Joshe

lol. Probably.

Online is a pipe dream but live games are easy. I haven’t played in several years but since the dream of being a pro has died down, I’m betting the games are easier. Play loose and aggressive against tight players, tight against loose-agro and see as many flops as you can in cheap and loose passive games. With that, being perceptive, and bankroll management, I think this is sufficient to win 1-2 and 2-5 live. Full exploitative, no GTO crazy stuff like you need online. Only thing is you need to be close to a casino and it’ll be a grind.

If the pollster thinks the margin of error on this question is 3%, you can’t trust them. The “social desirability bias” on this question, ESPECIALLY on the 250th anniversary, would be through the ruff.

That’s badass.

That’s where I’ve arrived as well, thanks for articulating this. Seeking god or truth is a meaning-making activity and people fail to understand you find that which you seek. Seek meaning in truth/god, and you will find it. Or more accurately, construct it the same way any meaning is constructed. No matter your collection of insights or truths and your conviction of them based on how they make you feel or what logic you’ve put together, they’ll never cash out to more than experiences that give you meaning, pass the time, and if you’re lucky, make you feel good. I see it mostly a hedonistic pursuit that simultaneously attempts to manage terror. Put in AO terms: survival. AO is quick to put other unconscious survival mechanisms under the microscope, but never its own. Maybe deep spirituality is just a pursuit for meaning and terror management. Consciousness is like a canvas. The floor is total stillness. Those painting on the canvas are trying to paint pictures that allow them to penetrate beneath the floor because the stillness isn’t exciting enough, no opportunity for something interesting and novel. So they spend years constructing their own elaborate creations and eventually claim they have the proof that their construction has penetrated the floor, all the while oblivious that their so-called truth is a construction, a figment painted on the canvas of consciousness.

No, but it's probably 10x cheaper right now than it will be after the 7th.

We got until July 7 before they move it to API pricing. You got 6 days to get as much from it as you can.

When I think of how to do this with a girl, I find it difficult to come up with a way that wouldn’t be considered cringe by most girls. Staring deep into their eyes and talking about building castles and things like this would be really hard to do without coming off as cringe. It’s possible to bring them into your world, but you’re gonna need some tact, which I wouldn’t think of as manipulation or inauthenticity, but more like building a bridge, and the construction starts where they are. For most girls, you can’t just have them stare at a sunset and gaze deep into their eyes and start talking about castles without some serious tact.

Thanks @cetus Yep, I’m all good. I can discuss these things without distress of any kind, other than failure to transfer my points, haha. Appreciate it!

We're running in circles and I'm over here explaining how basic influence works because you failed to answer yes to this question: "Would you agree that suicide-permission messaging broadcast at volume to a receptive audience pushes the number up?" And if you don't like that one, omit the descriptor: "Would you agree that suicide messaging broadcast at volume to a receptive audience pushes the number up?" Yes or no? If your answer is "no", then for the argument to continue, I would have to explain how influence works, but I'm not super excited about that, lol. Not sure how you deduced my logic leads there. Do you think I'm saying Leo is directly responsible for specific suicides? I'm making an entirely different argument: Leo's and AO's stance and rhetoric is "contributory". Was Netflix DIRECTLY responsible for suicides? No, it doesn't work like that because suicide is a process. If the suicide motive is to end suffering, that process is largely a building up of courage, reasons, and other collections of ideas and thought experiments like what-if scenarios and things like this. The process is unpredictable and volatile. Say you're online and come across someone who says they want to end it and you tell them "stop bitching and do it already", then they do it. Are you responsible? Not DIRECTLY, but you contributed. I'm simply saying to stop contributing because you never know where someone is in the process or how they’ll use your ideas. Leo's "only one way to find out" was tossing a match into a tinderbox and if the user was at a low enough point, it could have supplied them the spark they needed, depending on their circumstances at the time of reading the message. Maybe they just finished fighting with their family and maybe they were drunk and then someone they respect says "only one way to find out", then that's enough for them. This is how this stuff works. You can rarely, if ever, point to one specific thing. If you don't think Netflix is responsible in any way shape or form, I'm not going to be able to get through to you. Lol, nah bruh, too much mess.

I'm guessing you could get $2,000 worth or more by paying the $200 for the claude max subscription.

Haha, nah. It's basically the best AI coding agent we've ever had access to. It can basically build most any type of app you want. I just had it build a screen measuring tool for my work

I'm confused. I wonder if you've misinterpreted something I said because what I'm saying is very basic. Why does Coke pay Kim Kardashian 100k to sip on a Coke during her live stream? And why is it that the more influencers you get doing that, the more Cokes get sold? If you're trying to say something like "We can't prove that any one specific individual is drinking Coke because of Kim Kardashian's influence", then yeah, you're right, and I don't need to because that's not my claim. My claim is that the more influencers drink Coke, the more Cokes get sold. This is not up for debate. Now, swap out Cokes for permissive-suicide messaging. The more influencers offering those messages, the more suicides will occur. This is a provable fact in behavioral science literature. It has to do with your specific claim of "No one would even consider suicide unless they're going through unbearable suffering." And I gave you a specific example that makes the falsehood clear. I could provide many more examples. For instance, a man crushed by debt and worried about his family and so he offs himself so they can get the insurance money. Or he offs himself because the thought of being a failure seems unbearable because he doesn't yet know how to deal with the feeling of being a failure. Or how about Hitler, was he in unbearable suffering when he pulled the trigger? How about a 15 year old girl caught up social media and feeling like she's not beautiful and she's isolated and wants the suffering to stop. That's not unbearable, inescapable suffering. It's a hard time that she can make it through, and her environmental influences can either contribute to seeing her through or contribute to her ending it all. Obviously, there are different motives for suicide, but you're right that I'm specifically talking about suffering. But it seems you're collapsing or equivocating "objectively unbearable" and "subjectively unbearable". The majority I've been speaking of feel that it's "subjectively unbearable", as in, they can't imagine a way out. They're suffering from thoughts and feelings, not from truly unbearable, debilitating pain. These are exactly the types of people most susceptible to harm from suicide-permissive messaging and they can, and obviously ARE influenced all the time. Lol, you serious bro? I ain't even touchn' this one. See, this is why I've been confused this whole time. When you look at Leo's response there and call it terrible, as in "the messaging has a negative effect", you're AGREEING with me because you know that it's exactly what I've been calling it: common sense. That's what it is, and you just arrived at it without a study.

No dude, I was asking you what kind of shady stuff do you think is happening with anonymous communication? I was interested if you had any interesting theories. I've noticed you bringing up this topic often. I'm starting to get the sense that you think people aren't real (bots) or you think people are running multiple accounts or something. You made a statement. I'm asking you to elaborate. Unless you just like tossing random statements out and not wanting them to be engaged. That's fine too.

😂

like?

Damn brah, I thought you were my age. I'm 40. Even though I don't act like, lol.

This has nothing to do with my personal metaphysical views or feelings. I'm making a logical argument for harm reduction in a community that often deals with suicidal desire. I believe rhetoric around death and suicide in such a community should be highly controlled. And I believe that anything that even hints of suicide permission shouldn't be allowed, which is why I said the default position should be "it's always bad" or it shouldn't be spoken of at all. I'm not trying to optimize for what is philosophically true. I believe some suffering suicidal humans going through a rough patch are better off not having access to thousands of pages of text that glorify death, because I think that leads to more harm than good. If it led to more good than harm, I'd be for it. I'd have a different opinion if this community wasn't filled with suicidal people. If you found a way to keep all suicidal people out and if your metaphysical discussions involving showing interest in death were kept behind a wall, where only mentally healthy members could view it, I think it's totally fine to discuss whatever you want. But of course that's not possible and you don't want to cut suicidal people out of your community. So the only way to handle it is to moderate it. There's a reason why WHO and every major news organization has strict protocols around how they report on suicide. They never put it on the front page of a newspaper because if you do that, you increase suicide rates. It's called the Werther effect. They follow protocols like this: They don't avoid this shit because they're "woke". They do it because otherwise, they'd contribute to suicide and suffering.

Good point. I wasn't around during that time so IDK the dynamics around it.

100%. You got it. Although I disagree with "to him, that is compassion". It reads more to me like a post-hoc rationalization to skirt accountability so you can be free to toss your truths out where ever you want. Leo loves to generate ideas and to see things. And to him, "hard truths" are especially interesting. What is the most common response a person who loves to generate and share ideas would have if people told them their idea generation and sharing was having a detrimental impact? If the person was compassionate, they'd probably want to know about it and adjust. If there weren't, they'd probably find justifications. "Sharing my truths is my compassion" is quiet convenient. If my read is right, then this is false. He's consistently said things like "I'm not going to be your sweet guru just because you can't handle these truths.” He's pressed this matter quite firmly many times. When people ask for a change of posture to reduce harm, it seems to usually be met with something like this.

😂

I agree. I'm saying the existence of positive or permissive suicide messaging increases suicide rate. This is absurd (best term I could find, not trying to be insulting). Is a 14 year old having a temper tantrum and who wants to kill themself experiencing unbearable suffering? Have you heard of the Werther Effect? I didn't know about the name until I started engaging on this topic, but I already understood it. Maybe this is something fundamental you need to understand about this topic. The opposite of the Werther Effect is the Papageno effect, which shows that creating space to acknowledge and discuss suicide while emphasizing coping and making it through is associated with lower suicide rates. But that's not what's going on here. Also, if "permission" helps, then it also harms. You can't say permissive messaging doesn't emotionally impact the majority (because if someone is going to do it, they're going to do it anyway) and then say it does impact the minority. Everyone already knows there's an end. It's just a matter of making the decision. Of all the people who are contemplating the decision, a very small minority should hear the permissive messaging, because to broadcast permissive messaging to the majority is common-sense reckless, and there's no paradox to resolve here.

I agree, but we're dealing with some complex mental gymnastics and self-deception here. Leo's and his supporters on this claim not tightening up on the death/suicide rhetoric makes space and provides compassion for the stuck minority. This is their justification. My thinking was that by highlighting the prevalence of the majority, the cost-benefit would become clear, because it's just common sense. But Leo's supporters on this can't see it. I've since realized no argument would work to change Leo's behavior because this isn't really about making space for the stuck minority. It's about being free to make any statement you want. Figured this out from my armchair, lol. If it were truly about compassion, you'd be like "oh shit, yeah, that makes sense, I definitely shouldn't be saying things like this: "Only one way to find out" in a forum post titled "suicide consequences" where members are venting frustration and desire to suicide and asking questions about the afterlife. Everyone here should be able to look at this and call it reckless and irresponsible. And given the patterns, deduce his rhetoric on this topic is not about compassion. A compassionate person would not act like this.

And a new logical fallacy is born. "The Armchair Fallacy: dismissing a conclusion by reclassifying the reasoning that produced it as an inferior epistemic category—"mere" inference, unsourced, armchair—without demonstrating any flaw in the inputs or the inference itself."

If you're good at generating and evaluating inputs, inference is fun. If you're not so good at it, maybe you're reluctant. Maybe I can lift your fear (jab + hypothesis + genuinely wanting you to see something you don't) around being wrong and improve your epistemology: "Inference" is not a bad word. It's the most natural thing a mind does. You can label "this is inference, this is not" all you want. But it's not making you any more rigorous. At the end of the day, what matters is not an inference label, but: is the reasoning sound? Being able to generate inputs and objectively evaluate them is what matters. These are two different faculties. You need both. And what is the point of doing all this anyway? To arrive somewhere. To upgrade a hypothesis into a conclusion you'll actually stand on such that it can be acted from. That's the whole point. I didn't give you my entire method for arriving at the 99% ballpark. I gave you something that I thought you might be able to use to generate more questions or ideas that which, upon verification, could lead you somewhere. Here's more what my process actually looked like: First, I ask myself "how prevalent does the majority seem to me?" And I realize that I've encountered the truly stuck minority maybe once or twice and the majority hundreds or thousands of times (direct experience). This generates a hypothesis: the stuck group is a very small minority. It's not proven, but now I have an input to work with. From here, I considered the prevalence of pharma TV commercials that name suicide as a side effect of medications a large share of the population is on, rising suicides across several demographics - including kids, addiction, marital misery, financial and legal crisis, and a few other things I'm forgetting. These are all people NOT in the minority, and their prevalence is massive. So, this is where convergence starts to take shape. Then, I try to resolve it: If I picked 10 suicidal people, how likely is one to be in the stuck group? Not likely. 20? No. 50? Maybe one. That puts me at 98%. Then, I consider the sheer volume of the majority some more and realize it's possible the number is 1 in 500, 1 in 1000, or even 1 in 10,000, but I stay conservative and keep the ballpark estimate at 99% because I don't need the exact decimal to prove my point. As long as the majority significantly outnumbers the stuck minority, then broadcasting permission-messaging at volume to a receptive audience harms more than it helps. Notice I didn't reference any studies here, yet I was still able to arrive at the right answer on my own. You can verify it yourself by having your AI tools attempt to come up with a ballpark number. They'll arrive very close to mine but likely through a different method. If you're going to criticize someone's method, you should probably have one of your own that you can use to point exactly to where their reasoning breaks. And to save people from having to explicate their entire sense-making process, how bout you come in good faith and do some of the verification process yourself, rather than just claim their processes are shit. Also, it would be super cool if you'd stop peacocking epistemic virtue. You love letting people know when they're making "assumptions and inferences", which is fine if they're not backed by much, but it's annoying and comes across like social positioning when you sidestep their reasoning while offering nothing and calling their processes shit while not being able to explain why. I've laid my entire process bare here. If you can show me how it generated a false conclusion, I'd love to hear it. Gonna be hard to do since I'm not wrong, lol.