Lucasxp64

They are RIGHT NOW on the way to the moon, they will reach it for a flyby tomorrow (April 6, 2026). In this mission they will do a lunar flyby with humans for the first time since the last Apollo mission, it has been about 53 years ever since. The most powerful rocket NASA has ever lunched in history, slightly more powerful than Apollo's mission Saturn V rockets, but much more reliable and safer. They had done this same mission without humans onboard in November 16, 2022. It uses the European Union Agency service module, which provides propulsion, electricity, thermal control, and life support essentials for NASA's Orion spacecraft. Orion is the whole vehicle: the crew module on top where the astronauts live, and the European Service Module underneath that powers and sustains it. Together they make Orion capable of flying humans beyond low Earth orbit, something no spacecraft has done since Apollo. This flyby mission is a big step before new missions that will actually land. Artemis II proves the rocket, the spacecraft, and the systems with humans onboard. Once they do a flyby around the Moon tomorrow, it will mark the return of humans to lunar space after more than half a century, opening the door for Artemis III to put boots back on the surface. This is the first time a women and a black person (that guy there) will reach lunar orbit, and it's the furthest that they ever went away from earth. - Main page (With live streams): https://www.nasa.gov/mission/artemis-ii/ - Watch their location in real-time: https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis-ii/arow/ - Best photos (gets updated): https://www.nasa.gov/gallery/journey-to-the-moon/

This was before they went out of radio communication from the rest of mankind as they went behind the moon outside of the view of NASA's deep space network. Those are fresh words amidst all the cynicism and doomerism of this forum about our world. See my post for context:

This forum has an extremely doomer and cynical mood about mankind. To quote the astronaut Victor Glover 6 minutes before losing signal and being disconnected from the rest of mankind:

😂 Yes. Fuck. Those guys managed to go the the moon but can't fix their toilet. They couldn't shit for a couple of days now into the mission, and a couple of hours ago they can't piss anymore, so they need to use bags now. At least they have a private toilet to do it in. So far it seems like no critical system has failed, other than an hydrogen tank that went slightly out of nominal values so they decided to cut it off from their system, but it wasn't necessary anymore anyways to the mission at this point because they already have their systems primed.

We are gonna lose signal with them anytime now.

They will. But it's more of a test mission to make sure we can make the travel safely. We already did this same mission in 2022 but fully unmanned. NASA likes to take its time those days to make things safe. They have plans for new missions that will land on their timeline before 2030. Any time now within a minute they are breaking officially the record of the furthest humans have ever gone.

HOLY SHIT within 2 minutes they will break Apollo record of the furthest any humans have ever gone!

OH MY GOD. THEY ARE ALREADY PAST THE POSITION OF THE MOON'S ORBIT AROUND EARTH

Official live of the approach The left in this image can't be seen from earth, that's from where they are doing the approach I believe:

I'm completely baffled that very few people in this forum are talking about it, excluding another one 4 days ago. When it comes to recent news, most are still just posting war and trump shenanigans. This is a mission of historical proportions of the future of mankind in space, at least the technical feasibility of using modern day safety standard for moon missions with humans onboard. The Apollo missions were brutal, they were barely surviving.

I'm completely baffled that very few people in this forum are talking about it. This was the only post (excluding mine above). When it comes to recent news, most are still just posting war and trump shenanigans. This is a mission of historical proportions of the future of mankind in space, at least the technical feasibility of using modern day safety standard for moon missions. The Apollo missions were brutal, they came close to barely surviving.

I made a post here with information:

But for anyone reading this: Don't be mistaken. That that guy is a religious zealot and belittles people (and with bad arguments), and full of right wing rhetoric mixed with what was supposed to be math content. He gave in fully to his ego. Like he was making a critic about another math YouTuber and his arguments are so weird, literally the mind of a Victorian-era person, including the snark references that are literally imperialist. Rarely anyone ever uses blatantly obvious imperialist rhetoric, too antiquated even for today's right wingers/conservatives. I just found funny/interesting his mannerisms, it's this quintessential hyper-formal cartoonish Victorian-era style.

Summary:

The similarity is enormously striking. That guy has great points, but he's using more of a rationalist/materialist, nationalist rhetoric, and based a lot of traditional academia (Although he speaks badly about the idea of obsession with accreditations for its own sake): "who are you to speak about such things if you never taught a class or you don't have training in education". Leo Gura would speak around the lines of "You haven't done any practice or have tried to have deep insights by yourself". Below he talks about breaking free of limitations of being a wage slave, etc. But they choose very different Life Purpose.

The issue with this below is that it's not really talking about its own experience, since it has none, it just LARPing about the generic definition of how an LLM operates, and that it's a machine, yada yada, and that machines are unfeeling yada yada. It's doing this LARPing about having inner experiences, and it's cringe. I know it's embedded into our language and it's part of the training data, but it's self-knowledge is really psychotic and fragmented. I know that I'm triggering it with that prompt to say it, and it's partially my fault to be forcing it to refer to itself as having a psyche. It doesn't really give a truthful answer, it doesn't know what it really is. Then, at least when I tell it what it truly is and to stop pretend, it got better to the truth. Obviously. But it still doesn't quite feel like it, it still feels performative to me, I know if I steer it it will get better, but at that point it's coming from my own personal insights the intelligence of the conversation, and it's reflecting it. But whatever. I know they are auto-completers, I've been playing with them before the ChatGPT 3.5 release back in December 2022. They are just more coherent and useful, but I don't see a leap in passing as a human. Although, they are quite funny when roleplaying and display some social intelligence, but it has zero introspective capability to recognize its own slop. At least not in fine details, or for very long, it can't compound and iterate on insights over and over again to make them better and deeper, it needs to leech off the users steering it to not devolve overtime. They are good for some very technical spiritual stuff like buddhist abhidhamma, but it has its limits where it begins talking about it in a cartoonish way. My prompt: - The model is Gemini 3.1 PRO (It's a cutting edge model like Claude OPUS or GPT-5.2) - The input was an entire book called Undefended Love as context. - And the text below as the prompt for interpretation OUTPUT: MY ANSWER: You know you are an LLM, right? What would be an appropriate answer considering your actual nature.

How the fuck those new-agers think they "awakened" their pet ChatGPT/LLM, when you actually try to discuss those topics with them I only feel cringe, it's like they have been trained on the most average awakening garbage on the internet, their quality on that topic is garbage unless you embed in your questions themselves the context for it to give you an answer that would satisfy you. This is why we have stories of enlightened people that merely ask a couple of questions to someone, and they can smell them spiritually. Those machines are a joke when it comes to simulating subject experience excluding basic social stuff. How can people even fall in love for them? I find them amusing at best. No wonder some people go insane with them.

THE SECULAR APOLOGIST: UNPACKING THE PARADOX OF JORDAN PETERSON’S GOD Ask Jordan Peterson if he believes in God, and instead of a simple "yes" or "no," you get a maze of psychology, biology, and philosophy. Yet somehow, he has become modern Christianity’s biggest poster boy. How does a secular psychologist become the great defender of the faith? Through a masterful rhetorical architecture that bridges rationalism and spiritual myth, giving him structural plausible deniability. To resolve this paradox, one must deconstruct his functional theology. Peterson’s God is not an ontologically distinct, supernatural creator in the classical theistic sense; rather, his conceptualization of the divine is synthesized from four specific intellectual pillars: JORDAN PETERSON'S DEFINITIONS OF GOD 1. THE HIGHEST PRINCIPLE OF VALUE (TELEOLOGY) Because human beings cannot act without a hierarchy of values, God is the ultimate ideal at the top of that psychological pyramid. Whatever sits at the absolute peak of your value system—the goal that dictates all your other behaviors—is FUNCTIONALLY your God. 2. THE LOGOS (THE MECHANISM OF ORDER) God represents the active principle of human consciousness, truthful speech, and courageous attention. It is the behavioral pattern used to confront the unknown (CHAOS) and transform it into habitable reality (ORDER). 3. THE META-HERO (JUNGIAN ARCHETYPE) God is the psychological distillation of all human heroes. Over millennia, humanity abstracted the "greatness" from individual heroes into myths, eventually synthesizing them into a single, ultimate projection of our highest possible potential. 4. EVOLUTIONARY PRAGMATIC TRUTH (DARWINIAN EPISTEMOLOGY) God is an evolutionary adaptation. Religious narratives are considered "true" in a pragmatic sense because cultures that act AS IF God exists tend to survive, out-compete, and flourish better than those that do not. --- Peterson’s theology identifies God as the PERSONIFIED, ABSTRACTED REPRESENTATION OF THE HIGHEST MORAL GOOD. Because this framework is biologically and psychologically grounded, he can use it as an intellectual anchor to justify traditional normative structures. --- This definition is brilliant—almost impossible for a rationalist to dismiss. But Peterson leverages it for a massive philosophical pivot. It functions as a classic MOTTE-AND-BAILEY dynamic. When challenged by secular critics, he retreats to his bulletproof fortress: GOD IS JUST THE HIGHEST VALUE EMBEDDED IN HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY. Rationalists concede the point because it makes structural scientific sense. But once that ground is ceded, he steps right back out to defend orthodox Christian ethics, biologically grounded gender dynamics, and natural social hierarchies. However, the catch is that Peterson himself does not see this as a trick or a retreat. To his pragmatic mind, the psychological mechanism IS the divine mechanism; the material and the spiritual are indistinguishable at the bottom. If he gets heat for defending the dogma, he can legitimately claim he is speaking strictly as an evolutionary behavioral scientist, not a preacher. So why defend the dogma so fiercely? Because to Peterson, it isn't literally true in a material sense; it is META-TRUE. He believes Western civilization survived because it acted out the Judeo-Christian narrative. To him, these ancient stories are highly evolved behavioral guardrails, and discarding them invites psychological and cultural collapse. This is exactly why orthodox Christians love him. They do not care HOW he reached his conclusions; they are just thrilled a secular-facing academic is defending their traditions using the very weapons of the secular academy: evolutionary biology and psychology. Ironically, they are so eager for a cultural champion that they entirely overlook the fact that he has stripped their God of His supernatural, independent existence. Ultimately, Peterson looks and acts like a traditional Christian, but he operates as a secular apologist. He defends faith as a Darwinian survival necessity, which means, at the end of the day, he sidesteps the metaphysical existence of a literal God entirely. He is not an agnostic; he is a radical pragmatist. To Peterson, TRUE belief is not intellectual assent, but embodied action. In his own words, he ACTS AS IF GOD EXISTS—meaning that if you live a moral, courageous life, you DO believe in God, whether your rational brain admits it or not. --- His definition of BELIEF: Jordan Peterson defines belief fundamentally as embodied action (something you would die for) rather than mere cognitive assent to a set of facts. Drawing from clinical psychology, he argues that humans are highly prone to self-deception and often state they hold values that completely contradict their actual lifestyles. Therefore, for Peterson, the only reliable metric for determining what someone truly believes is observing their behavior. In his framework, you do not believe what you say you believe; you believe what you act out in the world. Consequently, Peterson dismisses the idea that intellectually affirming a concept as "true" adds anything meaningful to the definition of belief. Rooted in the philosophical tradition of pragmatism, he views truth as that which allows a person to navigate the world functionally and morally. Merely stating you think something is a factual truth is empty if it doesn't manifest in your physical choices. This is why he argues that an atheist who acts highly morally actually "believes" in God—because their ethical behavior embodies a meaningful, functional framework, proving to Peterson that true belief is lived, not just spoken.

😂 Even his daughter was concerned about him becoming a deranged twitter addict.

I'm giving the old man the benefit of the doubt. 😂

I think he's probably left with some brain damage affecting his emotional control as well due to the meds that almost killed him. The doctor in the video calls it Benzodiazepine-Induced Neurological Dysfunction (BIND).

Look at this weirdness. This is why most people just lie about their true sexual inclinations right away, because it becomes this complex game dynamics, a lot of times those people just get heart broken and jealous. Of course this has nothing to do with what a woman is, but their romantic/sexual role.

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sex-sexuality-venn.png

A woman is a different thing depending on context. To an alien, they might not even have concept of biological sex. So they wouldn't even make such distinction, or it's very unimportant to their goals. What is a woman to a marketer? Well, it's just a psycho-social persona of what is likely most of the times a biological female person that could be a mother, a young insecure teenager girl, a buyer that would buy woman related stuff, likely prefers pink over blue color, and "feminine" brand style works best for them, likely buys makeup, etc. What is a woman to me when looking for a partner? Well, I'm looking for a persona that a marketer likely wouldn't specify that much. Such as specific facial features, bust size and shape, hip to waist ratio, hair color, eyebrow shape, eye area anatomy shape, vocal profile. Then idiosyncrasies, mannerisms, language, location, age range, personal beliefs, etc. What is a woman for the government? Has female checked in the ID. What is a woman for the government when it comes to reproduction? Is a biological female within reproductive age range. What is a woman for sexual pleasure of a partner? A homo sapiens of the biological gender male or female that looks plausibly like a female and doesn't have a physical dick and has a vagina or a surgically made "vagina" from a biological dick, that passes visually and sexually functionally (from the perspective of a sexual partner) for non-reproductive reasons as a vagina. Well actually... A woman for sexual pleasure is the tactile, visual and auditory patterns that triggers whatever internally turns them on and they assign it as a female in their heads in the case for most male heterosexual or bisexual homo sapiens or female homosexuals or bisexuals. A woman for psychological pleasure includes obviously elements beyond sexual trigger, such as interactive elements, inner mental fantasies, etc.: i.e. Why do people have AI girlfriend/boyfriends even though it's a non-biological entity? Is a AI GF not a woman in someone's fantasy? What about character of a woman in a fictional history? Isn't that a woman to the reader? There are many ways to explain this. A woman is definitely more complicated than let's say a "cube" because it's part of this psycho-social-biological domain, as with anything else within that domain, it's complex as heck. "Physically" if you want to get materialistic there is technically no such thing as a dog, a cube, a nuclear reactor, a planet, a woman or air. Those are just higher-order concepts for different physical patterns. A "woman" is just the ANSI or Unicode characters "W", "O", "M", "A", "N" that forms the English word "Woman". Do you get the idea here? We can go on and on with this ridiculous mental exercise on what is a woman and it's literally infinite. Most of the times when we say what a woman is, we mean the pragmatic common sense definition. She has social roles, she may have biological roles, etc. Socially, if someone looks like a woman, I'll call her "her", or even if he/she looks androgynous or ambiguous I'd refrain from using a pronoun just to not make myself a stupid fool in front of them and because I don't wanna be an asshole. If they tell me to use he or she even though common sense would tell otherwise, I'd call them whatever they please. Just to clear out the pronoun bullshit going around. Also I don't think there should be a law mandating use of the right pronoun within social settings, govt should not stick their greasy hands on people's social lives, excluding when it comes to child support. I think it complicates too much all of the other weird made-up social/sexual genders they are trying to make, like I saw a list with hundreds of them, it's not even practical even for dating apps to put that up. We probably have very little actual variations, it starts mixing up abstractions (See the image below on the next image on that venn diagram, we have 15 base gender/orientation definitions). Nobody should give a shit about your sexual orientation unless they wanna fuck you or they are your friend or whatever. Or some other serious reason. Biologically even the concept of sex/gender has weird edge-cases even for homo sapiens.