Pablo Max

low cognitive security

Just said this in another reply; I personally find Self to be really hard to observe (outside of a sort of "postmortem" on a past situation), especially in a present tense. My lived reality IS my Self and my Self is determined by my lived reality and what is actually happening to me.

Fascinating perspective, and truthfully hard for me to wrap my head around. I personally find my Self and Experience to be intertwined to a degree that it's hard to step out and view my Self as something different or definable other than how I am, if that makes sense. Thanks for sharing!

And you’re completely comfortable with that? At a party, you introduce yourself as “whatever the bag currently takes shape as and its contents” (to use your metaphor)? And I guess you just *know* it won’t change thaaaat drastically?

Is that about right? Thanks for the explanations!!

How do you find & define the x’s and y’s that form the algebraic structure (XY being an algebra ref, not DNA lol, just to be clear)

imaginary domain == fully in your head? How much of the Real world influences your imagination? How resilient is it to outside change or force?

Yeah so what systems do you have in place to define those edges more clearly? For instance, how do you prevent yourself from being influenced by The Outside too much, and how do you know when it starts being inauthentic to be chasing those boundaries? Boundaries are only that until you reach them :)

The front one is unmistakably @deepfates.com.deepfates.com.deepfates.com.deepfates.com.deepfates.com

Finally the Bluesky team has a wide enough range of interests for me to feel safe #Raccoons

in other news, sunrise over the Mediterranean

What’s really sad about being on Bluesky now is that I need to re-build my raccoon algo that I had so patiently set up :(

The problem is we teach to tests and standards and not teach so children understand things. Were not teaching children how to think and we never were. Never. This has been a core problem with our education system from day one and only finally admitting to the core problem and solving it will help.

How do you define identity? Do you go deeper within yourself for a definition or do you interact more with the world to find what you react well to and what you don’t? Curious about other people’s thoughts :)

you can't even get in the building without baldness, baldness is existence. all other types of "hair" are illegal

they're not bald. this is the mailroom of vain & company, not mckinsee. do better.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk

I just think that long-term, it'll mean leaning in to "life is a balance" and "perfection is impossible" as two strategies. Never opt for opulence, but minimalism is bullshit too. The correct road is "the boring middle way"

But I'm also open to arguments, hence coming to the Bluesky Opinion Forum

My whole point with all of this fwiw is that I'm coming to terms with this battle and deciding to opt for strategies to curb potential corruption (what @somewhere.systems mentioned for #2), while doing my best to support "The Good Folks" when I can without feeling guilty 24/7 for being imperfect

;such is the beauty of humanity. Imperfect, always.

So that's the thing, right? I think morally-strict platforms/people are literally paralyzed by their ability to do things like that because it steps slightly outside of their zone of moral-strictness. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, we all truly live as hypocrites in one form or another..

Okay so given those two outcomes (both bad lol) which would you trust yourself to follow? How do you get to that conclusion? How do you defend that as an honest person? Where do you draw the line? What's non-negotiable, what's unnecessary?

Right, that's exactly it. I think there's ways to do both too, i.e. through a Public Benefit Corp (thinking Kickstarter here, less OpenAI lol), or generally Doing Good Business With Good People While Still Raking In Profits. Oftentimes, people just get corrupted by power (however that manifests)

down the line to support projects I care about and so I end up kinda in my own, boxed, Proton world (this is all for the sake of argument btw, this is not real or how I feel at all lol), with my 5 friends and technically on "better" moral ground, but alone and slower to get things done..

I'm mostly harming my own ability to collaborate with people in the Google ecosystem (a majority of my industry, for the sake of argument). This diminishes my overall ability to be productive yet supports the moral evil (Google). The decline in productivity leads to a lack of flexibility

Yeah I think it's more so that (digital, predominantly) systems of scale (Apple, Adobe, Amazon, Google) tend to dominate in terms of usability and possibility until disruptors (to a greater or lesser degree) achieve market penetration that makes sense to use. i.e. if I use Proton Mail versus Google,

free yourself from carefully monitoring your every move in order to stay within a certain boundary that also tends to be fairly subjective and imaginary..

does all this make sense? It does in my head haha

So AS LONG as you actually did the run around of donating/helping with the excess you generated off of moral impurity to help the morally correct and didn't become entirely morally corrupt (diff argument for a diff day, and definitely doesn't usually work out that way), I think it's better to

I guess with that added context, I think it's more realistic to lean towards option 2. I think being morally pure is borderline impossible as a human being, as we are complex creatures that also adapt to situations based on survival (at a foundational level, I would argue)...

I guess in my head I'm thinking about a situation in which GNU folks (to use your example) would absolutely fucking detest Linus folks and see them as "selling out" even if the distribution of Linus provided GNU the visibility it needed not to disappear.. does that make sense?

I don't have a straightforward answer of what I think is best, I think it can be situational, but I do see people box themselves in morally (especially around socially heated-up conflict convos) but then reduce their output to a place of paralysis, which I don't think is very good either..