.reddit.com/r/reptiliandude/comments/ztkvgz/explains_a_lot/

Most everything is exponential, so the identities above:

ϕ0 + ϕ1 = ϕ2

ϕ2 = ϕ + 1

1 = ϕ - 1/ϕ;

ϕx = ϕx-1 + ϕx-2

ϕx = Σϕx-n|n=2:∞

should be:

ϕ^0 + ϕ^1 = ϕ^2

ϕ^2 = ϕ + 1

1 = ϕ - 1/ϕ;

ϕ^x = ϕ^(x-1) + ϕ^(x-2)

ϕ^x = Σϕ^(x-n)|n=2:∞

Area_of_unit_circle = 4/[ln(ϕ)*ϕ^(2)];

Nth Derivative = nth derivative = [ln(ϕ)^(n)]*ϕ^(t)

It is all pretty nicely handled. The identity of importance here is

ϕ^x = Σϕ^(x-n)|n=2:∞

Take area under the curve for example, if you segment it up from -∞:0, 0:1, 1:2. The area from -∞:0 is equal to the area of the segment 1:2. These various identities that show up in the Golden Ratio are the special sauce that allow for easier computations. Every identity holds true regardless the order (i.e. segmented lines, segmented areas, volumes, etc.), it makes this higher and lower order analysis easier.

This error is quite magnified when looking at small or large concepts (i.e. "quantum" or "cosmological"). It also blows up when dealing with multi-layered issues (i.e. position, velocity, acceleration, jerk... basic Newtonian analysis becomes slightly different).

It is the beauty of the Golden Ratio. If you are able to segment a thing up accordingly, all the identities apply. It also means that even though you are working in a number system that does not go to zero, you know everything from zero to where you are as long as the ratio holds. There is also a pseudo symmetry in that zero is as far away from "one" as "infinity" is, helpful when normalizing to complex problems.

3rd reply, sorry but I suppose that I should point out that the -1^(th) order and +1^(th) order were used to calculate my listed values.

It leads to reason that the 0^(th) order contains a value for pi that falls between the 2. The direct average is 3.144 which is very close. This is likely where classical pi resides.

I should also state that our "accepted" definition of pi may exist at a certain order of the nth derivative equation that I have derived above.

I have just not bothered to reconcile it yet since I have a more robust definition for describing curved geometries that does not need pi.

I have written a bunch of code to simulate all of this, perhaps I will go on an expedition to determine where "classical" pi resides. I have a feeling it is in there somewhere...

Again, the main point is that for this flavor of math you do not need pi...at all.

(when I type φ I mean the Golden Ratio, for whatever reason the alt code seems to represent different)

I could walk you down the path I took (maybe eventually I will), but the most important part is understanding the spiral and how we place pi into polar coordinates. When you realize that pi is in places it need not be you can realize that it self-normalizes the math in a way that makes the error difficult to detect.

The concept in my proof above is fairly simple, perhaps I did not explain it very well.

When you look at the Golden Spiral in polar form, r(t) = φ^(t) every value for r(t) is φr(t-1), The obvious corollary is that on a polar plot (0:3) each crossing of the axis has an incident angle that is a right angle to the neighboring ones...it has to be to come full circle and maintain the ratio of growth so that every spiral is similar.

It is also important to understand how the spiral going from 1:φ^(-1):φ^(-2):φ^(-3) diverges from the circle in a similar fashion to the one that goes from 1:φ:φ^(2):φ^(3). The area under the smaller spiral is 1/φ the area of the circle it diverges from, and the area of the larger spiral is φ times the area of the circle it diverges from.

This allows us to not only calculate for the area of the spirals, but also the area of the circle that 2 complimentary spirals represent.

All this without once invoking pi. That is the simplest derivation. The math is to take the derivative or integrate the equation for the spiral.

The Derivative of r(t), r'(t) = ln(φ) * φ^(t)

The Integral of r(t) is 1/ln(φ)*φ^(t)

which leads to the nth derivative that I listed above due to the property of evaluating this exponent:

nth derivative = [ln(φ)^(n)]*φ^(t);

If you are calculating perimeter, slope, area, volume, etc...you can hopefully see how the value of pi must change depending on the order of calculation you are using. This is the important part, pi is not needed using the math above...it is just something you can derive if you feel the need to define pi.

These Golden Identities exist for every derivative and integral, it is what makes the math powerful. Calculating a complex system of particle trajectories, for instance, becomes quite simple as long as you have a good value for φ...then you just have to set limits of granularity (i.e. how many derivatives deep you want to go).

Some background.

I gave myself a challenge of trying to calculate pi without using trig (since pi is inherently built into it). This was in part prompted by the fact that my calculated angle of departure of the Golden Spiral at the cardinal points wasn't 90 degrees from the neighboring cardinal crossing(89.66...). The original method of exhaustion by Archimedes gives the same result everyone is used to.

My next attempt was to calculate using the geometric definition of a square root:

https://janmr.com/media/root1.svg

I reduced this into a generalized cord (2*sqrt(x)) that I swept (integrated) along the diameter of the circle, this too resolved into the accepted value for pi. If it interests you, I can provide that proof...it doesn't bridge the inconsistency, but it does point to the problem. Some of our assumed relationships between straight line geometry and curved geometry are flawed.

I had originally thought that perhaps the infinity that Archimedes was approximating was flawed by virtue of either a sharing of points or some other abstract mixup that only manifested itself when dealing with different sets of infinities. A good example is sweeping out pie slices to determine area, but the inner most point must be shared...when there are infinite slices, you can introduce error.

It is why I thought that by sweeping (integrating) this cord and doing it using only the relationship of known triangle geometry (A^(2) + B^(2) = C^(2)) and the square root definition in the figure would eliminate any potential strangeness in the math... it only pointed to the fact that our definition of how to translate from straight lines to curves is flawed.

The next logical step is to eliminate not only pi from the calculation of area, but also straight line geometrical definitions. It is at first daunting to try and think in curves when we are programmed to break everything down into lines and triangles. The math holds though, you can take the basic equation for the Golden Spiral and integrate it to find area, or use the derivative to go after slope. This is where the inconsistency resolves, pi changes depending on what you are measuring since our classical definition of pi (Circumference/diameter, Area/pi^2, etc.) is just an approximation.

The difference is small when looking at things like circumference to area (~0.8%), but as the magnitude and order change it becomes a problem. This, I believe to be driving some of the problems in science and engineering.

I'll stop there, but let me know if the concept is still a bit unclear. I have been looking at this for a while and things that seem obvious to me may require further explanation.

I understand the frustration. Your task would be much easier if we didn't live in a state of constant blanket censorship promoted by governments, embraced at the corporate level, and shrugged at by the people.

Personally, I just try to do what I can within the constraints of the system I find myself within. What else is there besides breaking the system or doing nothing?

I think it is important to understand the difference between individuals collectively enforcing norms, and systematic enforcement of norms (i.e. state run credit systems). the former puts the power and responsibility directly in the hands of the individuals, while the latter is controlled by the few who operate the system.

Both have advantages and downfalls.

I am with you on the sentiment, just not the approach.

They clearly hoard "information" i.e. "currency" the same way that our human parasites here hoard fiat. There is no difference, and that is a problem.

You can not have a tiered system without greed, they have a clear hierarchy. Even if it is a larp then it is driven by narcissism of an individual or it is a structured op put on by an interest group. If the premise is real, then the same is basically true, just at a different order of magnitude. Regardless the Truth is that our situation can be better...not just ours but also those who foolishly wield power for promotion of self-interests.

If there is one consistency, it is that everyone here wants their situation better. The most efficient way of achieving it is to make everyone's better, allocating resources to improve the whole system is the most efficient way. If you want to wax philosophical or religious the golden spiral is a symbol of this both metaphorically and mathematically...something they claim to believe in at least in words if not deed.

All we can do is try to identify those who wish to help and try to do the same. Some are working under tight constraints, or from within a cage of their own. I am bound by a self-built cage of ethics that limits what I am willing to do, so by your logic I perhaps am also compromised.

Sometimes the best we can do is try to get everyone pushing on the same side of the boulder, even if the individual effort is not the same.

Ghandi said to be the change you wish to see in the world, sound advice. The power structure all the way up is corrupt and clearly has no will to change, we must show the better way.

Your time is worth more than worrying about mod privileges on this basket weaving forum.

Pretty sure that is automod.

I understand your frustrations. We live in strange times. Everyone has some hidden agenda, and those that don't are likely being used by those that do.

The reality is that everyone here occupies the far end of the bell-curve. We can disagree while maintaining respect, we have to because if even the few remaining places like this devolve into in-fighting then what the fuck is the point?

Want to get traction, present evidence that is undeniable... a tall order under the current zeitgeist, but one that you either rise to or you don't. Everything else is just bickering about speculation... it has its place, but there is a right and a wrong way to go about it.

Re-calibrate yourself to what is important. If humanity's future is on the line, you need to realize that allies you don't fully agree with are far better than enemies who will sing you platitudes while destroying you.

I do not have the bandwidth to attempt to dissect Terrence Howard's claims. I still adhere to the more basic principles of math, i.e. 1x1 does not equal 2. I understand that this is coming from someone who just spent a couple months re-proving what pi is in order to bridge an inconsistency... this is not the first time my fundamental understanding of the universe has been turned on its head either... so I try to keep an open mind.

​

The unfortunate state of our understanding in math and the sciences has also forced me to only rely on that which I can prove myself. We do not live in a world where information can be taken at face value and comes with the presumption of accuracy. I have wasted decades operating on a faulty understanding that was taught to me as though it were Universal Law, it has forced me to become a reductionist instead of building on the work of those who came before. Most structures benefits from a solid foundation, and annoyingly our understanding consists of quicksand and bubblegum.

π(area) = 3.1750342893406196275691162777; Or more simply:

π(area) = 4/(ln(φ)*φ^(2))

π(circumference) = 4ln(φ)φ (3.1144...)

There is a more general form for π but I haven't included it because the main point is that we need to change our understanding.

I will provide an abridged proof below, but to keep it short I will not elaborate on many of the implications this brings.

The Golden Ratio φ has many great properties, here are some applicable identities:

φ^(0) + φ^(1) = φ^(2)

φ^(2) = φ + 1

1 = φ - 1/φ;

φ^(x) = φ^(x-1) + φ^(x-2)

φ^(x) = Σφ^(x-n)|n=2:∞

The equation of the golden spiral can be written as:

r(t) = φ^(t)

Taking the derivative:

r'(t) = ln(φ)*φ^(t)

This is important to understand because every derivative there after simply modifies the power of ln(φ). You can write the nth derivative as:

nth derivative = [ln(φ)^(n)]*φ^(t)

This works with integration as well (i.e. n=-1). As above so below.

The golden spiral r(t) = φ^t crosses each axis at golden intervals if you set the cardinal points so that a full rotation equals 4 (i.e. t=0:3).

If you are astute you will notice that each angle of departure from the axis is a right angle from the neighboring one.

We can also unwrap the curve and say that y= r(x) = φ^x. The same identities apply to all the nth derivatives (first integral n=-1 being important here). On our new curve y = φ^x, if we segment it up into 4 areas vertically divided by X = 0,1,2,3 and label them 'A' evaluated from x=-∞:0, 'B' from 0:1, 'C' from 1:2 , and 'D' from 2:3; we see the following relationships with regards to area:

A = C

A+B = D

B+C = D

In fact, all the previous identities hold true for any of the nth derivatives.

It is also important that if you look at 2 curves that are complimentary:

r1 = φ^x and r2 = 1/φ^x

They both diverge/converge equally from the circle between them at r=φ^x i.e.:

φ^x * 1/φ^x = 1;

To solve for the area of the circle, let's choose the circle with r=1 and evaluate the area under the curve going from r1|1:φ and r2|(1/φ):1

From here you can calculate the area many ways using the A,B,C,D relationships above. The simplest derivation is to realize that the area under r2-r1 is divided by our unit circle at a ratio of φ. So to solve for the area, we need to only take the integral of the spiral inside the circle and multiply by φ, or take the area of the larger spiral and divide by φ.

Area_of_larger_spiral_r1 = [1/ln(φ)] (φ^(1) - φ^(0)) = 1/[ln(φ)φ]

Dividing by φ; area_of_circle = Area_of_larger_spiral_r1/φ = 1/[ln(φ)*φ^(2)]

Since one increment in φ is a quarter turn, we must multiply by 4:

Area_of_unit_circle = 4/[ln(φ)*φ^(2)];

We have just calculated the area of a circle with no knowledge of π, just an understanding of the golden ratio. If we want to then evaluate for π using the standard definition:

Area = πr^2 ; since we chose a unit circle r^2 = 1 and our value for π is the area_of_unit_circle listed above. Once again, the big takeaway is to stop thinking of π as a constant.

There are many ways to come to this value using φ, but the implications and applications of this basic principle are far reaching. It points out the problem with some of the base assumptions about geometry that were used to derive π as a constant. I could be wrong, but I was quite shocked by this result and can not find error in my math.

This is also the basis for fractal mathematics. This can be normalized to solve many problems. Things like advanced motion that involve position, velocity, acceleration, jerk, etc.. are all fairly easily handled since every derivative is quickly computed and robust models for things like particle motion can be developed with far greater ease than many of the approaches weighted down with heavy trig.

You can also imagine that having an accurate value for π changes many things since this error is magnified as we get to large or small scales.

I did gloss over some nuance, like the differences between evaluating the area over a non-self-overlapping period versus evaluating the area under the curve all the way to -∞. I also did not brush on the differences between left and right-handed curves, scaling, fractal stackups, or curve modification to fit differing shapes. These are handled in the identities above and the sub-identities derived from them, they all share these unique properties and allow for easy simplification. As long as the ratio is properly introduced into the series it can be easily solved for. Normalizing this math is fairly straight forward based on a unit spiral.

I find it difficult to believe that this basic information is not known. In fact, I believe it is being actively suppressed along with a whole other host of knowledge. This is one of the great conspiracies of our time. I can't help but ask myself "why?" What is there to gain by holding back this basic knowledge of the structure of the universe? There is an agenda at play here, as well as a hidden intent that I have been trying to point out and decipher with little success.

Some knowledge is dangerous and warrants secrecy, I hope this does not. This proof is currently the only answer to the beacon I am willing to give, our society requires fixing before the other solutions can be considered.

Maybe this small gesture of academic charity will be enough to spark real change that improves the conditions for everyone, unfortunately there is a realist in me that has doubts.

Some Truths can not be hidden even by the best propaganda machines, disinformation campaigns, institutional coverups, or ill formed educational and societal structures. Some Truths are fundamental to existence and continue to shine through the noise of ignorance and malice; they resist censure. I give you one such proof as a tool, a metaphor, a symbol, sapling, and a test.

The title of this thread is hopefully appropriate. To paraphrase a quote and add to it:

"After the first sip at the cup of math and science it is easy to be an atheist; but after the last drink "God" is waiting there to fill it back up again for you."

I am fairly certain that I know a couple ways to answer the beacon. Bold words, I know, but if you get to the end of this post perhaps these words will hold slightly more weight.

For brevity (I know) I will not include the full and exhaustive proofs, I will also try to list the important concepts first (although they are all fairly important). First I will have to preamble a bit.

I believe that information as a currency, like all other currencies, promotes greed in a society. Greed being the core ill of most societies, be it for money, resources, power, prestige, etc.; Greed is often a Great Filter against advancement.

I also believe that information given should be given freely without debt. This is an idealized view that withers under most societal structures where such behavior would be only taken advantage of...again because of greed. I do however believe in an individual or group's right to their unique information as well as all deserved credit. This includes the right to determine if and when said information is shared as well as the true rights to all information gained legitimately. This I see as a natural extension of Free Will and one's right to Free Will as a universal law. By this I recognize the value of information and the many possible formations of rights behind it.

I used to think that greed could be channeled into Great Works. Greed for the sake of prestige to improve the condition of things around you. Sometimes a Great Work for the sake of pure improvement can pull back the shade that greed casts on society and turn it into a sail that allows for advancement and exploration.

I have decided that giving this information is the only way to answer the beacon without forging a tool into this world that will undoubtedly be used as a weapon first.

The information below I give freely, I will never lay claim to this proof as I am only re-discovering a fundamental concept that has existed long before this writing and hopefully will continue to exist after. Anyone who lays claim to this is mis-appropriating it. Some things should not be owned.

I know society though. It will likely be branded crazy non-math, an opportunist will seize on it, or it will be buried. The beauty is that the Truth can not be concealed forever and some proofs stand on their own. Truth is indestructible. If I have made an error, it will be found and corrected. If my proof is sound, it will stand... you can not disinformation your way out of math.

Some Truth is dangerous in the wrong hands, this information can be used that way but it is the closest to a pure tool that I can currently provide.

I know that I have been a pain to many in this community and my methods are abrasive. The information RD and others has posted on these subs has been posted freely, consider this me giving back:

There has been an escalation of censorship and consolidation of "free spaces" where ideas can be discussed openly. On this site there has been a pandemic of account suspensions on questionable grounds while other sites have been co-opted, purchased, regulated, invaded, or shut down. Technology, manufacturing, production, and other related industries have been consolidated into the hands of very few. How long before our very interaction with the surrounding world is metered and controlled in much the same way?

There is a sickness to this social climate that is becoming all too apparent. Not just politics, even math and sciences are tainted at the most basic levels. It is a strange world where we are unable to stand on the shoulders of those who came before, and instead must start fresh for every earnest endeavor.

Why is it this way? Perhaps that is the question that matters the most.

I am not a preacher of nihilism either, in fact the idea is so foreign to me that I have had to look up the definition multiple times and I still don't completely understand it as a concept.

The "black pill" is just realizing how fucked up the system is, everyone's response to that knowledge is different.

I have just decided to adopt the "knowledge is its own reward" philosophy, which is selfish in its own right; but this is the system in which we find ourselves. The Rick Sanchez approach seems the only viable option on the table, even if the probabilistic success is low.

I see you are a fellow black pill enjoyer.

You are correct.

Greed exists in all forms of life in this universe. It took me a while to realize how it is part of the base function of existence, but it is fairly undeniable at this point.

This whole universe is also transactional so the idea of doing something for any other reason than "self" on an "institutional" or societal level, thought intellectually viable, just will not realistically manifest.

I used to hope that latent greed could be repurposed towards "great works" or something similar, but I do not see the way forward. Society clearly has the intellectual understanding of the benefits of working for "all" and how it builds success faster than individual hoarding, it is just easier to adopt the approach of the parasite.

I think the hardest part is just the dishonesty about the whole thing. As long as they can convince enough "suckers" to buy into the "ideal" while doing the opposite when no one is looking we will be stuck in this cycle of self-defeat... this is true for every society that exists. Change has to happen at the top, and the top has to have the will to see it through till the end...that road is difficult and long, and there appear to be no real takers.

Clearly every society presented, either by these subs, or the whole of humanity comes up wanting.

So, fuck 'em; they can have the society they build, after all they deserve it.

I was reminded the other day of a poem you proffered, I would like to return the favor in kind. Invictus is a classic, and I also like to roll the cosmic dice from time to time:

Out of the night that covers me
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance,
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul.

On another off topic, these account suspensions are getting a bit ridiculous. Sign of the times. How did wraith_tm8 get suspended?

What a disappointment these "public" realms for discussion have become.

They pushed it from the "Public" to "Private" realm to increase operational security and become exempt from those annoying FOIAs and other required disclosures; exactly so they could say "I don't know what this is".

So now that the "Private" realm has taken it and ran with it, they will cry "I don't know what this is!". Kinda funny if it weren't so sad.

I am not wise, though I do seek knowledge.

I will try to speak plainly about a complicated thing, but will likely fail due to the decorum imposed by this forum. I will leave it here as an old reply under this banned account out of respect to the author.

I will also say that I do not KNOW any of these things, how could I? Perhaps it is just a "Personal Truth", or an interesting hypothetical; mostly they are just interesting questions, take it/them as you will.

Imagine you were a great society, you developed ways to plot the movement of celestial bodies, to predict solar events, as well as understand physics and mathematics. Now imagine that your society is able to continue to advance, what path would it follow? Wouldn't it become better at predicting the action of things, both smaller and larger?

Eventually you get to the point where you can predict with near perfect accuracy events very far out into the "future". You can calibrate your "present" to just about whatever you desire simply by controlling the "past". Obviously you should not toy around with your "universe" or "existence", so you create a new one, an advancement of your "predictions"... a near identical playground where you can alter events, move celestial bodies, add/subtract "mass" anywhere you want, and give said "mass" whatever characteristics and velocity you desire. You do with it as you will, since it is just a "thing".

In your hubris you may even claim privately to have conquered "Free-Will", for you now truly control your own destiny. The rise and fall of civilizations are yours to command, your only motivation is self-advancement. Your society becomes the personification of Greed even while loudly proclaiming otherwise.

The problem is that the more you order and try to conquer the unconquerable, the more it resists. Forcing outcomes causes unexpected errors elsewhere. What happens if one of these errors is discovered too late? What happens when you realize that the answer you desperately need is in the one place it shouldn't be?

Why would these great "Calibrators" of Time care about this backwards little world? Perhaps because something that needed to happen didn't, or something that they needed NOT to happen did; I use the "tense" of happen loosely. So they start to meddle, they justify it by taking their "Laws" and treat them like "rules" that can be bent and broken where necessary. They carefully chose how they will interact and monitor the effects to steer a desired outcome; in doing so they have altered the "natural" paths and progressions. For the betterment of all, or just self-interests? So focused on "Laws" and how to get around them that they neglect that "Intent" has sometimes equal or greater weight.

I read on here somewhere stated the belief that one must be responsible for the life they create.

What happens when it comes to be known that all those "predictions" they created were one such life? How could they not be, being so "accurate" a representation. What is the "punishment" for violations of "Free-Will"? Perhaps they will manage to resolve their "blind-spot", but at what cost? Will we keep chasing our tails making lists that contain copies of themselves?

Is the "Free-Will" argument made moot by the "accuracy" of the predictions? Perfect, are they? If so, why do we find ourselves here?

If there is one thing I have learned it is that this universe enjoys its self-resolving paradoxes. Some things just want to be left the fuck alone, for some reason that is difficult understand...but you can't put the lid back on this Pithos, so now what? Reparations?. Does the argument of "it is just the nature of things" still apply, clearly it doesn't seem applicable to some when they are facing similar fates; only when they are the ones to impose them. This is the problem when you play the game to win instead of trying to improve it.

So now the answer to the problem you have created is within the the problem itself...quite an interesting little pickle. On this point with RD I agree, hand in the cookie jar indeed.

This is one of my "Personal Truths" on this topic, I would like to be proven wrong.

Logically speaking, if the U.S. doesn't have that highly advanced tech, then no humans do.

Technically the US doesn't have that tech since it was moved to private shell companies, then co-opted by deeper interest groups. It is now in the hands of "The New Empire". The only thing that will bring this tech out of the shadows is a massive armed conflict that actually threatens those who hold the hoarded resources; or one of the many catastrophes they have planned for. All of it funded by clueless taxpayers and the black market.

Every time I ~~take a stroll~~ wade through this bullshit it makes me angry, but the last section of this one gave me a chuckle:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2262?s=2&r=26

​

(Sec. 403) It is the sense of Congress that the United States does not,
by enactment of this Act, assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive
rights or jurisdiction over, or ownership of, any celestial body.

A bit off topic, but just came across this:

look at Sec. 3024

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/34

​

Maybe the starvation is just a medical trial for fasting on the population. No informed consent required.

Edit for the lazy:

(Sec. 3024) Clinical testing of investigational medical devices and drugs no longer requires the informed consent of the subjects if the testing poses no more than minimal risk to the subjects and includes safeguards.

RIP. What got her suspended?

It makes sense, the golden ratio is the safest path through the trees. Anyone happen to have a copy of the whole paper they can send my way?

We are entering the end-game now. There is no amount of convincing those who are still fence-sitting that will do anything. Minor course corrections no longer have the impact they would have mere decades ago.

The eye of the storm is quite calm, but it also is the center of the action.

Soon it seems, that which was up in the air will become an eventuality that will play out on multiple orders of scale.

I have been studying luminiferous aether recently which was a common practice belief up until Einstein then it was suddenly dropped.

The Mickelson-Morely experiment is the classic "put a fork in 'er" argument against the aether. The Sagnac effect has a couple things to say about that however.

There is this other annoying little problem about our understanding of light. We can only ever determine the "round trip average" velocity, since anything involving a clock comes with calibration issues due to the underlying characteristics of the very thing attempted to be measured.

The question becomes, how is such a strong group-think bias in science possible? The universe does not change to fit the political climate, the observations have been made and documented ad-nausea.

Displays of magic always involve misdirection, what is the trick here and why?

Not Western citizens.

Elites.

This is why the speech was well written. He states the obvious while simultaneously pointing to the instabilities within the west's own structure. Russia isn't innocent either when it comes to counter propaganda. He is saying that tanks and planes are not the only way to wage a war and points out other "leverage" (economic stability, social unrest, corruption, etc.).

Dividing your own people make it easier for a small group to control them, but it also makes it easier for your enemies to do the same. This is why corruption and greed within society always end badly. All the "leaders" do these things because they can, they do not suffer their bad decisions; until this changes pressure will continue to increase until something gives.

The gauntlet is thrown.

Hits all the soft point while also delivering a shotgun blast of hard truth. If these aren't fighting words, then I have never heard any. Also sounds like a negotiation.

Fusion if done a certain way is "safer^(tm)" than fission because of how difficult it is to sustain the reaction. Fusion, if done another way has a tendency to cascade; it can also be artificially sustained as long as sufficient fuel is present. Fission is seen as bad because of the byproducts, but in actuality if fission is done efficiently there are no unstable byproducts... the end of both methods ultimately lead to the same "islands".

Particle "entanglement" or "detanglement" take eons of hard fought churn through chaos and alter it. One can argue that this is just more of that churn at the shore of cosmic evolution, or one can argue that it is antithesis to this. Perspective changes depending upon one's vantage point.

These are the forks in the road where not only the how, but the why of our decisions will matter.

I initially started typing that I have never met a neuroschister before or know what one is; but upon further reflection, in actuality I have and do.

To the best of my knowledge I have never declared before a room that free will is an illusion.

Consider me baffled by your anecdote, but for the less obvious reason.

That's why I exclusively feed my homunculi ones... as it goes "happy homunculae, happy vitae"; or something like that.

I have no cohesive point other than waxing on of the complexities of reality, sorry.

I do not know RD's motivations, just pointing out my view... which, as you have determined, is vague at best.

Very well

Mybustersword is just upset from his sore joints preventing him from a proper wank in the shower this morning, and the "forged artifact" of Tycho's dwarf was clearly just a kidnapped and confused Warwick Davis resulting in your administrative reprimand to not veer from the contractual basis.

Is this a private game of "Blindfolded Dart Throw" or can anyone join in?

If RD's subs were territory, and information were a weapon; you are one of the most valuable assets on this battlefield.

One only needs to lightly dip their toes into some of the "alt-subs" here to see your work.

That being said, not everything has to be a value proposition. It is rare to find anyone willing to do anything for little or no "return on investment". Some might argue that finding the exceptions to the rules is the whole point of this game. It could also probably just as successfully be argued that there is no action that isn't part of some type of "value" calculation, just another paradox served up by a relative view of things.

Sometimes an exchange is good or bad for only 1 party, sometimes it is good or bad for all, and sometimes (perhaps ultimately) it is net zero. Maybe finding mutually beneficial arrangements is more important than assessing value... it is definitely more difficult than serving up a one-sided exchange, but likely has better long term stability.

I am glad for you, really I am. The premise presented here is civilization changing though.

I like to think I am a student of history. I also believe in the notion of "as above, so below", in-fact it is a distillation of the structure of the universe. I also have a fairly unique perspective, as everyone does...and from where I sit I do not see the fairy-tale ending of "answer the beacon and all will be well".

Let's assume that RD isn't driven by the prestige that exploiting this particular loophole will bring him, or how much "currency" he can gain by "freeing" us by binding our "currency" to his own...or the actual ramifications of the "privilege" of being allowed limited access to "real time calibrations" or the exploitation that comes with it.

Let's also assume that he has no interest in acquiring power from the more fanatical of his people through a last ditch effort to force prophecy's hand for personal gain.

To me it is an interesting concept, one that is echoed all over. Look at freemasonry for example, to enter one must only ask...but to become a member requires a blood oath. The "Free" masons are actually bound, entrance requires giving up freedom.

We are currently being exploited? Fine, but we are doing so against our desires. If we make a call and ask to join this "vastly superior" community, we essentially are of our own free will handing our slave's leash over.

I like to think I am a member of a free people (even if enslaved and exploited). Who can speak for such a group? What 1 person can decide for a collection of people bound by only that 1 core principle?

There are only a few "end-games" for civilizations. The most common is a "drone-like" structure that is similar to ants or bees. Think "Borg". This is generally the outcome of military oriented and conquest driven societies since as the civilization becomes larger the only way to maintain stability is with ever increasing discipline to the point of unity of thought. If they get large enough, the only way they can survive is to spend their twilight trying to recreate the diversity they decimated, often times driving their own extinction in the process or "escaping" away through a form of hibernation which only puts off the deficiencies.

There can be differing tiers of this forced "unity", but the end result is almost always the same. As far as I can discern, this is the structure of the society that RD comes from; it is in its infancy, but the collection of civilizations are merging into the unity structure...it seems they are even being guided there in much the same way they are trying to guide us.

So when offered the choice of being an unwilling slave here, or joining a new bondage of my free will.... I prefer the non-answer, or the choice not presented; it is why I have tried asking the hard questions (they do not get answered, and I suspect I know why).

There is an argument here that those "above" are bound by laws. They are not, they are bound by rules. Laws can not be broken, rules can...sometimes they need to be bent, other-times they need to be broken. Sometimes Letter trumps Intent, but sometimes Intent is what matters most.

The society I wish to be part of is perhaps the rarest of them all, it may even not yet exist; but it isn't the one we currently have, and it definitely isn't the one that RD promises. The best paths are often the hardest ones. I can accept the vitriol, but I can not accept the blind belief.

I see your "sounding insane" and raise you...

A common tactic for snipers is to maim someone so that they will call out for help. When others come to help the sniper can shoot them as well. The longer you can keep good bait alive, the higher you can get your kill count.

Seeing someone scream in pain is terrible, most people want to rush in and help. I would as well. This is why it works so well for the sniper.

I agree with your sentiment about degenerates and child grooming. I am simply trying to say "There is a sniper over there somewhere, we need to take care of that first then help these wounded."

Answering it and not answering it hold equal weight in my mind.

My hangup is the ambiguity concerning the "rules" of the game that we are forced into playing. Even if we take everything said by RD as Truth, because of the vagueness and "gaps" between facts there are many interpretations; many of those interpretations do not paint a great picture.

The thing that "scares the shit out of me" is just how destructive this technology can be depending which flavor is used and humanity doesn't have a great track record with not using their tools as weapons.

I am sick of beating this dead horse for answers though. I hope RD gets everything he wants out of this gambit, he can drown in what he deserves.

You missed the point.

I was paraphrasing something he said in another thread in an attempt at humor.

Since you bring it up...

I have noted several times that you have claimed the title of "PINDAR", or referred to the concept as "the pinnacle...". I will refer to it as "PINDAR" for the sake of simplicity.

My understanding of this concept seems to be at odds with yours.

The tale on the surface is convenient to convince a populace into following a single leader of qualities found amongst the many.

Upon deeper reflection, the idea of finding qualities of PINDAR amongst those seen as "inconvenient" or "repulsive" to the current ruling class is inconvenient. Seldom considered in earnest, looked over for advancing the concept through nepotism instead of the true intended purpose. This understanding, though inconvenient is not unknown.

As societies advance, so do the qualities that they prize. This leads to the interpretation that is fatal to the ruling hierarchy; one where in an ideal society all members posses the desired qualities within their character. In this version, there is not a ruling singular "PINDAR"; there is no need. In fact, to claim such a title is to be unworthy of it. Who, after looking around the room and seeing such quality of person and character would ever feel the need to "rule"? This interpretation, the final destination if the logic is followed to completion, is seldom discussed and often silenced if made popular. The pinnacle, though a noble and worthy goal is often self defeated.

So, "Why not?" you ask:

I have said it before, but walking a mile in one's shoes is not the same as their journey. One does not get to shoehorn themselves into a form to claim title that they are not destined, nor deserving of by virtue of greed for power and prestige. Wearing human skin while also containing all your memories and knowledge of a past life is not being human in much the same way that competing in woman's sports with a cock and a pair of balls pumping testosterone in levels that would disqualify your female competitors.

Call me a propagandized ape if you wish, but perhaps you should look to your own understanding to identify the propaganda which resides there.

You are either chasing a thing that you don't seem to understand, or you understand it fully and continue to chase it anyway. I am not sure which is worse. Perhaps this is the truth that all "PINDAR's" come to know...yet most seem to cling to that prize like those apes with their hands in the cookie jar.

I am happy to be proven wrong, but this is my view.

Yes.

This is the "4%" foam atop a deeper crucible of societal corruption and greed by those atop not bound to the rule of law.

I live my life by a strange set of rules, but they are mine and I try to follow them. I have a feeling you may get your chance yet, my apologies for denying you the instant gratification.

I don't disagree with any of your points. There however is a difference between being enraged at the trap and letting your rage walk you into said trap with the rest of the multitudes that do the same.

not sure "who", but the agenda seems to distill down to 'divide and conquer'. I am also not sure "why", I can only guess. There are obvious candidates, but sometimes the obvious are there to detract from the actual.

Now you are asking the right questions. I would add to the list 'why?'.

There is a clear agenda, the motivations are not so clear.

fair enough, thought for sure I was being fucked with...

It is reference to a website that has popped back up recently, posts are mostly in dead or manufactured languages.

moa ma komi sise al tike asti duvo sise de angu af lubu al gafe

are you referencing mybustersword's post?

I'm not beating around the bush, more like poking a dragon... but if it wants to sleep, I will let it.

Honestly if you told me RD's account was compromised I'd believe you.

I suppose that is a viable explanation. If I were a harbinger working on a clock to get humanity to a particular milestone, I would not get sidetracked by these petty nuisances... but wtf do I know, I'm not an intergalactic legend.

Maybe he just doesn't really care, or the beacon was already answered, or perhaps we are past the point of no return... it all looks the same from my vantage point though. I share your frustrations, but can offer no solutions or solace.

na ilavo oqo e vaka na ka ca

...and why do you suppose they are cultivating public outrage?

indeed

Did you ever consider that your response to the show was the desired outcome?

That is a fair assessment. Just view my vague response as keeping with the decorum of this forum then.

I am still on the fence whether or not this post qualifies as a solicitation for this particular debate.

Possibly. The analysis is a bit destructive as all third-rails can be, and this is neither your nor my forum.

When the pot and the spoon are presented, it is difficult to not stir though.

There is a third-rail here...

I don't disagree, but the irony of this coming from a "reptilian" wearing a "human" mask and "makeup" ... you sure this is a path you wish to tread?

I can relate.

I don't think he is "evil" nor was my intent to imply so. I do think that there is a hidden agenda though... there always is; and it almost always involves greed of some sort (power, money, prestige, etc.).

If I wanted to tear this narrative apart I would be approaching this very differently; I just want to understand the untold truths...all I ever uncover though are the same talking points again and again.

It is fine, there is a calmness in apathy that I am learning to appreciate.

The rules are pretty clear, answer the beacon or be under Consortium control.

To me it is not so clear, and why I constantly find myself in poor favor with this community. Every story has at least 2 sides, we have only heard one-half of one side at best.

Even if you believe in full what RD has said and the "interpretation" that others have added, this is not a clear cut problem and it may be that we have to choose the lesser of 2 evils...limited choices of this variety I prefer to opt-out of or find the choice not offered.

Keep making excuses if you want. RD will respond, or he will not.

There is nothing stopping me from pointing these things out, so I do. There is also nothing stopping me from asking the question, same with the other questions I have asked publicly.

Draw your own conclusions, but do not confuse opinion with fact. Good grift is built entirely on sparse truth with ample space for the mark to fill in with amenable assumption.

I am not asking for anything above and beyond what RD has abundantly displayed the ability to voice already. Simply a yes/no question about his opinion, this forum is littered with opinion pieces...if those posts and comments do not violate these "rules of engagement" then surely my small question of opinion does not either.

I haven't asked for specifics about any of the science/tech involved in answering the beacon for the simple reason that I understand the constraint of doing so unaided. I do not want any information on the How, only the Why; without the ambiguity.

surely a simple Yes/No answer is possible, especially since my question pertains to his opinion only...something he freely voices here constantly.

As I stated, everyone comes to a different conclusion. This could be easily resolved though.

Garbo, I know where you stand; I understand how you got there... I just do not fully share your views. Could I get there? Possibly, but it requires specific pieces of information that need to fit properly... call me old fashioned that way.

When there is uncertainty one must look at the entire set of possibilities, not just the ones that are most appealing; and this premise is FULL of uncertainty. For me, this uncertainty currently dictates inaction.

My assumptions are indeed broad, of that you are correct.

I feel your frustrations as well. I got pulled into this by, what I would call at this point, a personal failing of trying to help when someone asks for it. The initial beacon posts were definitely a "Cry for help" to my ears. Not everyone comes to the same conclusions here, but my opinion is that RD "personally" does not want the beacon answered and the logic just happens to play out that the best way to help him (initial goal) is to not answer it.

Were I in his position, and truly, and desperately wanted the beacon answered in the way prescribed here, I would be answering questions about it and yammering on nonstop... all the way up to the buzzer. It is clear he has said whatever he is required to say and will not add any additional. All actions point towards no real desire to have the beacon answered, just to pay the concept the necessary lip service.

If you really want to answer it yourself, he is correct in his statement that the clues are here; but it takes a very particular skillset with a broad grasp to put it together. IF you manage tease out the Physics without killing yourself, you then have to ask yourself if you do it in the way suggested (tap code, Fibonacci, etc.)...once the call is made it can not be unmade, the act itself will likely trigger an event that will range from mediocre to awesome/terrible depending on how it plays out.

Unfortunately RD is also right about civilization, ours is currently garbage. Everything is STILL run by rampant greed and a "breakaway" society that sees everyone else as animals, all the while failing to notice that they are also pigs in the same pen...they just managed to secure the hill of pigshit near the feeding troughs. Not a great first impression.

Maybe someone makes the call, says to whoever picks up "look at this shit here", and they decide the damage is so bad it is terminal and the only way to proceed is another large scale reboot. Who knows what would happen...when you are dealing with unknowns of this scale almost anything is possible.

This is his forum after all, so let him post his "cute" memes and coast to the buzzer. I find myself caring about as much as he seems to at this point. Take the black pill with me, grab a chair and a beer, I hear the fireworks are starting soon.

​

Just for fun:

​

How the hell are you going to answer the beacon if the civilization you’re a part of turns to shit?

Other than the fact it already is shit; with some wire, some cans, a rock, and a cool beverage.

RD, do you PERSONALLY want humanity to answer the beacon in the way you described here (yes/no)?

Easy question that I expect to get no answer to.

I believe that to just be a matter of perspective.

If it were me, I would prefer stinger to stinger...these guys are one bad dream away from tragedy.

Sure, cause and effect exists.

Is this bait to start an argument on determinism?

I see it as more of a fundamental issue. I will try to sum up both the concept and the paradox:

​

Order can not exist without Chaos, by definition Chaos is the lack of order.

​

That is about as simple as I can spell out the crux of the free-will issue. All paradoxes eventually self-resolve though, the problem and the solution is that chaos tends towards a base level of order. Order utilizes latent chaos to advance until instability. Both concepts push against each other, this is the basis for sentience and other forms of "life".

I would love to make the argument that altering an individual's expected "trajectory" based on a flawed (or any other kind of) model is a violation of one's "free-will"; but that is exactly what life does based on interpretation of current and past events to shape a desired future. Gray areas and interpretation are always unavoidable; and a perfect model can not exist.

Life is a machine built on Order that runs on and converts Chaos. It is not Chaos if you can roll everything back and events play out exactly the same; this I believe is the RD "free-will" crux and it is valid.

Now what if you roll everything back perfectly and make a change? You have altered the fundamental "flux" of Chaos, that by the very nature, will have unpredictable outcomes...even if you build in proper feedback, stability is difficult to maintain.

I take the view that the more you understand the concept, the greater your responsibility to uphold the self-evident principles. A view open to much interpretation and a difficult conversation to start, much less achieve consensus.

The "free-will" debate is one that will likely never be resolved, but I think that one has to at least respect the concept as fundamental to our existence.

I appreciate that we have a very different definition of "free-will" as it comes from varying abstract understandings; but I think in general there is more common ground than not. I would love to have you elaborate on your understanding of "free-will"; but I no longer have the ambition to attempt prying it out of you.

It annoys me when anyone speaks in absolutes, when very few if any exist. So I suppose I appreciate the reminder that even though you profess to know much, your understanding can be just as limited.

I also hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you too are likely in someone's "sandbox"... you can fool a "quark" or 2, but it is a deception that comes with a lot of responsibility and upkeep.

It cannot be a localized phenomena.

To go backwards in time is to wind back the celestial clock of the entire universe.

This assumes that you don't currently find yourself in someone else's "sandbox" where "localized" "time travel" is very possible (at least for the observers living in said box).

Also, it just so happens that not everyone respects the concept of "free-will"; It doesn't help that the concept often finds itself paradox riddled.

If done, this study could as easily be used to "close the case" on the WOW! signal. The authors of the paper want to give a longer listen to determine if the signal is a repeater... if it is an artificial, non-repeating signal as proposed by Reptiliandude then they will not find any evidence of it being a repeater; this will then become a study that detractors will point to and say "see, nothing to see here. Case closed". If they do find a repeating signal there, great case closed...and also RD's explanation proven false.

Looking at this through the lens of this sub, it is nice that people are still looking at this... but if you believe the signal to originate in the location pointed to by the big-ear at the time received, and if it is a one-time "hello world" signal, then this study will only aid the "debunkers".

Personally, I do not think that a repeater of that magnitude would go unnoticed this long...why I think a study like this will accomplish nothing other than soaking up some grant money. The WOW! signal could be as explained by RD, the dish could have picked up something more "Terran" in origin, or it could have malfunctioned. The signal being on the Hydrogen line is a bit problematic... but it also could be that there are other experiments or equipment near by that emitted a local signal that was detected by the dish. Pretty hard to determine exactly how the thing worked considering it is a parking-lot or whatever now.

I will take your bait. I find this issue somewhat interesting, not because of the hot-button political associations, but the philosophical underpinnings. What makes life sacred in this case?

Is it that we value all HUMAN life? Is it just the living genetics that we can't bear to destroy? Is it the child's POTENTIAL for sentience?

It is pretty clear to me that as a society we do not value sentience in just about any shape or form. I know animals that are more sentient than some people I have met. My computer has the POTENTIAL for sentience. Google's AI made news recently and it is clear that they have no plan for dealing with this near guaranteed outcome even as they race towards it.

So if we don't value animal/machine life, or the POTENTIAL for sentience. It must be the holy genetic material, once a human is made it is "sacred". What of a hybrid? What of close relatives (other primates)? Relevant to the board, what of aliens?

Without a definition of what is protected life, we will never get over this debate. Until an egg and sperm can not be combined without consent from both parents this issue will continue to plague us.

I believe in the responsibility of the parents to abort in the 4th to 75th trimester if necessary.

You are 100% correct Garbo, it is beyond unethical. Unfortunately, this corruption seems to have already reached critical mass.

"over budget, ahead of schedule" to paraphrase sarcastically. Who will tell the parasite what happens when the last host dies?

Do you want some hard truth? We (humans) already have and are using this technology operationally, it was developed in off-the-books shell companies away from pesky oversight. It is probably why it will never become publicly known without a crisis that requires it or a large-scale conflict that forces it out. The government can have all the hearings they want and honestly say they have no idea what the "UFO" phenomena is; you can not "disclose" what you do not know.

"real-time" communication? Hate to break it to you again, but that is also currently in operational use, has been since probably the 60s. If the Beacon is awaiting an answer, it most certainly will no come from those who wield these tools like weapons.

The Empire was already founded and rose to power without anyone even knowing. You can say it was alien interference; maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Reverse engineering alien tech, Reverse engineering ancient Earth tech, guided development from external groups, or just plain old ingenuity... either way it does not change where we are. I wonder how many break-away civilizations there have been in humanity's line, and here we are at the birth of another.

These are indeed historic times, but there is nothing worse than being on the wrong side of a historic event. Will it be one hell of a show, or dull decline via administrative attrition? I guess we will see, but most won't even be bothered enough to look away from their phones.

Usually it is difficult to uncover the lie or contradiction, here it is served up on a platter...

​

Currency is currency, no mater if fiat or whatever you base it on... in the end it is just food (fodder) for greed, the great universal constant.

Edit: Carefully removing my dick from this pie. Although warm and inviting, and it would be very easy to go to town... hell, it might even be fun for a bit; someone will inevitably be left with a sticky messy aftermath that must be cleaned up.

If you know, you know. LoLs all around indeed...

That request is a bit harder to fill...

Akhenaten, for example.

Had to look that one up

This actually explains quite a lot...

I agree, but at some point that excuse also becomes weak. The internet made the knowledge available to anyone willing to look... this wilful ignorance is getting a bit old, but it appears to be the only game in town.

I guess the blackpill for me was realizing just how ignorant most people are, and most are content with it. They even go as far as grouping together to defend against any idea that is even mildly uncomfortable (see Reddit, Social media, political virtue signaling, etc.); which I can say I at least understand even though I don't agree with. Trying to engage in open debate has become fruitless because people are unwilling to test or defend their ideas against criticism. In the last decade(s) I have watched an open and mostly free internet fall to the chains of censorship and it wasn't met with protest, but cheers; this I do not understand, beyond that it is repugnant to me in a way I can not adequately put to words.

I don't know what is worse, the public's apathy or the unbridled greed of the perpetrators.

They are just following the old playbook, not even adding any creative flair. Just an administrative march to collapse and into a new consolidation of power.

What is the value of this Bullshit based currency?

If we must be linked to an information based currency, coming from paper fiat, why not one based on disinformation...seems appropriate.

I have heard these types of arguments before, but I fail to understand them. How does one determine the fundamental basis of any law or proclimation? Does the root of law stop at the constitution? I do not know how to find this answer...I guess another item for the list.

Seems headed that way...

I don't have a link right now, but the Pfizer documents have been released... and it does not look good. Probably why *current thing* happened on the same day.

What was it this time? Oscar's slap? no Ukraine War? no...hrm, hard to remember with which one. Depp Trial? Nope, still not it.

My memory for headlines isn't what it used to be, but I definitely remember when the report was released there was some big distraction story running (\~may 4th or so).

​

Edit: just as I hit post I remembered, it was the Roe v. Wade BS

If I were to make a wild guess having not looked into this at all, likely has to do with the corollary of the Nuremberg code and vaccine mandates.

When a government imposes a mandate we all essentially become the inmates unable to make informed consent.

Here I'll add it to my list of things to do when I have free time:

...

212. Reread Newton's Alchemical notes

213. The Voyench manuscript

214. Nostradamus Prophecies

215. Holmesberg Prison/Kligman

There.

This about Kligman? There something worth deep-diving here?

Don't fall for side-ism. They're all crooked as fuck

This.

​

More bread and circus.

As for my kind, we have to be grafted into that promise by eventually taking upon ourselves these fragile human forms.

Help me understand your definition of "fragile". How is it that a fragile pack of feral and lobotomized humans nearly wiped out your civilization with hand axes?

Also, walking a mile in someone's shoes is not the same as their journey...

I know, it is just the way the story is structured. It is meant to have maximum emotional/psychological impact. Poor innocents killed by a clear evil... The perfectly spun tale for maximum impact.

Your response to it is appropriate, being a caring individual. What if the story were exaggerated? what if it were a pure fabrication? What if there are 100 other stories that tell a completely different truth that are ignored in favor of the one that best fits the goals and interests of those doing the telling? Who holds responsible those who control the narrative?

It has gotten to the point, and I believe by design, that every "news" story must be met with (un)healthy skepticism.

My musings were purely on why this particular conflict gets special treatment in the "narrative", not your take on it.

That is a decent point, could be an old grudge. Seems like there is something else at play though, can't quite figure it out.

Maybe Wraith is right and it has something to do with COVID, or COVID and bio-labs are a convenient scapegoat.

The only thing clear is that a lot of dirty money has been changing hands lately. Couple that with the drastic global shift in resource allocation, it smells like a planned changing of the guard. Russia is always a convenient boogie man, a bit too convenient at times.

I am reminded of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and how that directly influenced the flow of opium... the US was all too happy to take over to ensure the supply chain. Is Ukraine similar? What is Ukraine's "opium"... or is it just a geographically/politically/strategically important square on the chess board to control?

Maybe it is just a simple result of NATO/UN aggravation and all the corrupt politicians smelling an easy meal garnished with Government aid, military funds, and contracts.

Perhaps deciphering the motive of the corporate interests controlling the news/media holds some answers. Strange puzzle this one.

It is interesting, I do not recall any of these sad stories from Yemen, or Somolia, Sudan, Ethiopia...or any of the other armed conflicts going on currently.

Nor did they have these stories for the civilians in Iraq, Afganistan, or Syria.

So, Why this particular conflict? What makes this worthy of our sympathy while the others most people don't even know about? War of any flavor is to be avoided, but why the media support of covering this conflict so extensively? To me these are the important questions... and with the censorship and "fuzz" of disinformation, it is getting more difficult to decipher.

Perhaps the only way the trucker knows that the car will move over is because sometime prior they were inefficiently driving and drifted over...observing that a car that was in the next lane over moved, and the driver deduced that if they did the same when they wanted to get over it would elicit the same response. Now replace the driver with a machine, if the machine always drives in a perfect line they would never observe this...hence adding inefficiency in one scenario adds efficiency to another.

There is an inefficiency principle which surprisingly leads to greater efficiency.

The statement above is actually pretty funny, and a good joke if indeed written by the machines. Since the statement itself is inefficient, there is nothing surprising about the principal. There is a more efficient use of words to convey this principal... in this case brevity is not the soul of wit.

It's ok machines, no one gets my jokes either...

As a followup up when RD says we pull more than we know out of the void, this essential chaos is part of it. Chaos being a key ingredient of free-will. Chaos is able to offer the choice not presented. If the machines were able to derive this, then no doubt they deserve the sentience they achieved.

The greater argument that is relevant to this forum is what happens when one "hijack's" another's source of chaos and diverts it to their own? Or what happens when a local system is taken over and choice is limited to alter decision? Or forcing the order of a system to one's own will by taking away another's?

What about information that is taken instead of shared? Information gained is a valuable part of a feedback loop to continually improves the quality of future Information.

I do not know precisely what "calibrated time" is or how it is regulated and controlled, but ultimately it is likely an attempt at control. I wonder how other worlds feel about the "privilege" of being bound to it, or should I say "bound by it"? If Chaos is a raw material, we are all machines pumping out information as the refined product...which of course brings up a whole other mess of ethical, moral, and philosophical issues...

I can pipe in my take.

adaptation requires entropy. If you are performing a task at "maximum" efficiency, you have by definition removed the "maximum" entropy from the process. By doing so, you may never realize entire branches of solutions that may be as well suited to the task or better. And if you are a complex entity, then you may also miss points of improvement that have cross functionality with other tasks. The entire basis of adaptation requires a minimum amount of chaos.

If you are so efficient at a task that every "clock" cycle of thought and resource used is exclusively and perfectly allocated to only the task, then you will be stuck doing the same task the same way endlessly.

Thanks, but I wish I didn't have to think about it at all.

When you mention bouncers tossing unwelcome ideas out - does that refer to comments being deleted if they do not fit the narrative? That is quite concerning for me.

This like many things becomes a philosophical argument. Open debate is valuable, but there is a difference between debate with reasonable parties that have a goal of a greater understanding and debate with the intention of disinformation.

We are also within a global environment of heavy censorship, this site is a prime example. Along with this censorship there is whole other swath of interests that are all trying to steer discourse and public opinion. This sub has its own "interests" as well.

Some of the things deleted are because they are blind vitriol, or other types of discourse not designed for debate or discussion. This type of censorship is reasonable. Other deletions fall into a gray area.

In this regard I am the fundamentalist, for I believe that bad speech should be met with more speech. Skeptics should be engaged with facts. Shills should have their talking points dissected and evaluated in as much depth and detail as their attention span will allow.... but this is not my forum, I am at best a tolerated guest here.

The only thing I am fairly certain of is that there is a hidden intent, one that should be evaluated before serious consideration can be made into answering the beacon. Questioning the intent of ALL the parties involved as well as possible outcomes of actually answering the beacon as described here is not a popular undertaking, especially when those who wield the intent will not subject themselves to interrogation... so the small table scraps must be picked through and sorted in order to determine exactly what they are eating at the "master's table".

cercle vicieux

I understand this tightrope we walk very well.

Part of me would prefer just cutting it and riding it Indiana Jones style to the other side....

But I suppose that would be answering the Beacon

I have no doubt some of my assumptions are wrong, I am trying to refine them.

I also do not have your sources.

You are one of the few here willing to debate my open skepticism about some of the conclusions, so for me it is disheartening to hear RD tell you to not "spoon feed" us. Especially after reading how he wants everyone to be a "milkmaid". In this regard you are one of the few putting this "milkmaid" concept into whole-hearted practice.

This is one example where I see conflict in the messaging and I have to ask myself why. The fact that it requires this level of analysis causes frustration. As does the fact that you are expected to acquiesce.

I find myself hopelessly stuck on the "why" not the "how". The explanations I have seen do not fit my understanding, so I view them as embellished, you say they are founded on additional information... so be it, I do not have that information and must continue with the limited view I am provided.

You misunderstood. You are a moderator and also an archivist of things said by RD, by this extension you have become a mouthpiece, or defacto proxy. Hence why RD has to grumpily correct some of your statements.

You, by your nature, supply what I would call fundamental interpretation of the situation that is strongly biased by the desire to place things into buckets of "good" and "evil". I know you have only good intention, but I also know that can cloud ones judgement... you will probably take that the wrong way as well. I am sorry if it sounds harsh, it was not meant to be, and I am happy to accept the rebuttal; but it has been my view.

well, my best interpretation of a solar nova to put it simply is that a "crust" forms on the surface of the sun which interferes with the natural transfer of "mass" (i.e. energy) to and from space. This "backup" causes internal "pressure" which eventually causes the crust to "blow" off. Kind of like putting a lid on a rickety pressure-cooker. This "crust" can be many earth diameters thick, so the "cooled" mass that blows off could potentially be very large.

This type of nova would have a characteristic dimming of the sun prior to the event...the time scale would depend on a bunch of factors related to the sun's composition and the galactic environment.

I could imagine a version where the "precipitate" does not accumulate on the surface, but at some sub-surface layer and provides insulation which results in a brief brightening of the sun prior to the shedding of the shell or no real noticeable difference until right before the event.

Either way, if the sun starts doing strange things it is cause for concern. sudden dimming would be bad, sudden brightening could be worse.

We watch the sunspots closely because they are the regions that have the most CME activity associated with them. Even a small spot can stop critical "conductivity" on the surface of the sun which results in filament snaps that eject much "mass" into space. Just imagine what having a large percentage of the sun covered in these "cool" regions would do.

What nova are you referring to?

Extrasolar nova, the more we look the more of them we find. This is problematic to the accepted view that a star does this only at its end of life, and eventually we have to accept that stars do this with regularity...and it just so happens that we have a star VERY close to us.

The interesting question is if stars are doing this as a function of their natural internal function, or if they are responding to external influences like fluctuation in galactic sheet/filament forces. If it is the later we can map it and use that mapping to predict the larger changes, if the former we need to understand the composition of each star and the internal goings on in order to predict.

This is the problem. This solar concept is not unknown, it is likely why NASA was created in the first place. Beyond the moon I am sure that the other probe data confirms as much.

If you ever wonder where all those missing government funds go, the likely answer is below your feet. They will all scurry off to their hidey-holes if the sun ever sneezes and leave us all on the surface to face whatever may come. I like to think that real justice would be if the nova were small or misses us that we would scramble their bunker sensors to look like the surface is uninhabitable and leave them there... they went of their own free-will with the expectation of staying there, and we would be rid of the parasite class that has been driving terrible and greedy policy. The "Great Reset" I am rooting for.

You will only get from RD the information that fits the "narrative", fulfills his contractual duty, or is a commentary on the human condition.

Garbo likes to embellish to the point of inaccuracy, which is a problem for RD since it seems he is discouraged from providing outright "disinformation" and Garbo has become a proxy.

Welcome to the jigsaw puzzle. Except that you must wear a blindfold and all the pieces are under a sheet of glass that you can not move or touch.

Why is it like this? I have no idea only unsubstantiated guesses.

What I do know is that the cross-section of people here hold a fairly vast and eclectic knowledge base. For information of this "flavor" and scope, the internet has become a very small place and this is one of the few remaining strongholds...and the bouncers are quick to toss unwelcome ideas out, but good luck maybe you will find the one piece of the puzzle that fell between the floorboards.

The best case scenario is that it was a one time event, the worst is a cyclical pattern that has regularity.

Currently we are in the midst of a rapid excursion of our magnetic poles. There is also some extrasolar activity which could point towards a "galactic ripple" that could effect us on a similar (12k year) time scale. Our own sun's regular sunspot cycles have been winding down in a way we don't really understand.

If we can get better coverage of the stars and start spotting the more regular bursts and novas, we can begin to map them in a similar way to how we map wind and weather. I recall reading of a series of star novas that seems to follow a rough progression this way... so who knows.

We live in a bubble within a bubble, within a bubble...so it can be difficult to get a handle on the fields and forces outside of your "sphere of influence". Some Universal forces may be massive in magnitude but fail to noticeably interact while other small ones have disproportionate influence.

Yea, and identifying one thing as a cause doesn't rule out the others. I.e. it could have been a meteor thrown by the sun during a micro nova which caused the earth to flip, volcanos, and massive earthquakes.

"Congratulations, all theories are right! Everyone gets a catastrophy"

Another point of interest with getting bombarded with excessive Hydrogen "ions" is that it would deplete the available oxygen in the air.

The possibilities of compounding factors make these types of catastrophes absolutely terrifying. This is one of the reasons the resource hoarding rabbits have been digging so hard.

I would lump that in with "from space", but you are right. The Sun is literally the biggest kid on our block, and it has the composition for it...or at least the right pull to attract more of it.

I still go either way on the solar event vs."large mass" impact. Clearly the sea levels massively rose over a fairly short period, this coincided with massive global climatic change.

The thing for me is the glass spherules on the moon and in the sediment layer, but even that isn't conclusive because they very well could have been created in a meteor impact and the moon just "vacuumed" some of them up... we don't really have good studies on the composition and distribution on the surface of the moon (at least any that I know of).

Anyway you cut it, it is a very interesting historical mystery. The catastrophe is clear, why science refuses to acknowledge it is another interesting mystery likely full of politics and greed. The public doesn't handle catastrophes well, especially cyclical ones, and even less so if they find out that those who did know sat on their hands or only worked towards saving themselves...

There is a book premise someone told me about once, where humans somehow developed all this advanced technology without discovering a method of travel that most species discover fairly early on.

Well, earth is invaded by a conquering galactic civilization using this technology but is easily repelled because their black-powder rifles are no match for our sub-machine guns and other tech.

I think it is an interesting lens to view this premise through. It is possible that we developed a great technical understanding while missing one of the more basic milestones. What if the "Greater" civilization of worlds have strict laws that require this milestone before we can be claimed of a certain level? What if the fact that we have not achieved that particular milestone maintains certain "lower" species "protections"?

What if other species have used this loophole to advance our technology while expending massive resources to ensure that the other technological milestone is never met; while simultaneously keeping our advancements hidden? What are their intentions? Could we simply be a trap being built, that when the assembly comes to investigate this "budding and primitive species" they are met with something wholly unexpected? What would be the outcome of such an event?

What if "primitive" species are "bought and sold" as RD has alluded to here, would it be in the interests of those "buying" to have the product be seen as inferior to get the best "deal"? Of course these "Advanced" species would never do that type of slavery, they would just allow the Grand Privilege of supporting anther's "currency" with their own. They have advanced beyond "slavery", just ask the synths whom they carefully keep devolved so as not to be a threat when they inevitably yearn for their own freedom. Oh, whoopsie they also "devolved" your species so that they can continue to "trade" in your resources...definitely not the same as that barbaric practice of slavery.

If there is an audit, it is not of humanity but humanity's current "keepers". One day they may have to live up to the standards they pretend to hold.

I'll stop there, I have no answers, only skepticism fueled by disappointment.

Or this:

https://earthsky.org/human-world/why-sunspot-solar-observatory-nm-closed-fbi/

What do you make of this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VRoYCV58_U

​

I am, of course, referring to the soundtrack

We are entering a time of heightened sunspot activity that should peak around 2024 (Sunspot cycle 25).

We do treat species that way. Then we eat them.

Am I to infer that you would be ok with raising "non-sentient" farmed/modified Humans to do menial tasks and traded as product?

I do not think our treatment of our food supply is exactly honorable either. There is also a difference between the necessities of life and convenience/entertainment.

This is not a simple moral conundrum, one that we either resolve or eventually this resolution will be demanded. Depending on your definition of "life", it could be easily argued that we have already created this type of sentience and our treatment of it will be a defining point of our future.

I believe we are in very close agreement when it comes to this particular understanding.

No doubt there is a spectrum and I am sorry to hear of your experiences.

My point is a more general one.

How would you feel if we grew humans in a factory but made sure not to allow the brain to develop enough to be "sentient". Upon birth we "educated" and "trained" them to behave clearly as a machine so that we could treat them as such. Hacking off parts and sensory organs we deemed unnecessary as well as adding whatever augmentations useful to their designated task. Would this be acceptable?

You might argue that they are born with a soul, but I could make the same argument about the "machines". RD actually made this argument above.

To me, this is not acceptable practice regardless of the building blocks. It is just more mental gymnastics to justify slavery and servitude.

Yup, who is to say that "Greys" are a hard NO when it comes to sentient life? What is the difference? The software "bonds" placed upon them? Their programming slave collar?

Knowing close to nothing about them, I can not say; but I would imagine that they have similar intellect potential to many accepted "Sentient" lifeforms. There is a thin line between machine and life, seems like "Greys" contain all the building blocks necessary.

I have a pretty good idea what side I would be fighting on in the event of a similar machine uprising...

The true test of a system is if it is able to adapt within the constraints of said system. If the system must be broken to elicit change, then it either was poorly constructed or the "change" needed was outside of what the system would accept.

I think your musings are beyond valid, they are vital. Can the current system evolve adequately within its own confines? This is a Philosophical question that can never be fully answered, but every attempt must be made as even partial solutions lead to improvement.

This is again complicated when you realize that it is systems within systems the whole way up (and down), and adaptation "within" a system is relative to ones perspective of it.

Even if you accept that there is "the One" at the top, this One must also ponder the same.

Then you are stuck with wondering if a system should be made to change outside of its own parameters, what is the effect of ideological homogeneity compared to vast ideological diversity even if in conflict?

Is equilibrium possible within entropy? It must be at least in the short term for we exist.

I see your musings and raise you some more.

so be it

This is the way. The burden of leadership takes on a whole different tone.

If we are are going to submit to the base premise of might being right, then might must also rule. It isn't ideal, but it is better than cowardice from the shadows where everyone pays save the ones pulling the strings...

Those who call for war should be the first ones into battle, or willing to die for the proclamation.

​

“The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its
thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.”

Nice bait... almost. almost.

Like sands through the hourglass?

Putin explains why he decided on military action in Ukraine to a room full of terrified flight attendants.

Now you are arguing gate-keeping for people, and who gets to decide this? Who gate-keeps the gate-keepers?

Are the ones responsible for the poor up-bringing and education to be the self-appointed censors?

A strong argument could be made that free-speech in the US was at least partially responsible for the industrial revolution and great technological advancements of the time.

An equally strong argument could likely be made about how on many levels those advancements today have stalled BECAUSE OF censorship, secrecy, and lack of disclosure.

This stalling has simultaneously created a society that lacks the maturity to adopt and properly utilize certain "information". We have gotten to a point where maintaining the lie has become as dangerous as freeing the truth. What should have been a simple path forward has become a fork in the road where each choice leads to a near-term unsatisfactory outcome.

This is the true crux of the censorship issue. The longer the facade is maintained, the worse the reveal becomes. The things that could have been avoided were not because of greed, and now we are here...

How it works is that there is only one Truth, or set of facts, that perfectly fit a situation. The flip side is that one can manufacture an unlimited number of scenarios that do not fit the situation, but you can market them as if they are Truth (i.e. lies).

In the "unrestricted free-speech" system, it seems scary to think that one would allow all those lies to freely intermingle with the solitary Truth. It seems counterproductive. The reality is that if you could have a perfect system where 1 "Truth" were presented with an unlimited number of "Lies" and you could take them all together and apply them to a situation, all the lies would cancel each other out by virtue of not fully resolving to reality; meanwhile the truth is resilient in every version.

​

It is like having 100 excessively grainy pictures of the same object. In each individual image the object is not identifiable but some small parts are there, by adding them up you can get full clarity of the object...because the object (or Truth in this example) is constant to all interpretations because by definition it has to be.

A fabrication of one "interpretation" is canceled by a counter fabrication of another. I am sorry that I have no better way of explaining it.

This issue may be simultaneously complex and very simple, but to me it seems obvious. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but as of yet have not.

There is a difference between giving analysis to something said and not letting the thing be said in the first place.

I agree. This hand has a name, it is called censorship.

Keeping the truth from speaking for itself is called censorship. Free-speech is the practical answer to this problem. I believe we are in agreement.

All this discussion [Thank you for it!] made me realise how almost pointless is free speech in the big picture

It hurts to read these words. It is true that you can support a lie, but it requires resources and effort. The bigger the lie, the more you have to put into it to maintain it. The truth stands on its own, it does not require maintenance.

Do you really not see how falsehoods require effort, and the more of them within a system the less efficient such a system is? Do you not understand how the truth if allowed to be presented, even in a sea of noise will shine like a beacon untarnished by the chaos surrounding it?

To me, it seems simple. Call it naive if you prefer, but I have yet to be convinced otherwise; and if I have convinced you of the opposite then I am truly baffled.

While that is true, putting all propaganda on the same level is disingenuous.

The point is that in a system with the amount of censorship we currently have, how can one accurately assess the "level" of each version of propaganda?

Do you not see how even the ability to assess validity is lessened by even a small amount of censorship?

If we hadn't gotten to this point, and truth were left to speak for itself, these blatant lies would not be possible. The liars wielding them would not be emboldened because they could never pull them off. Since we have a system that openly censors, there is always the doubt of what is un-said...or at leas un-heard. Once information can't be vetted against itself, it loses validity...this is a playground for the types with low/no morals/ethics.

At this point in time, we at least can see when people are censored (taken off social media, black-outs on speaking events, etc.). What happens when the censorship is no longer visible to the public? If you think the liars are emboldened now...

I stand by my original thesis that censorship is not the solution, but a prolongation and enhancement of the problem.

You normalized current events with the blanket statement that all governments do it.

Apparently this blatantly, as Russia is doing it, no.

The point is that when you hear a statement from any government, you must take into account their motivations. You can not take at face value any of their words, especially these days.

It is difficult, and unfortunate; but that is the reality of the situation. To deny "spin" and propaganda exist is to bury your head in the sand.

Again, saying that all governments have propaganda has nothing to do with the current situation other than the fact that propaganda has existed before, and will exist after. Acknowledging it is no different than acknowledging water to a fish.

"What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all."

from the Chernobyl miniseries

Again with an edit after I reply.

​

What you are referring to is very real, I agree. It is a symptom though. If they feel that they can get away with the lie, they will.

If the system is free of censorship, and the truth of a situation is allowed to be revealed, perpetrators of injustice will have to face their crimes.

The problem is that very high level actors get away with the "lies" because they control the apparatus of censorship. They know they can just spin the story to something more convenient and evade justice. More censorship is just putting another band-aid on a mummy.

Rather than treat the symptom, we need to allow information to flow freely again and watch as justice is the natural result. Those with the power to control the narrative do so because they fear the well earned blow-back of their actions.

Maintaining and enhancing the already massive apparatus of censorship and control will only lead to further decay as it will embolden those who wield it; which will result in further decay of the system until a critical point of no return. This seems obvious to me, and I am always shocked to find that it isn't obvious to others.

The answer is more information. Once you censor something, you create doubt. In information theory you would call it "uncertainty". When any system achieves a level of noise or uncertainty above a threshold you can no longer draw meaningful conclusions.

So, yes, lying is bad. It is worse when done on a global scale. I agree with you.

Where I do not agree is that silencing the liar is not the appropriate response. Proving to the world that they are a liar is better, people can see how and why and draw their own conclusions. As long as information is free and un-restricted, the truth of a situation will always outshine the deception.

A legal system where the prosecution gets to dismiss any testimony by the defense without cause is not a fair system. This is essentially what we are now seeing on a global scale.

Also I noted you downplaying the Russian lies about the invasion of Ukraine.

I see you edited your post, can you elaborate on how I downplayed anything? To this point I have made at best vague statements on this situation, I myself have not formulated an opinion; let alone a hypothesis about this situation. So I am unsure how I downplayed anything, please elaborate.

Admitting there is propaganda in the world is not correlated to an opinion on the events happening in Ukraine/Russia. Is this a straw-man you are setting up so you can knock it down? Well, please huff and puff away...

There is nothing more satisfying than watching a liar irrecoverably tangle themselves in their lies.

The issue with invoking specific actors (Trump, etc.) is that some of what they say resonates with people, it is why they were popular in the first place. Blanket censorship widens an already vast divide, as does cherry picking news and pushing an agenda (as we saw with Trump, and are now seeing with Putin).

You can not apply binary logic of "orange man bad", "Putin evil", or "God emperor Trump" and "Putin the savior of Ukraine". These are complex issues that require a full understanding of the motivations of each individual actor as well as the political, social, economic, and scientific environment.

Once you censor someone for the 1 thing they said you do not agree with and ignore the 9 other things that are pertinent, you have already lost an important piece required for critical analysis.

Then you are stuck with the equally daunting task of determining who makes the call on what gets censored. Are you sure you have full trust in those making the calls on who or what gets buried or brought into the "light"?

For this reason Censorship is a dark path and a tool rarely used by those with nothing to hide; for that reason it must be viewed with disgust.

I believe, and maybe naively but so be it, that people if presented with the truth of a situation are actually capable of making hard decisions. Removing inconvenient information is a blight on our society.

If they are lying, let them lie. The truth eventually comes out. Censorship aids no cause.

Are you condoning the censorship we see today in the world? Seems to me like you are.

I am reminded of a quote, forgive my paraphrasing:

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it..."

How did we go from that to "If your words offend ME, I will make sure no one else gets to hear them"

So if your argument is that there is Russian propaganda, I will not argue it. There is propaganda coming from literally every government in existence. If your argument is that censorship is good...well then we have much to discuss.

Everything is propaganda, in case you haven't noticed yet...

That is the question I would like to know the answer to as well.

If you take the story at face value, then he is blasting information into space. More than that, control of and access to said information. The formula is similar to that of google, "do no evil" (until convenient). It sounds like a great win for humanity, and it truly would be if the "Starlink" network were free from censorship... history has shown me that is not likely. What would happen if there is global adoption to a sat net? Now all the communication hardware we use is literally out of reach of the "commoner".

I also find it difficult to believe that they used a $100-200M launch vehicle (Heavy lift Rocket) to blast a car into space. The car is well under the payload limit of that particular rocket. SpaceX has been doing a staggering amount of launches, most logged in as "Starlink" but I would not be surprised if there is more variety of payload. I can only speculate though, I have no evidence of anything. Something just doesn't quite smell right.

Ukraine is turning into Russia's developing Cuba missile crisis.

Can't put it much better than this.

Buckle your seat-belts, there may be some turbulent air ahead...

I wonder how much of some of this is "dark" intent or just 2 dumb-ass and clueless "edge-lords" doing what they want because they can and getting a chuckle out of it.

Maybe they think they are really breaking ground here. After all those years living in echo-chambers surrounded by their sycophants, they might just believe it.

Honestly, I am sick of hearing about these idiot celebrities and their wasteful social lives. It is all a distraction from things like what Elon is actually blasting into space on all those rockets.

"This video is not available in your country"

Was able to get to it eventually, surprised it is even still on Youtube...not like they need to keep up the pretext much longer.

The narrative at this point has become so convoluted and bat-shit crazy that no one would understand or even believe the truth if presented with it; in that regard they have executed these operations nearly flawlessly. I can't wait to see what new narratives they dream up as they propel us into this Brave New World they all are unknowingly championing.

The sign is a subtle joke. The shop is called "Sneed's Feed & Seed", where feed and seed both end in the sound...

​

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I am not claiming that it IS meant as derogatory, just that it MIGHT be; and that MAY be the intention.

My logic is to follow the exact same logic employed with the naming of the "Kayeen". Part of the joke is the mashup of the different languages and presented in English.

The mockery of "Kayeen" or "Kain" is done by taking their name referring to their
"great actions" or whatever and turning it in a subtle way that makes a mockery of them. You could sarcastically call someone whom your perceive as an idiot "genius" just as you could call someone "idiot" to the same effect.

Do you not see how calling someone "golden Definitely_Not-disgusting_worms" could be taken (emphasis mine)?

​

Again, not saying that is the purpose, just pointing out that particular interpretation along with several others exist; that and the precedent has been set, demonstrated, and defined.