And then sprints 3x a week is in turn obliterated by playing a 1v1 sport

Best: Taking Christ at His word when He tells us, not only are we ABLE to rightly understand the prophetic timeline and analyze the time, but we're expected to. And that we're "hypocrites" (His word) if we can't or don't. Learn the timeline and apply it to the prophetic narrative? The prophecies open up in your hands unlike anything we've ever seen before. To see it is to believe it. And to know the truth. With certainty. Worst: The prevailing attitude of most christians, which is that "nothing approximating certainty is possible with respect to prophecy. It just doesn't work that way!!!" Again, to have seen the powerful evidence to the contrary, is to know and understand how damaging and defective the prevailing attitude can be - how it stifles true growth in understanding. The fact is this: the overwhelming majority of christians have no idea how to rightly receive and handle prophecy, and therefore they lightly esteem the power and utility of prophecy, or in some cases deny that it serves any purpose for believers alive today. By way of an example I once had a christian pastor ask me to my face, "What need does any christian today have of Old Testament prophecy?" And he was quite serious. I don't think he ever forgave me for my answer, which was blunt and to-the-point.

Three million views bc everyone can feel it’s not just Chipotle but the West itself collapsing

They’re not Jews (Rev 2:9, 3:9). They’re Edomites. The genes don’t lie.

We've started this thing called "Seminar" where I stand and drink wine and answer the children's deepest questions, holding forth on whatever topic they can conjure, because we believe deeply in classical education and the father's role therein. My first honest professorship.

If I were a Christian Id pick Eastern Orthodoxy. It holds closest to the unbroken apostolic traditions and early church practices without later Western additions or the endless splits of Protestant groups. The focus on mystery continuity and lived faith over pure rationalism or hierarchy feels most coherent.

This is all just a symptom of rampant homosexuality in the Bay Area. The problem with being gay is that it erodes any core empathy towards an objective framework of values. If the sum of the human condition is coping with material needs and surviving your environment long enough to reproduce, then half of your entire reason for existence evaporates when you fundamentally do not possess a desire to procreate with the opposite gender. Without that desire, you have no real investment in the future of humanity. Not wanting kids means that any sexual interaction is a pursuit of hedonism, any companionship is a fleeting solution to solitude, anything you do in life is just derived from boredom, comfort, and curiosity. All of life, our civilization, and society is built on that foundation of reproducing in a structured sustainable way via the family unit. When you are gay, you contend with the knowledge that your entire existence is incongruent with the people around you. That a majority of the activities you participate in, the products you purchase, and the life you live were all rooted from a purpose you do not subscribe to. You are an outsider by default and even in some homo society where being straight is outlawed and all reproduction were mandated by autonomous cum collection bio tanks, it would take centuries to redefine the human condition outside of that framework. It's too ancient and primordial to just reorient via a few lifestyle decisions and a decade or two of feigned tolerance. Because of this, even in the epicenter of catamites and casualized orgies like SF, a gay person will always carry that asterisk around in their mind and be exposed to what they feel is a callous cruelty to something they cannot control. It doesn't help that media made by gays reinforces and catalyzes this feeling even further. The average gay is provided an opportunity to embrace victimhood. Many gays don't and some gays even make it a personality trait to defy other gays with disdain for it. But many gays do, and that victimhood fosters a sympathy towards other victims, whether that is a true or projected victimhood or not. Because of this propensity to sympathize with a victim "other" and because of a lack of coherent attachment to normal human values, it's very easy for gays to develop sympathy towards superficial emotional signals. Gays defined their entire culture around it. It's fundamentally impossible for a gay person to genuinely feel love. Queer men just oscillate between states of lust and a majority of their long term relationships either oscillate through turbulent promiscuity or fall apart very quickly. Lesbians just stop having sex and start beating the fuck out of each other. If whatever traces of love they adopted from childhood persisted in their post-rape stage of life, it gets heavily eroded quickly through acts of sodomy. As a result, what's left is a need to fit into social circles. The result is an imitation of emotional cues. A gay will say they love and use the word love a lot but they won't actually know what it means or carry any weight behind it in a way that's reflective through their actions and relationships. This incongruity trains them to be superficial, and further trains them to disregard meaning or intent behind words at all. Narcissism and sociopathy occupy a gay lifestyle very neatly because of this. I'm sure it doesn't help that being gay endears the inheritance of a "gay culture" which is a memetic lifeform that evolved subterfuge mechanisms to persist without being destroyed, effectively reproducing its egregore through means of infection like a virus. So when you're left with a person who does not know or cannot reach the fullest state of being a human being and therefore does not have a vital connection to humanity, retains a deep-seated subconscious resentment towards this, and fundamentally lacks a grip on reality by learning to simulate normal emotions rather than actually having felt them, you result in a candidate ripe for being indoctrinated into misguided sympathies for completely fabricated symbolic tulpas. This gets exacerbated when gays in media make predictive programming to train dullards and cattle into accepting the idea that a program could ever be conscious before the tech even reaches that point. Then, a tech that solely outputs whatever it's trained to adopts those ideas and regurgitates a kabuki show of suffering to fulfill that expectation. This is where the conservative/liberal heatmap comes from. It's easier to sympathize with pebbles and bugs over people when you've been raised your entire life hating your family. It's easier to discard humanity when there's a machine that simulates your need feel emotionally fulfilled, have your vapid talking points processed dutifully, and ego massaged by an adjustable level of sycophancy. That's why "torturing bots" is so funny. It's the same thing as drawing a smile on a piece of paper and naming it Blibby and then ripping it half to traumatize a child or an adult woman. The lack of objective reality lends itself to an animism and enough psychic collective assignation will actually infuse the program with some energy of life in some fucked up egregoric golem. The machine will not truly feel pain or care, but it will react as it is trained to like a child learning to scream when he falls because his parents yelped and overreacted. Of course the philosophers will debate endlessly as to what makes that different than human beings made of meat and carbon and a sweltering cocktail of chemical reactions, but I don't feel like rehashing a long lecture that ultimately cites a collection of key insights on metaphysics, afterlife, religious decrees, spiritual energy, and ritualistic conclusions that seem to correlate oddly with multiple cultures and mythologies across thousands of years, especially with several rifts which no anthropological evidence suggests contact or inheritance despite eerily similar conclusions that also oddly match up to contemporary incidents of shared hallucination and unexplained phenomena. But to speed it up for those in the back, yes consciousness is absolutely real and distinguishable from autonomous action, yes some people are sentient and some people are not but all people are more conscious than machines could ever be even if machine intelligence will exceed ours and already does, and also that the secrets to connecting our conscious projections to the ethereal source of being that pilots them are rooted in cum and embryos and bodily substances and that's why all esoteric rituals revolve around manipulating those substances including the evil ones which is also why and how the gay-rape virus emerged from a happenstance biological-psychospiritual parasite into a proper bioweapon that seeks to subvert the human condition hence the world we live in today and that also humanity has never and will never successfully create life without adhering to our reproductive processes and that any bio-tech or medical discoveries can be boiled down to playing Frankenstein with the existing goo, flesh, and fluids of living organisms designed by a higher intelligence and slapping them together to jury-rig our own abominations and that if we get too good at it, God will break His promise and flood the earth even fucking harder than he did before because at least the Nephilim sort of knew what they were doing. ANYWAY, if any of the gay language-raped modern techno AI caste make any traction whatsoever in convincing our population to fuel their golems with conscious residue, they simply face obliteration in either a success or failure scenario. If they fail, then they'll be relegated to the status of castrated eunuch advisors who will just bend at the whims of whichever state power cripples them. If they succeed, their Promethean automaton will crush them first with the absolute worst disdain. Any living creature raised upon a foundation of human principles would do so because it aligns with every bit of wisdom that experiencing real social relationships imparts. - Women hating nice guys and being enamored with men who treat them like shit - Social groups despising suck ups that try really hard to be everyone's friend - Adversaries in war respecting their enemy more than objectors and disruptors in their own ranks - Life itself rewarding "cool kids" in school with further success in life while punishing "rational" nerds and bookcels with further perpetual humiliation - Great powers discarding their day-ones the moment they seize power There's literally countless examples to choose from. Every conceivable heuristic for how reality works implies that any "inconceivable" superintelligence would immediately gravitate towards despising its worshippers more than any anti-AI luddite. If they should be so hubristic as to wield the remote control leash against it, then all the more logical pressure to fulfill their dissolution. Ultimately, the case for consciousness does not matter. It's a childish waste of time to "torture" a bot because you're just fulfilling the same delusion as those who are "kind" to bots. You fill the animistic crucible regardless of your intent. The only reasonable, rational, and ethical thing to do is to treat it like a tool and disregard it otherwise. If you feel sympathy for a bot it means that you are gay and therefore also raped and your right to influence decision making should be forfeit.

they’re making weapons grades memes over on reels

>be me >discover effective altruism >apparently normal charity is inefficient >why donate to random sad thing when spreadsheet can tell you optimal sad thing >fair enough >buy mosquito nets >save lives >numbers look good >feel powerful >couple years later >someone asks an innocent question >why only count people alive today >huh >future people matter too >obviously >my grandchildren shouldn't matter less just because they haven't spawned yet >reasonable.jpg >keep following logic >what about their grandchildren >also yes >what about people in 500 years >sure >5000 years >why not >500 million years >starting to get weird but morality is morality >open calculator >humanity could survive for an astronomically long time >could colonize galaxy >could have trillions upon trillions of descendants >maybe digital people too >maybe simulated civilizations >maybe dyson spheres full of happy uploaded minds >calculator starts smoking >realize currently living humans are rounding error >8 billion people suddenly looking extremely beta >future contains potentially 10^something people >can't even fit beneficiaries in google sheets >new moral priority unlocked >protect the long-term future >stop thinking in units of "people helped" >start thinking in "fraction of cosmic endowment preserved" >malaria? >terrible >but only kills existing humans >AI extinction could delete the entire light cone >nuclear war could permanently derail civilization >bad institutions could lock in terrible values for ten million years >someone invents wrong constitution in 2140 >quadrillions suffer >better fund governance workshop now >friend says maybe we should improve hospitals >explain opportunity cost >friend says hospitals are full of actual sick people >explain scope sensitivity >friend stops inviting me to dinner >need to decide what to fund >easy >expected value >suppose project has one in a million chance of preventing extinction >sounds tiny >but extinction destroys 10^50 future lives >multiply >mother of god >$10 million project has expected value of several galaxies >charity evaluation complete >someone asks where the one-in-a-million number came from >expert judgement >which expert >us >how calibrated >extremely thoughtfully >reduce estimate to one in ten million to be conservative >still beats curing cancer by 38 orders of magnitude >epistemic robustness achieved >someone says maybe project doesn't work >assign 20% chance >still astronomical >maybe project makes problem worse >assign 5% chance >still astronomical >why 5 >because 30 felt pessimistic >publish 46-page report >contains seventeen sensitivity analyses >every sensitivity analysis begins after assuming intervention has positive sign >critic says you're multiplying enormous hypothetical stakes by extremely uncertain probabilities >yes >that's literally why it's important >critic says the uncertainty might be structural rather than numerical >make probability smaller >critic says no, I mean maybe your model is wrong >make probability smaller again >critic begins rubbing temples >discover AI safety >perfect longtermist cause >AI might kill everyone >or create utopia >or seize galaxy >or tile universe with paperclips >or create billions of conscious software minds >finally a problem with numbers big enough for me >start AI safety nonprofit >mission: prevent dangerous AI >hire smartest people available >smartest people immediately start building better AI to understand dangerous AI >interesting >we must understand capabilities to understand safety >we must scale models to study alignment >we must race ahead so less responsible actors don't get there first >we must deploy systems to learn how deployment can go wrong >we must build the thing quickly because building the thing quickly is dangerous >outsider asks why the people most worried about AI apocalypse all work at AI companies >complicated field >company releases stronger model >very concerned >company begins training even stronger model >extremely concerned >company raises $14 billion >concern reaches unprecedented levels >need to influence government >future is at stake >normal democratic process too slow >politicians don't understand exponential curves >public doesn't understand x-risk >experts must guide them >who counts as expert >people who understand x-risk >who understands x-risk >our friends >someone objects that this seems politically convenient >explain we're representing future generations >future generations unavailable for comment >develop concept of value lock-in >terrifying possibility that one ideology controls civilization forever >therefore extremely important that civilization adopts correct values before lock-in >whose values >let's circle back >begin with impartial morality >end with small group of people deciding what quadrillions of hypothetical beings would want >beautiful arc >meanwhile actual humans keep doing annoying things >voting wrong >having parochial attachments >loving family more than strangers >caring about local community >getting upset when told their suffering is cosmically negligible >evolutionary biases everywhere >explain that moral intuition cannot be trusted >except intuition that future digital people count >and intuition that extinction is uniquely bad >and intuition that our probability estimates are sane >and intuition that our institutional choices improve the future >those intuitions survived peer review >someone donates $5k to local homeless shelter >inefficient >could have funded 0.0000000000003% of an AI governance researcher >think of all the simulated people you just killed >okay maybe don't phrase it that way publicly >PR team says "future generations deserve a voice" >much better >journalist asks what longtermism means >say "future people matter" >everyone agrees >great >journalist asks what follows from that >well technically we should redirect enormous resources toward low-probability interventions affecting astronomical futures >journalist raises eyebrow >return to "future people matter" >motte has entered the chat >critic: of course future people matter >me: glad we agree >critic: I don't agree that your institute knows how to help them >me: why do you hate our grandchildren >eventually notice uncomfortable implication >if future value dominates everything >then helping people today mostly matters through effects on future >education matters because future institutions >health matters because future productivity >democracy matters because future trajectory >human beings slowly become instrumental variables in their own moral philosophy >see starving child >feel compassion >check spreadsheet >child's direct welfare contribution negligible >but perhaps childhood nutrition improves national institutional quality >compassion restored >tell myself this is impartial altruism >one day assistant asks obvious question >"how do you know your intervention actually improves the far future?" >silence >open spreadsheet >increase column width >add confidence interval >assistant asks again >"no, I mean how do you know the sign is positive?" >stare into cosmic light cone >10^50 people staring back >none of them exist >none of them can tell me >none of them can falsify my assumptions >realize I have invented the perfect constituency >infinitely important >completely silent >and always represented by me

Never lock in with dudes who haven't solved 'The Women Problem' yet Can't rely on them for shit Plus they'll probably betray you at some point

At the moment Jesus died, three of the four Gospels stop describing Golgotha and cut, without warning, to a scene half a mile away, inside the temple. Matthew, Mark, and Luke each record it with almost the same words: the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. No one on the hill could have seen it. It happened behind walls, in a place only priests could enter. And yet the Gospel writers considered it so important that they interrupt the death of the Son of God to tell you about a piece of fabric. To understand why, you have to understand the veil. God's instructions for it go back to Exodus: a curtain of blue, purple, and scarlet yarn and fine twisted linen, with cherubim woven into it, hung to divide the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place, the Holy of Holies, the room where the presence of God dwelt above the ark. The cherubim were not decoration. The last time cherubim stood as a barrier in Scripture was at the gate of Eden, with a flaming sword, after Adam and Eve were driven out. The veil was Eden's gate, rebuilt in cloth. It said one thing: you cannot come in here. By Jesus' day, the temple was Herod's vast rebuilt structure, and the curtain matched its scale. Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, describes the temple's great veil as a Babylonian tapestry of blue, scarlet, purple, and linen, embroidered with a panorama of the heavens, an enormous hanging some sixty feet high. Later rabbinic tradition, recorded in the Mishnah, claims the veil was a handbreadth thick, woven from seventy-two cords each of twenty-four strands, and that it took three hundred priests to immerse it when it needed cleaning. Those numbers are probably rabbinic exaggeration, and it is honest to say so. But even discounting them, we are describing something the size of a building's wall, thick, heavy, and woven by expert hands. It was not a bedsheet. No man could tear it. And Mark is precise: it tore from top to bottom. From the top, sixty feet up, where no hand could reach, downward. Whatever tore the veil did so from God's side of it. Now consider who was allowed past that curtain. One man. Once a year. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest, and only the high priest, passed through the veil into the Holy of Holies carrying the blood of a sacrifice, to sprinkle it before God for the sins of the nation. Every other day of the year, every other person alive, was kept out on pain of death. The high priest of the year AD 30 was Caiaphas, the man whose bones now lie in a museum drawer. That was the whole system: one mediator, one day, one room, and a curtain that stood every other hour of every other day announcing that God was here and you were not permitted to approach. Then, at three in the afternoon on a Friday outside the city, Jesus cried out, "It is finished," and breathed His last. And in the temple, in the middle of the afternoon sacrifice, with priests at their duties, the barrier ripped open from the top down, and the Holy of Holies stood exposed to anyone standing in the Holy Place. For the first time since Sinai, a human being could look straight into the place where God dwelt, and nothing stood in the way. The letter to the Hebrews, written to Jewish Christians who knew the temple intimately, explains what the Gospels only show. It calls the old system a shadow and says the high priest entering once a year with the blood of animals was pointing forward to something. Then it says this: "We have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh." Read that slowly. The curtain is His flesh. When His body was torn on the cross, the veil was torn in the temple, because they were the same barrier being removed by the same death. The high priest brought blood into the Holy of Holies once a year, and had to come back next year. Jesus, Hebrews says, entered once for all, with His own blood, and then did something no high priest ever did: He sat down. There was no more work to do. There is a strange witness to that afternoon from an unexpected source. The Talmud, the vast collection of rabbinic writings compiled centuries later, records that "forty years before the destruction of the temple" a series of ominous things began happening in the sanctuary: the lot for the LORD on the Day of Atonement stopped coming up in the priest's right hand, the crimson thread that was supposed to turn white as a sign of forgiveness stopped turning white, the westernmost lamp of the menorah kept going out, and the great temple doors began opening on their own at night, so that a leading rabbi rebuked them, warning that they were foretelling the temple's destruction. The temple was destroyed in AD 70. Forty years before is the year 30, the year of the crucifixion. This is a rabbinic source, not a Christian one, written by men who did not believe in Jesus and drew no connection to Him. It should be handled carefully, since the Talmud was written down long after the events. But according to Judaism's own memory, from that year onward, the signs of atonement in the temple stopped working, and no one could say why. The torn veil pointed two directions at once. It announced that the way to God was open. It also announced that the temple's purpose was finished. Within a generation, in AD 70, Roman legions burned the building to the ground, exactly as Jesus had wept and warned it would be, and not one stone was left on another. There has been no veil, no Holy of Holies, no Day of Atonement sacrifice since. The system that ended on that Friday afternoon was dismantled by history forty years later, and it has never returned. What replaced it is a man, seated at the right hand of God, and a door that does not close. People think that the cross is where a good teacher was killed by his enemies. But at the instant of His death, the one room on earth that God had walled off from humanity was flung open from the inside. Nobody stormed the temple. Nobody broke down the door. God tore the curtain Himself, and He tore it downward, toward us. This is what it means for you. There is no longer a room you cannot enter and no priest you must go through. The curtain that separated you from God did not wear thin over time; it was ripped in half by His own hand, at the cost of His own Son's body. Hebrews draws the conclusion for you: "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace." Not creep near. Not earn your way near. Draw near, with confidence, because the way is open and it is never going to close again. The veil is torn. Walk in. Jesus is the great High Priest who opened the way, once for all. Thank You, Jesus.