I harvest grain for the billionaire media tycoon and former mayor of San Francisco @PirateWires. prev @BusinessInsider. DMs open.
Sacramento, CA
Joined February 2013
- Tweets2.7K
- Following1.5K
- Followers8K
- Likes4.4K
Per Peter Thiel's lectures, as covered in detail by @gb_rango: the Antichrist will be a charismatic, seemingly very moral and even "hyper-Christian" dude.
Does this remind you guys of anybody?
Dying on the cross was reserved for criminals and enemies of the state because it was considered one of the most tortuous and humiliating ways to die.
The crucifix often depicts the nails going through Jesus’ hands. This is not historically accurate. The hands were not rugged enough to support the weight of the body. The nails went through the wrists, where several major nerves are located. So if you can recall the extreme pain of hitting your funny bone gently on a wall (that’s because of a nerve), imagine what it feels like when a nail is driven through it.
Another horrifying feature of dying on a cross is that you perish, on top of the traumatic injuries, through slow-motion suffocation. Because of the compression of the lungs caused by the awkward position, victims had to press onto their feet, into the nails and the injury there, temporarily lifting the body, creating enough momentarily relief to inhale and exhale. Eventually exhaustion would set in over the course of hours, and this movement became impossible.
There are a few important things to note about the crucifixion.
1. Nothing about it makes rational sense. It does not make sense that God would murder his son. It does not make sense that his son was somehow paying the ultimate penalty in humanity’s place. The whole affair is fundamentally beyond our understanding. By the same token, Christians believe the moment altered the fabric of reality. This was a cosmic event. Because of what happened 2,000 years ago, *somehow* I am now free.
2. Other than the mysterious aspects of this, there are some practical earthly ways in which it is true. Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection became the best story ever told. It traveled across the ancient world with such virality that, just 20 years later, it had reached Caesar’s palace in Rome. Within 300, it was the Roman Empire’s official religion. The Western conception of morality — the one we all now take for granted — transformed, organizing around the inherent worth of every single human being instead of status, honor, social hierarchy, and brute strength.
3. Christ lived and died as a model of love. Whatever the practical earthly consequences, whatever the supernatural implications, the crucifixion is something to aspire to every single day of our short lives. It’s no easy feat to sacrifice yourself for another being. We have the opportunity 100 times a day, and we fail to take it, sometimes, literally all 100 of those times. The challenge and opportunity of dying on the cross is not purely a hypothetical one. What cross do you shoulder? How much pain will you accept for the benefit of another being, even and especially when they don’t deserve it?
Even and especially when it isn’t rational to do so?
Blake Dodge retweeted
My boyfriend had to go to SF last week. And I was actually scared for my relationship.
SF’s dating pool was once, as an Egyptian founder put it to us, “drier than the desert in my homeland.”
Now, gorgeous women are flocking to the city.
Why? As AI gets cheaper to build, companies flush with venture cash are hiring beautiful women to charm investors and clients.
Enjoy it while it lasts, gentlemen. As @nicolewizman1 writes: paying hotties 6 figures to get drunk with your business prospects feels like a pretty good sign we’re in a bubble. 👇
We would talk about the hot boys in SF too but there aren’t any hahahahaa
Gorgeous women, including BLONDES, are running around SF.
Many analysts believe this means we should short the entire stock market.
(AI bubble = hot girls in sales = hot girl bubble)
You're welcome.
Blake Dodge retweeted
"gorgeous women are flocking to san francisco. should we be worried about the economy?"
SF’s dating pool was once, as an Egyptian founder put it to us, “drier than the desert in my homeland.”
Now, gorgeous women are flocking to the city.
Why? As AI gets cheaper to build, companies flush with venture cash are hiring beautiful women to charm investors and clients.
Enjoy it while it lasts, gentlemen. As @nicolewizman1 writes: paying hotties 6 figures to get drunk with your business prospects feels like a pretty good sign we’re in a bubble. 👇
hot girl bubble
SF’s dating pool was once, as an Egyptian founder put it to us, “drier than the desert in my homeland.”
Now, gorgeous women are flocking to the city.
Why? As AI gets cheaper to build, companies flush with venture cash are hiring beautiful women to charm investors and clients.
Enjoy it while it lasts, gentlemen. As @nicolewizman1 writes: paying hotties 6 figures to get drunk with your business prospects feels like a pretty good sign we’re in a bubble. 👇
In this new piece for @PirateWires, @JonasYDu shadowed a founder trying to build a tiny data center on a remote plot of sand. He encountered fears of digital ID, Palantir <> Peter Thiel (obviously), and Flock (the police cameras company).
Americans have been worked into a frenzy over data centers by the legacy press, and it’s… sad. Addressing their practical concerns, as this founder discovered, isn’t enough, because their fear is often both misplaced and conspiratorial.
Blake Dodge retweeted
The data center backlash is not really about resources. It is about fear of AI and fear of the unknown. I spent four days in rural Colorado shadowing a data center startup's 'listening tour.' This story is about what ordinary Americans think about AI and their desire to have a stake in the boom.
David Meyer (@thedmeyer) is the founder of (@DeployStrata), which is trying to build a tiny 12-shipping container data center on a sand lot in the middle of nowhere. During a community meeting, he answered every practical question: Noise, water, power, cleanup. It didn't move the skeptics:
— “I’m willing to bet 90% of this group will raise their hands saying innately I’m against AI and I’m scared to death of AI. I don’t think any of us in this room have any clue how bad this could go.”
— Trump "wants to use China as the blueprint. Have we ever asked the Chinese what life is like over there? Digital ID. It sucks.”
— “Our collective concerns regarding AI, data centers and Flock cameras come down to one primary concern. I address these concerns in one statement: WE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A SURVEILLANCE STATE!!!”
— “What do we need it for? That’s the big question.”
And above all else: what's in it for the community?
To be clear, the resources do matter. But they are often a front for these larger fears over technology, which this specific project exposes by solving all of the resource concerns.
My full dispatch in @PirateWires (with photography by yours truly):
Blake Dodge retweeted
We followed a founder trying to build the most reasonable data center project in America: a dozen shipping container-sized boxes on a remote plot of sand in rural Colorado. No water. No noise. The local electric co-op says it'll lower power bills.
You might expect the approval process to be straightforward. It wasn’t.
As @JonasYDu reports:
In September, over 60 residents packed a county office in rural Colorado (pop. 7,000), to question David Meyer (@thedmeyer), 29, whose startup Strata (@DeployStrata) wants to build modular data centers in neighboring Alamosa County 🧵
Blake Dodge retweeted
Imagine telling John Carreyrou (!) that he missed the point of a movie about Elizabeth Holmes. John might understand You Can See Everything more deeply than Nathan Fielder himself. Reading Bad Blood is borderline essential for audiences wrestling with their own interpretations.
A few readers have taken me to task for “missing the point of the film,” which is apparently that Elizabeth Holmes is unknowable and everything is ambiguous. Here’s my response: She went after Tyler Shultz and Erika Cheung with everything she had. I was threatened with litigation on a daily basis for months on end. It was a ruthless cover-up of a breathtaking fraud, and she was at the controls. Just a little context for those who have forgotten or didn’t follow the original story. By the way, I loved the film. #BestPicture, IMO.
Blake Dodge retweeted
an extremely good essay- perhaps the best i’ve read in years
thrilled to have this deep dive published with @PirateWires!!!
a sincere investigation into why so many prominent AI doomers are also extremely kinky, & what this overlap reveals about the movement's underlying psychology
Blake Dodge retweeted
Easily the best article you'll ever read on the topic of rationalist culture, specifically the connection between sexual deviance, hyperrationality, and AI safetyism. People simply don't write like this (i.e., writing from a place of genuine intellectual curiosity) anymore.
It’s easy to find sensationalized, low-brow, bad-faith writing about “rationalists” in the AI world.
But is there perhaps a more sincere way of scrutinizing the worldview of the people at the heart of this movement: one that is currently shaping public discourse, policy proposals, and alignment research?
In this earnest philosophical inquiry, @jane_gatsby explores: why are so many rationalists convinced AI will kill everyone while also participating in practices like “consensual non-consent” orgies? What could possibly explain the overlap?
She offers three theories, culminating in: relational wounds.
For rationalists, some of whom grew up with highly religious and/or disturbed parents, discomfort in the face of uncertainty fuels a fixation on control. This manifests in everything from elaborate, unconventional, kinky bedroom practices to AI alignment. Repressed desires and fears find increasingly extreme outlets.
As Jane puts it: “what is artificial intelligence if not an Other of potentially cosmic significance who is impossible to predict or constrain?”
These are just theories. But rationalists’ influence on AI discourse is undeniable, and their worldview, as Jane argues, is “metaphysically nihilistic.”
There are other, more productive ways to approach AI development besides treating the models as some evil, adversarial force.
Besides: “You cannot successfully align something when your own perspective is crooked.” Full piece threaded 👇
Blake Dodge retweeted
Great piece by my good friend @jane_gatsby on the deep philosophical links between weird sex freaks in Berkeley and the AI companies currently propping up the global economy
It’s easy to find sensationalized, low-brow, bad-faith writing about “rationalists” in the AI world.
But is there perhaps a more sincere way of scrutinizing the worldview of the people at the heart of this movement: one that is currently shaping public discourse, policy proposals, and alignment research?
In this earnest philosophical inquiry, @jane_gatsby explores: why are so many rationalists convinced AI will kill everyone while also participating in practices like “consensual non-consent” orgies? What could possibly explain the overlap?
She offers three theories, culminating in: relational wounds.
For rationalists, some of whom grew up with highly religious and/or disturbed parents, discomfort in the face of uncertainty fuels a fixation on control. This manifests in everything from elaborate, unconventional, kinky bedroom practices to AI alignment. Repressed desires and fears find increasingly extreme outlets.
As Jane puts it: “what is artificial intelligence if not an Other of potentially cosmic significance who is impossible to predict or constrain?”
These are just theories. But rationalists’ influence on AI discourse is undeniable, and their worldview, as Jane argues, is “metaphysically nihilistic.”
There are other, more productive ways to approach AI development besides treating the models as some evil, adversarial force.
Besides: “You cannot successfully align something when your own perspective is crooked.” Full piece threaded 👇
Janepilled
Just finished reading. This is easily the best long-form piece of writing I've read in a very long time. I read a lot of magazine articles where the author just rambles on or reaches some kind of half-baked conclusion that you can debunk with just five minutes of deep thinking. That's if they are not making sweeping statements without bothering to show the chain of thought (pun slightly intended) that led to specific conclusions.
I've always believed that if you write clearly and honestly, a rational and intellectually honest reader will agree with the conclusion. Ironically, this is an idea rooted in rationalism: rationalists believe two people cannot "agree to disagree" if they have the same priors (also called Aumann's Agreement Theorem). This article is perhaps the first time I've found myself agreeing completely with an author because I could clearly see the evidence + the observations match up with what I've observed myself, meaning I'd have to (naturally) reach the same conclusion.
I also like that it adds a lot of nuance and genuinely tries to provide as much context as possible. This is not something you see frequently; the average public intellectual-cum-writer already knows what position they want to argue for and know their camp will support the conclusion irrespective of whether it's true or not, so they don't bother trying to present an impartial view so that readers can make up their own minds. It's harder to write this way, but imo it makes reading very much worth it.
Generally, it's a beautifully written piece. I'd probably break some unknown rule about keeping Twitter comments short, so I'll stop here. It's not everyday I read something that makes me go "Wow. I want to write like that", so I just had to find your Twitter and leave what might be the longest comment in the history of people commenting on Twitter. More ink to your pen!