PsychedelicEagle

I'd add: Sunlight in the morning (infrared spectrum for mitochondrial health, goes beyond Vitamin D synthesis) Supplements: Omega 3, Vitamin D, B12 (if homocysteine is not optimal — common even in omnivores) Socializing (as a means to feed our social necessities and reset the solitude cycles — away from drama as you said) +1 Alternative: green tea for catechins and l-theanine which balances caffeine. Personally, I don't drink even green tea, but it seems a smoother, healthier alternative to coffee. To be drunk away from meals as it compromises the absorption of minerals.

From another discussion I started reviewing some videos from Alan. Just learn he passed away 4y ago — may he rest in peace. Leaving other readers with this HILARIOUS masterpiece from him:

Please do. I appreciate getting a different perspective on how I could be approaching. But being honest not sure I will agree since I feel we're approaching the problem from different values and perspectives. I still don't see many benefits from being indirect, for the situations I approach girls. For example, often on the street or the train station the girl is walking to go somewhere. If I don't explicitly say I found her attractive it's so awkward. Why would you stop someone to comment on their dress or something else? Or ask about information for some place? It just makes setting the frame harder. As said, I value simplicity and straightforwardness. Regarding: If the girl has a bf, the last thing I want is her number. As a matter of fact, sometimes when I approach, they only say they have a boyfriend at the end of the interaction, when I've already pulled up my phone to get hers. And they offer to exchange numbers regardless — I always reject. I don't want no trouble with committed girls, even if I don't have bad intentions myself. This is a clear benefit indeed.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree with it completely. However, let me point something out. The idea of "high value" as described here mostly applies to social circles, social events, clubs, parties, etc. Personally, I don't frequent these types of events that often anymore. The way I go about my game is by going about my life: doing sports, grocery shop, train station. If I see a hot chick who's my type I go talk to her. I then tell her what in her genuinely made me attracted and I start asking her questions, both to see if she's the type of person I'm looking for, and to learn more of her cause I'm curious. Notice that under these circumstances being indirect is a lot harder than in nightgame. How would you approach the situaion, @Zenterus, say, a hot sports girl in the grocery shop? Being direct here has so many benefits from my POV, among which: screen if she's taken; prevents her from wasting my time; use it as the opener; facilitates congruency in my body language; sets the frame in her mind; allows me to gauge her attraction level/openness straight away; shows that I'm confident in expressing my true intentions (this is actually a big win — requires high confidence to convey what you really feel as you know); allows me to open without screening for things to open indirectly, etc. Also, notice that the notion of directness not being perceived as "high value" applies mostly to conventional people attending mainstream venues. People who are nonconformant, have independent thinking, and open-mindedness, are much less likely to associate unconventional behavior to "low value". So from this perspective I also get to screen a bit of her personality and values. I'm the type of person who values systems and protocols that simplify my life. Just wanted to point it all out so that people who want to approach game from the same angle can be confident that directness is a completely valid approach, and, IMHO, is not leaving much on the table — depending on the venue and situation where you approach.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. For me personally I feel very attracted when I see the type of girls I like, so when I communicate that I found them attractive it comes from a genuine place. But I see what you meant about it starting to feel performant. If I approach a girl that I'm not deeply attracted to I feel the same.

Bingo.

To some extent. Being direct does not require an immediate decision. There's the argument that if the girl's initial attraction is borderline to the point she easily dismisses you, you're doing yourself a favor by allowing her to go. Otherwise you wind up with many prospects that start off with low attraction. Every second you invest in a girl with low baseline attraction is another second you could be investing in a girl with high baseline attraction — the type of girl that would make hanging out with her later so much easier and fun, because she's into you. What's your concept of optimality? This is of course subjective. For me, optimality weighs the time and effort I invest into the girl with all other life aspects. If your sole goal is to get the girl (e.g., assume you have all the time in the world) then I would agree indirect may increase your chances, but as you include the opportunity cost of not investing in other life aspects then the equation starts to shift in favor of direct game.

👏👏👏

Direct game is about opener. You select the girl and convey your character afterwards. Just because I tell the girl I find her attractive does not mean I will sleep with her. To me directness is about not going out of my way to convey character traits. If the girl is not even interested to the point of continuing the interaction after I open it, I let her go. There are too many people in the world, many of which will be interested. If you want to maximize the chance of a particular girl sleeping with you, then indirect may give you more chances, but the opportunity cost is high. The type of opportunity cost I'm not willing to pay.

Please be respectful toward me.

Fully disagree with this. See the work from Alan Roger Currie — namely "Mode One". You can actually generate A LOT of tension by approaching a girl in an extremely direct way. The guy is also funny AF: I've actually applied some of the stuff he teaches with great success. Not recommending it to everyone tho. The problem here is you can easily waste a lot of time and be deceived. What you call "skill" can be seen, from a certain perspective, as manipulation. You're delaying showing your intentions to improve your chances. As Alan puts it himself: "manipulation is a two-way street". From an angle, the more direct you are the less you manipulate. There are of course ways to be direct without verbally stating it — to acknowledge the nuance and the spectrum in direct vs indirect game, but as general advice I solidly prefer direct game. For me direct game is optimal: approach the chick, tell her you're interested, she'll either be available and like you or not — either way I win by saving a lot of time. I also get to showcase how ballsy I am from the get go 😛

That's kinda what their lawyer was preaching in PBD podcast (not surprising) — framing their arrest as a move from "the system" to put Trump in a delicate position. I was going to joke that the Tates could try and fill the gap that Epstein left, but their level of development may not even be enough for that.

I've also personally tried several long fasts (7 days+) with controversial results. Also, after years of intermittent fasting, I discovered my Calcium metabolism was severely altered, which made me switch back to eating 3x/day instead of only 2x. There are things that blood tests can diagnose that you can't feel yourself, and of which symptoms will only manifest in the long run. Fasts can help or even cure some diseases (e.g., metabolic diseases due to overconsumption of calories, such as diabetes, fatty liver, etc.), but it can also be negative or detrimental for others. Imagine recommending fasting to someone who's having anemia due to nutrient deficiency. One interesting avenue for some autoimmune diseases could be several rounds of Valter Longo's fast mimicking diet. It seems promising, and also a lot safer than water-only fasting, which can easily deregulate electrolytes. A great book is "Can Fasting Save Your Life?", which presents fasting from a grounded perspective. Dry fast is a great tool to achieve short-term death.

Really cool font and theme.

Haha. I guess at the end of the day it's supply and demand. Programming has been something few people are drawn to relative to the demand. It also creates scalable products: once software is built, it can often be sold repeatedly at little additional cost and with relatively few physical inputs. PS: Just trying to defend my own profession

This is what Yann LeCun has been saying for a long time, but without the "not based on mass data processing" caveat. Specifically, in this video (forgive the Lex Fridman reference), he: So he's drawing a distinction between mass textual data processing (which LLMs do at orders of magnitude higher than humans) and other mass sensory (e.g., visual) data processing. In other words, LLMs have no sensory grounding.

This guy knows a thing or two.

From a pure biochemical point of view, there is anecdotal evidence that the serotonin receptors that are down regulated when tripping with LSD take longer than two weeks to fully get back to baseline. Therefore, if you trip every two weeks for long enough, there will be a point when the effects will largely vanish. From a subjective point of view, ideally, every trip will bring you new insights and perspectives that you then need to integrate into your existing mental models, your web of concepts, your paradigm. If you have tripped in the past, and you still haven’t fully integrated what was shown to you, one could argue that you need to do that first before tripping again. If it was the case you couldn’t make sense of what was going on during the trip, it could be the dose is too high. Try dialing it down and being more intentional during the trip and the trip preparation.

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

🤣 Also, try to minimize movements while eating. Like, only lift the pizza with one hand, and avoid chewing longer than what's necessary to absorb the calories.

Maintain a disciplined, tight eating schedule, and slowly increase carbs from whole foods. Your body will get used to that. Discipline will also help you build confidence in other life areas. This assumes you're already eating an optimal amount of protein (>=1.6g per kg of bodyweight) and fats (at least 20% of total calories). The reason is that carbs release more insulin, which is more anabolic, so add calories from carbs.

That's why you only invest (in stocks) money you'll need in 10y or more. All-time highs are the norm, not an anomaly, because markets trend upward. Also, "Lose 80% in 1 month" massively overstates the tail risk of a diversified index. The fact that OP will be investing money throughout this year makes no difference VS an investor that has purchased stocks a decade ago and is holding their position. Do this mental exercise — flip the scenario: what would you do if you had purchased stocks 10y ago and still had your position? Sell everything, remaining with 0% equity? Do that at every peak and you're guaranteed to have mediocre results. The truth is that nobody knows whether we're in the bubble, and — most importantly — where in the bubble we are. The secret to long-term success with investing is to delineate a strategy and follow through with that. High PEs tell you essentially nothing about whether the next year will be good or bad. They do suggest the average annual return over the next decade will likely be more modest — a reason to calibrate expectations and allocation, not a signal to sit out completely.

Making these assumptions = timing the market. Which is fine, but then all the previous drawbacks I listed apply: cognitive biases, unexpected life events, attention burden. By continuing with your assumptions you are subscribing to these. Just pointing it out. Also, under your assumptions: when will you invest back? By feel? At what price will you de-concentrate your stock allocation from non-tech to a neutral one? These are questions you have to have answered now, if you want to avoid investing based on emotions, perceptions, and the subset of information that reaches you in the future.

Gold is a medium-to-high-volatility asset AFAIU. Hard to categorically say the risk is significantly lower than investing in a neutral, fully-diversified, global ETF. Again, gold has no cash flow, which — in addition to no compounding mechanism — means no mechanism pulling price back towards a fundamental value, so multi-decade dead periods can occur. For example, in the 1980–2000s, gold lost ~70% of its real purchasing power from 1980 and didn't recover for two decades. Stocks, on the other hand, are anchored to earnings: if the price falls while earnings hold, the earnings yield rises, and that higher yield mechanically attracts capital. It's a slow mechanism but at least it's there. Personally, I'd be very uncomfortable if most of my money would be invested in a single, non-productive asset with such characteristics. The solution to avoid timing the market is not to avoid the market altogether. That would leave substantial gains on the table. The solution is to consistently invest in equity without trying to time it. If you consistently invest in a neutral, fully-diversified, global ETF, you don't need to time it at all.

True for nominal values, but what about the opportunity cost? This statement assumes inflation-adjusted stock returns during money-printing periods are negative. I'm not sure that is true. The core question is whether to time the market — I'm clearly against it. Many reasons, but the ones that come to mind: It exposes you to your own cognitive biases. It exposes you to life circumstances that prevent optimal decisions. Attention tax: time and energy spent tracking short-term patterns, policies, and trends. That energy could go into yourself or your own projects — creating real value, which likely beats any risky margin from timing.