👁️ autosurveillant 👁️ @pee_zombie@schelling.pt

also saw this polypore, looks like a ganoderma I think?

as luck would have it I ran into one of these guys later this same day

see the nodes connected by channels? that's an efficient nutrient transport network right therea
---
RT @pee_zombie
thinking about how the explore/exploit dichotomy (ht @ulkar_aghayeva @tszzl) captures the dynamics of our lives, thru the lens of the humble slime mold, physarum polycephalum

we share a fractally-biphasic lifecycle, w/ nested periods of alternating ex…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1441834524028162048

the problem with ancestral dieting is that if your predecessors were predominantly famine-ridden peasants their diet makes you fat in the calorie-rich modern environment

"hm I shall reject this non mainstream thing bc it seems to be low status, independent of any objective merits it may have, bc that is not what I care about. what do you mean it's status is dependent on my social circles? status is objective."
---
RT @choosy_mom
it’s a mistake to dismiss psychedelics bc you’re bored and annoyed by ppl who like to talk about them
https://twitter.com/choosy_mom/status/1442913913213841408

egregores ain't nothin to fuck with
---
RT @magicianbrain
@VectorOfBasis @pee_zombie they didn't listen to the demonological warnings about mushroom wojak and shrigma entities...... got they cerebral shrussy cordycepted....... many such cases
https://twitter.com/magicianbrain/status/1442935531352907786

the name is important as it functions as a filter; being maximally inclusive is not desirable. we explicitly want to exclude those who do not share the same social norm preferences.

the name also hints at the roots and memeset, which a more generic/"friendly" name does not
---
RT @VividVoid_
"Ingroup" will always be the best name for this community because it's literally an inside joke.

Once you get it you're in https://twitter.com/t…
https://twitter.com/VividVoid_/status/1442886272503091205

a mind used to only digesting sharp-edged concepts naturally struggles to process softer ones, having adapted to produce much more intellectual stomach acid than is typically required; this can lead to heartburn (inability to parse nuance) and ulcers (memetic burn-in)

when all you have is piercing Xacto knife of formal logic, everything looks like a neatly separable cellulose plane

should you wish to handle other materials, you may find it worthwhile to pick up gentler tools

discrete binary distinctions can be the most dangerous type, and should be handled with the care this sharp an analytic scalpel deserves; mind the soft extremities of reality lest you carelessly amputate them

holding sharp-edged ontologies cuts up your mind like barbed wire; they require conceptual handles to wield properly

if you find yourself repeatedly wishing you did something differently, but not actually taking any action to realize this wish, perhaps consider that you're deluding yourself; you might find out some interesting facts about your true motivations if you dig into this alignment gap

much better to be honest w/ one's self, considering whatever we're doing at any given time is the most rational action for our set of constraints; the issue is just that their stated constraints are divergent from the ones revealed by their actions. this mismatch causes distress.

I'm definitely no stranger to this, having engaged in plenty of book-worship myself, as anyone who's seen my many bookshelves would attest to; the difference is that I've never uttered the statement in the OP. there's no need to wish, when one does. and if one does not, why wish?

there are, ofc, some overlaps between these games, as books can be used as pieces in each; in the latter game, however, they're but convenient proxies, rather than the game objects themselves.

people sometimes intend to play the latter game, but get caught up in the details.

to be super clear, none of this is inherently bad; signaling ones proficiency at the game of books is highly instrumental to acquiring status within certain nerd-flavored circles. it's just orthogonal to the game of ideas, which some of these people claim to be playing.

curiously enough this phenomenon is an instance of Goodhart's Law, in that for them, books have become the optimization target themselves, rather than a proxy for being well-read; as such, it becomes more important to acquiring and showing off books than the ideas they contain.

this statement stems from a book fetish, a desire complex where one treats books not as passive idea containers but rather totems, instantiations of the sapiosexuality egregore; within this frame, the act of reading is a form of worship.

they want to have read, not to read.
---
RT @kitten_beloved
"I wish I read more books"

You actually don't, there is no barrier to reading books, it's free and easy

You just don't like reading, th…
https://twitter.com/kitten_beloved/status/1442563421879164928

nothing I can say to adequately express how surreal this interaction is
---
RT @Ukraine
https://twitter.com/russia/status/1442146626026442752
https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/1442212645310844932

can we be done with the no autocorrect thing pls? it was cute for a while but I'd really like to unmute someone you

excellent argument for explanatory utility of memes
---
RT @NLRG_
people are the most bizarre animals

every other species has some weird behaviors going on. but humans are doing incomprehensible shit ALL THE TIME
https://twitter.com/NLRG_/status/1442136587672776710