The only reason to have a LI is to have an online resume, but if that’s the only reason then make a website. You’re better off interacting socially or blogging on your own site, which may have a commenting feature. You can use agents to post your blogs to various places for exposure.
That's correct, though the article mentions the Aztecs, but thinking of the Inca empire as a standalone unit is sort of dubious. The Inca were just the named phase of upper Andean civilization when the conquistadors arrived. Most of what's considered Inca empire was already in existence for a long time. It's much more reasonable to consider upper Andean civilization as a whole instead of just looking at the final administration and taking that name.
I think a corporation is as much a person as Voltron is a person.
A person’s constitute components don’t have higher-levels of consciousness, but a person does. Whereas for a corporation, the situation is reversed—the constituent components have higher-level consciousness, but the corporation does not by itself.
I agree with the premise that a corporation then is some kind of slave, or thrall, at the command a committee of wizards. So, a zombie in some sense.
Another similarity to note is that the will and nature of a corporation changes depending on its most influential constituent components, which is similar in nature to how a human person might change due to a disease or different mental state.
If we stick with the lens of mythology, where a collective will is embodied by something which controls it, then yes.
We can say some things are more like golems, while others are more like thralls. I think religions are more like golems because a collective will is distilled into a “singular” scripture, and many times the logos is esoteric in nature, but its “magic” gets the job done, that is to say, you don’t need to understand your religion to be religious.
Should we broadly categorize embodiments of collective will as such? Not necessarily—I think democratic institutions are less prone to be slavish, but more like a person with schizophrenia managing themselves. I think the closer an entity gets to a human person-level of embodiment, the more likely it is to be pro-social.
The prescriptive feminist talking points about what makes a man are poorly justified, and as such more likely to be taken as political agenda than well-meaning advice for self-actualization. But I don’t think this post deserves to be flagged, it’s bringing up a discussion relevant to the current political landscape.
Human populations independently progressed so much culturally and otherwise beyond being hunter-gatherers, and the fact that the discourse neglects all those lines of human cultural evolution when it talks about “monkey brain”, “brain made for eating berries in a cave”, or “you gather, me hunt” is both thoughtless and incomplete.
Let’s consider this first point in particular,
> Your authentic self should not be: dominant, highly interested in sex, competitive, emotionally reserved, prone to risk-taking, bad at reading emotions, stoic, or interested in power.
Coupled with the rest of the points, it appears to be describing the mental state of a Eunuch, which goes against the advice to not be stoic, so I find that inconsistent. Secondly, I don’t think it’s fair to demand that one shouldn’t expect good behavior from others—that’s the very basis of social contracts. But let’s stay on point.
There are many inventions which have created cultural paradigm shifts, and I think the invention of guns/drones are similar in that they have equalized men and women in terms of strength and capability. FFS, please don’t read this as me inciting any kind of hatred against one type of people or another. Instead note that physical strength is not the differentiating factor that it once used to be.
I think it’s necessary now to think of the potential that that cultural shift presents. To me, I think there’s an opportunity here to truly design a gender-neutral cultural framework because what matters now is what’s in your mind, that is your character, desires, and personal expression.
Instead I offer this version of what it takes to be a man or woman or as-you-wish: think of mirroring God (note: I am not religious, but I think of god as a philosophical framework).
So women, men and whoever: as God’s mirror, you’re a creator, you’re magnanimous, you’re wise, you’re just, you wield your wrath in a just manner, etc. etc. You are the embodiment of noblesse oblige. But you are mortal. So you must take care to protect yourself, both physically and mentally from people with parasitic or narcissistic traits. Encourage self-reliance and independent thinking, the basis of exercising free will.
The above isn’t exactly completely thought out on my part, so I am sure there are gaps to be addressed. But I don’t think that kind of philosophical framework precludes sex or relationships, or demands heteronormativity. You could have multiple partners, but that just means do it in some gracious and respectful manner, for example. I don’t know, it depends. A lot of people with money don’t have class.
I also don’t think it’s fair to expect men to do all the hard work of trying to fix these cultural issues by programming themselves to be one thing or another, but not expect that of everyone else. Everyone is terrible, in their own unique and special way.
But most of all, everyone needs to realize that there are huge capability gaps between themselves and other people, and one may never be able to close such gaps for any number of reasons. The best you can do is educate and move on.
One problem that’s unaddressed is that there isn’t a house building, pricing and mortgage model for people making 50K or less.
One piece of data I’ve found is that 65% of Americans are homeowners (meaning American families, not rentals or investments), which is also about the percentage of Americans who make $50K or more per year (~68%).
For people with a middle class networth (not income, I mean networth, which is about ~1M-9M when compared with the top of US society), homeownership currently works as a wealth-building mechanism because of scarcity. There’s also the desire to live close to certain areas, but why not make more neighborhoods or areas worth living in?
Regardless, if the goal is to maintain scarcity for wealth building, then I think the scarcity mechanism will remain intact if homeownership is increased to a high rate while balancing the cost of materials and labor, and building houses specially for certain income levels, as mentioned already in other posts.
But no one seems to be doing materials innovation, or construction innovation. I don’t think 3D printing is there quite yet, and might be more expensive. Where’s the push on automating construction? Why not build with a genetically engineered bamboo that’s cheaper and more sustainable than wood? Seems materials innovation will help with both housing and sustainability goals.
In the past, people were able to buy a small piece of land and develop it themselves. Literally build the house themselves. Over a long period time if necessary to spread out the cost. They also built 2-4 family homes so they could bring in some rent or house a family member.
None of this is really allowed anymore and it's very hard to find a piece of land to do it with. Enabling this sort of construction and forcing or incentiving small plots of land might open up options for people on the lower end.
On state funding: Trump tariffs are going to cut deep enough into flexible spending for a lot of countries.
On private funding: I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Asian universities excelled at engineering because the U.S. universities were distracted on too many fronts. If the U.S. schools are forced to focus on STEM, then this whole calculus changes.
Psych ops is different from propaganda because the former has a component of weakening an opponent through messaging, whereas the latter is more concerned with trying to convince others to your side or view point. But you’re right that there could be overlap, it just depends on who’s the target.
Thanks. So propaganda is the message, while psyops is the campaign that might use propaganda (and other tools) as part of a larger psychological strategy.
reply