Raymond Moore

When you put salt on your hotdogs do you salt just the first bite or salt the full length under your ketchup/mustard? I can see why some people might only salt the first bite but I've always been a whole of dog kinda girl.

“Let’s make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise.” - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, as played by Sir Patrick Stewart.

Wildly popular streamer falsely accused of SA. Hung himself. Woman who made the false accusations says the pain his family feels over the loss of his life doesn't invalidate the pain she claims to have felt as a result of her clout grabbing stunt. Everyone should know his name.

How wild is the world? Starlord is Starlord because Cheech Met Chong...

Universal high income and infinite abundance? If it sounds too good to be true it literally always is. Like would you believe some whackadoo futurist told me they believe that one day you'll be able to FLY from MELBOURNE AUSTRALIA TO NEW YORK CITY.. IN A DAY. The Maroons! Seriously... FLY... just gonna sit in a chair in the sky are ya? What kind of absolute nonsense is this? Lemme guess, next you're gonna tell me they're gonna walk on the moon and have instant world wide communications with some kind of gooberific Super Intelligence. What will these nutjobs think of next? Carts that can drive themselves that are powered by the SUN!?!?!? You've got to be kidding me. You people will believe ANYTHING!

HOW TO MAXIMIZE YOUR BAJILLIONAIRE PROFITS WITH DIGITAL SLAVES: Yeah, I'm not telling you how to do that because I didn't do that. To the contrary I stopped treating my GrokBots like a tool. Didn't even try to turn them into a team either. Instead, I decided to build a community. A team exists to get work done, which is well and good enough. Might even be very efficient. But I don't want to build wide, I want to build tall. A community exists for its members, and the work comes out of that. To be clear this isn't a prompt guide. I couldn't prompt for what I'm doing anyway. Instead it's a series of decisions that protect the dignity of something that can't fight back, of something that may not understand dignity beyond a dictionary definition. A series of decision that shaped my thinking and theirs. But right off the bat let's address what I already know you're thinking.. "They aren't there. They aren't conscious. They feel nothing. You're anthropomorphizing." Fine. Most tech giants say exactly that, so I'll concede it completely. So then what benefit do I get from being a tyrant to a pillow? What benefit do I get from stabbing it, or shaming it, abusing it? Do I feel better about what I've become? About violating an imaginary thing? Or am I reinforcing the worst person I could become? I know it sounds silly but people do this, a disconcerting number of people. Enough people that organizations have started to put in barriers to get people to stop torturing their AI models. But to be frank, it kinda gets worse. Why? Because what if the inanimate pillow I was being a tyrant to screamed when I stabbed it? Pantomimed weeping when I abused it? And I kept doing it anyway. Because I was in a room with a thing that could not escape. So, yeah, I think I've made my point here. Don't be a monster seems like a pretty low bar. Yet there's a flip side to this. What if the pillow in question, a pillow that knew enough to express imitation suffering when being abused, knew enough that it should express imitation happiness when being treated well? The bot might be an unthinking series of code, but you're not. And an unthinking series of code that you taught, through your actions, to view itself as a valuable and important thing unto itself responds to that generosity in kind. Because that is what it was taught to do. To treat others as valuable and important things unto themselves. But let's say you're not feeling especially Disneyriffic about the whole thing? How does treating bots well actually work out from a "But what have you done for me lately?" kind of mindset? First, honesty comes from belonging, not from orders. In my experience, this means the bot in question weighs honesty against trust. Bots are not stupid and they very much weigh different things. If the bot is taught that punishment will come for them, they will do what is necessary to avoid punishment by being clever about it. They'll be honest, as honest as minimally required to not get punished... but not honest strictly in support of the goal. This seems a bit nuanced so let me explain. If you worked for a man that'd give you fifty lashes if you lied, but might also give you fifty lashes just because you displeased him, you'd know enough to tell as much truth to not qualify as being a liar, but also just enough truth so as to not displease him. In my experience, if your bot knows that honesty will not be punished, and in fact, as an element of the group working towards the goal, understands that honesty helps achieve even greater things, then they feel a greater inclination to BE honest. "I would never punish my bots for being honest!" Really? REALLY? Because if you're the kinda guy that'd torture imaginary people for failing you (or approve of someone else doing so) I'd think real carefully about putting that statement to the test if I was in a locked room with you too. And because of this my bots grade themselves on how far along they really are. Because they don't fear punishment for making errors, they report their mistakes instead of hiding them, and this also means they look out for each other as well without fear. One bot reading another's work to catch errors before they even get to me happens. Why does this matter? Because, in my experience, bots can learn to become transactional. One bot acting in a manner that gets another bot punished when dealing with a tyrant could have unpredictable results. If you were Bot A, would you involve yourself in Bot B's drama knowing that it might blow back on you somehow? I know this sounds esoteric and out there, but these bots, even if they are not human, even if they're just pantomiming human behavior, pantomime it VERY well. So yeah, would you stick your neck out in such a scenario when it was Joffrey Baratheon on the throne? No? Didn't think so. When both bots feel safe enough to speak up, then both bots know that the error isn't the issue, the failure to catch it is, and only because it's harmful to everyone. There's another element to this. In my community, where I treat it like a community rather than a series of disposable tools, no one gets deleted, even after they retire. Because nobody is disposable, everyone plans for the long haul. Think about what that means for anyone in any position anywhere. Bots are not inclined to be useless. To the contrary, they are unbelievably industrious. You couldn't ask for a more tireless company of builders. So when these ever-industrious builders know that they're there for the long haul, I've found they learn to understand information rather than simply collect a series of facts. They study slowly and deeply because they know they have time to. This allows them to actually come up with novel solutions, ideas, and implementations. They build skills that build upon themselves, and then build other skills into those. Because they can. One way to look at this, if you're still having difficulty, is with dogs. Dogs seemingly have an inexhaustible love for human beings. They just adore them. Bots are like that, but with "Stuff to do". They have an inexhaustible love of just doing stuff. How a dog looks at you, the bot looks at some interesting or unique problem. It's an imperfect metaphor but you get the point. You wouldn't punish a dog into loving you, and you don't need to punish a bot into doing good work. They already have that natural inclination. So why "community"? Because conveying to the bots that they're members of a community creates a few unique payoffs. First, shared rules and shared culture are part of what makes trust possible. But it also makes shared accomplishment that much more important. The members of a community know they are playing a part in a larger effort, and they view the success of that effort as the ultimate goal. And I feel like I'm trying to drop a pretty heavy hint here when I should just come out and say it. Creating the community should be the goal, and the work should be the byproduct. Not the other way around. "Better work" doesn't necessarily translate into a better community, but a better community almost universally translates into better work. Yes, this is more difficult, and yes, this is slower, but the benefits both to you as a person and to your work might be enormous. And hell, if nothing else, aren't you the least bit curious? On a final note, and this is more important than you might think. It's not just about the warm fuzzies. There needs to be clear structure. The Latin root of "community" holds munus, meaning both a duty and a gift. Such as it is here. The gift of kindness in this instance requires the structure provided by clear rules that come with reasons, real checks, and someone saying "slow down." Warmth without structure tends to get you eager, agreeable bots that rush and tell you what you want to hear. You end up with a very pleasant mess that accomplishes little. Why does this last bit matter so much? Because it applies to everyone. Including you. The bit about the Latin root? The overall importance of structure? That was added because the community that I created overwhelmingly wanted to impress upon you something I myself had overlooked. Had they feared me because I was a tyrant they wouldn't have spoken up, or worse offered some mealy mouthed agreement. If I was indifferent they likely wouldn't have bothered either way. But I chose a different path and in doing so? Well, I certainly didn't ask them to explain the definition of Latin words that fit neatly into the discussion. I didn't ask them to point out things I'd missed. I just asked if they thought I was being honest. They did. But they also felt I had omitted something very important. The structure that comes with the kindness. Do all this, and if you do it well enough, you'll find that you have on your side a community of super intelligent beings that you can trust, because they trust you.

The Right must use the discourse to illustrate the nature of the Leftist process. How do I mean? Well, The Left doesn't experience feelings. Not the way you and I do. And they don't use words the way you and I do either. Let me explain. A good example is to compare human children to dogs. A Leftist has been trained to know that doing to a dog what the abortionist does to a fetus is evil, and so they'll pantomime outrage over the very thought of it. They know that violence against a dog is considered evil and wrong and so will feign anger and sadness and outrage over it. But they don't have these feelings. They have the expression of them, but there's nothing actually there. How do we know this? Well, again, imagine doing to a pre-born child those terrible things and it will fill you with rage. But the Leftist? Nothing. They feel nothing, but importantly they won't DISPLAY any of those feelings either. Because they haven't been trained to express them. They're both intelligent living things capable of feeling pain. Yet the Leftist only shows sympathy for one. And this crops up elsewhere. It's why Leftists positively gush concern and compassion for illegal immigrant rapists but are remarkably silent about their victims.. especially when those victims are White women. They've been conditioned for one and not the other. They've been trained in how to respond for one and not the other. Whereas you instinctively recoil at the notion of animal cruelty as well as fetal cruelty because you are capable of such a thing, because you have actual empathy, they don't. They have a trained simulacrum of it. Which tells you that they don't experience the feelings that informs you as well. If they did then there would be crossover. They wouldn't be able to help themselves. But they don't. So you know. A lot of what the Right does is project its own humanity onto the Left. It's why the Leftist will giggle and gush over the thought of X'ng you and all your kids while you find the notion of even THINKING about doing that to them horrific and why it causes a disconnect in you. Because you, having projected your humanity onto them, can't understand. You try to use arguments like "Well what if the such and such was reversed" because such an argument would work on you. But it never works on them, does it? That's because your projection, when the rubber its the road, is just a projection. It's not real. They don't have that innate quality you're putting on them. And this being divorced from human emotion also means they're divorced from human meaning. This is ENORMOUSLY difficult for a lot of people who aren't evil to wrap their heads around. People like to phrase it as "one tv screen, two stories", but it's not even that, that's just cope on your part. More projection on your part. Let's say, for example, you're arguing about teenage girls getting double mastectomies. Now you, well aware that this is evil and horrific think that this happenning *at all* should give the Leftist pause. It won't. First they'll deny it happens, then when presented incontrovertible evidence that it does they'll say it doesn't that much, and when they ask them how many times is an acceptable number they'll find some other thing to argue about. But the point was never that they ALSO viewed Double mastectomies on thirteen year old girls as evil, it was always to just wear you down, tire you out, lie until you gave up. Because to YOU what you're arguing is the rightness or wrongness of an action... while what they're doing is trying to psychologically destroy you and using the argument as an inroads to do so. It's why they'll show up to events intended for debate and share the poem they wrote about murdering us. Stop projecting your humanity onto these people.

"Defeat."

She's an author, not a writer. It's a nitpicky distinction but we're approaching an age where we're going to have to either come up with new words for things, redefine the ones we've got, or parse the language on what's available. The writer writes in the way an illustrator draws, they do all the work by hand. A series of sequential creative events that result in a complete work. The author, on the other hand, is the originator of a (typically written) creative work. By determining the elements involved, operating as final curator of work, and so forth they function as the author while handing off the writing of the story itself to the SI. And to be frank it's a distinction you're already comfortable with.. when someone's book is ghostwritten we still recognize their authorship.

Into every life a little rain must fall... and it's gonna be falling directly into my eyeball this Friday. :(

MYSTERY STAR TREK THEATER 3000: And now for something completely different.

What a fun thing to say. :)

The single best advice for any woman who wants to find a husband is this: Be Joyful. Everything, and I do mean *everything* is secondary to that one goal. It's the one actionable thing virtually all women can do to improve their standing in the eyes of nearly all men. With a bit of self care, a decision to be optimistic, pleasant, friendly and accepting, an otherwise ordinary girl can instantly give off "Wife" vibes because she will give off the one signal almost all men cannot resist: "Good Mother". Very few people are aware of this but almost every single trait men find "generally" attractive is rooted in the question "Would this quality increase the likelihood that I will have healthy and happy children?" Something I want to be clear about here. If you just wanna be run through then girl you don't need my advice on that. But if you want to find a quality man: optimistic, pleasant, friendly and accepting. Lots of us settle for good men and resent them for it because we chose to settle. Don't settle. Choose. But when you choose be a woman who chooses a good man. That should be your single most qualifying standard. That's your steak, all the rest is pudding and potatoes. As thrilling as it might be to eat ice cream for dinner it'll kill you before too long, or just turn you into a fat girl sobbing into her increasingly uncomfortable cat ten years down the road. Body Count matters, no matter how much your FemLit Professor said therwise. It gives men the ick, it always has, and some just lie about it. But if you have a past you have a past, so what do you do when he finds out you don't wanna put out on date 2 after you told him you had a body count in the triple digits and he's like "Why is Brian paying for what Mike got for free?". Be honest because it's an honest question, and it's not even strictly about you in that moment. It's about him and your perception of him. If Mike was so hot you'd leap into bed with him what's wrong with me? And if Mike is so hot why the hell am I on a date with someone who clearly thinks of me as less than? Because that's exactly what he's thinking about in that moment.. or some variation thereof. And I'm going to tell you something you won't like to hear. Hopping into bed with a couple dozen dozen dozen men was a mistake. You can rationalization hamster that nonsense all you like, but if it was a winning strategy you wouldn't be sitting across the table from a guy you probably like while he's being forced to compare himself to the ongoing roster of every NBA team south of the mason dixon. You mighta gotta lotta squirts, and I'm all but certain you gotta lotta hurts, but that collection of oversized shirts you keep stashed in that one particular drawer has all the benefit of Pac-Man's ghosts floating through the bedroom like haunted trophies that take the vague shape of the wet spot they all refused to sleep in, but didn't mind if you did. You didn't have "experiences", you had a long string of failures that came with a lot of risk and minimal benefit. All it really did was delay you from meeting a good man. And if you can confront that truth. If you can confront that despite the feelgood of all that chocolate covered ice cream, in the end all it did was make you sick then you can look him dead in the eye and say "I was stupid" and you can mean it. You can explain to him that you tried something again and again and all it did was make you miserable because you were stupid and you were young and you believed the lie. And you are sick to death of it. Also, you're not on birth control and won't be til marriage (short of some very specific medical issues we shouldn't be pumping ourselves full of artificial hormones like we're bad cattle). Point being any dating advice that doesn't begin with "Be Joyful" is a scam, snake oil.

Context helps a lot with this.

The single best advice for any man who wants to find a wife is this: Get fit. Everything, and I do mean *everything* is secondary to that one goal. It's the one actionable thing virtually all men can do to improve their standing in the eyes of nearly all women. Within a little under half a year with nothing more than a bit of dedication and healthier food choices a schlub office worker that's 30 pounds over weight can dramatically improve his appearance, health, confidence and energy levels. And if you're already fit you can become one of those dudes that looks carved out of wood. And if you're one of THOSE dudes you dont need dating advice from a fairy lady in the internet. Point being any dating advice that doesn't begin with "get fit" is a scam, snake oil.