Because you and I have extremely limited knowledge of geopolitics, of what's actually happening in Iran or the middle east. We have more than enough knowledge about life to know you don't kill babies because you think it will accrue to the greater good. When you don't know what you're talking about, best to wait for results before you evaluate. Iraq was a disaster, we can be pretty sure, years later. People were hyperventilating about taking Maduro in Venezuela, and that *might* turn out well. Iran might too. We don't know. The difference from an information perspective is vast. As I said, it's like getting worked up about a politician cheating on his wife -- you don't know them, their relationship, what preceded it, etc. You do know not to cheat on your own wife. If you were to distill it into a principle it would be this: You don't know all the consequences of ANYTHING you do. But when you act locally, you have enough specific knowledge to form intelligent heuristics and iterate. It's not perfect, but it works. That DOES NOT work or apply to low-information situations involving people you don't know engaged in geopolitics. For those, a wise person will wait for results before evaluating. It was obvious to me at the time that while I didn't know how this would turn out, and was deciding to wait, the hyperventilators also did not know either. The CNNs and the NYTimes were probably lying and framing things for political signaling, and most people were getting doctored information to fit their priors. I did believe Trump doesn't seem hellbent on killing civilians or getting us into a protracted military quagmire, based on his history as president, but I would never say he couldn't screw up, miscalculate or actually just be a psycho waiting for his chance. But while any of that was surely possible, I was pretty sure there WAS a plan, that plan was likely to track the incentives of the planners and those incentives probably were not WWIII, again with the possibility I was wrong. That's why I can't be for the intervention until we find out more. If you want to be a good evaluator of information in the information age, you need to adjust your certainty levels based on what you know and don't know, not based on whether it confirms your biases.

Because I make a distinction between my own personal moral choices and what’s happening in geopolitics. It’s like the difference between not getting worked up that a politician cheated on his wife vs not cheating on your own wife.

Barry Sanders keeps running and dodging defenders forever but doesn't score.

Interesting that certain sports can theoretically get stuck in infinite loops. Baseball has two-strike foul balls that can go on forever, tennis can have infinite lets. Like if you simulated an infinite number of games, some would never get past the first batter/point. Would be great to tell thr grandkids you spent a year at the infinite let match.

wife: did you hear about Sara's friends whose dog got into their mushroom chocolates? me: no, what happened? wife: dog was acting very weird me: probably realized it was a dog and freaked

Got this new gig, where I get paid to go running at the track 3x week. Anyone can do this. You set the currency to photons, create a transdermal wallet (usually the default setting), will require you remove your shirt, or some of the photons will fail to land in your account), and simultaneously it puts money into your future healthcare fund by reducing the liability side. I also get paid in idea-flow, into my frontal cortex account-- many of my best ones occur while running.

excerpt from latest podcast: link to full: https://fountain.fm/episode/ZMzKzZfzdIkt72VAtmnX

all the Iran War hyper-ventilators in the process of memory-holing their takes

Like the idea of a decompressible starter kit, but don't think it follows that collaboration is necessary. In fact most giant leaps came from individual minds working alone (Newton, Einstein), though obviously building on prior knowledge of others. You might say the starter kit is the scientific method.

Think there's a misconception about traditional finance and debt that's similar to the misconception about capitalism itself. Capitalism presupposes private property, and in so doing, doesn't interfere with wealth creation. Crony capitalism is when people who already have capital use it to rig the rules in favor of the connected few. The existence of crony capitalism isn't a knock on capitalism, private property and wealth creation, it's an abuse by bad actors disguised as wealth creation. Lending and debt are not bad in and of themselves. They allow people and companies to raise capital at an agreed-upon cost. But money printing via debt is an abuse of this tool wherein banks can fund loans out of thin air. For example, if I want to lend money to earn interest, I can loan it to the government (T-Bills) or a company (corporate bonds), but in order to do so I have to raise the cash, maybe be selling some other asset or earning it. But when a bank issues a mortgage, it's not selling one of its existing mortgages to free up the funds, or selling any other assets. It gets to keep its existing assets while issuing a new loan. That means it's increasing the money supply, i.e., printing. It's subsidizing the goods and services (boosting their prices) for which it lends. So we rail against a debt-based economy that needs ever more loans to stay afloat, but it's not the act of lending and issuance of debt that is the problem, but the fact that it's issued from nothing.

sounds like the CNN version, i.e, version 1.

There are two distinct threads of analysis re the middle east war right now: 1. Trump is in big trouble, whatever his ostensible aims were in starting this war, and the US is losing catastrophically, risking WWIII, the global economy and he's getting wiped out in November for starting an unpopular, pointless war. 2. Trump has reset the chessboard, now all the virtue-signaling "green new deal" Europoors are SOL when it comes to energy and will have to get it for themselves. Meanwhile the US has plenty of energy and will benefit from being the new supplier. I honestly don't know which is true. If I had to make a guess, I'm partial to 2 since those pushing 1 are the same idiots who pushed all the prior psyops like covid, Russiagate, etc. But believing the opposite of what liars tell you isn't a good enough heuristic. Liars are better off ignored.