CEO of Watershed Therapeutics, Author or The Hidden WOMBAT, General surgeon, Stanford Biodesign Alumnus
Joined November 2022
- Tweets2K
- Following350
- Followers397
- Likes2.3K
surprise finding from AI use: I'm having trouble remembering serious decisions and why they were made, not because I was careless, but because I used to have to sit with them sooo much longer before resolution. Now they are quickly resolved, and do not burn into my memory.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
Let’s be clear:
If I’m not going to sleep with you, I don’t need to know anything about your sexuality.
And children—who are not going to sleep with anyone—certainly don’t.
Your sexuality is not sacred. It’s not a personality, it’s not a protected class of performance art, and it’s not the center of anyone’s moral universe but your own. Unless we are in a relationship, I am not obligated to acknowledge, affirm, or be exposed to your private desires—especially not in public, and especially not in front of children.
This used to be understood. Now it’s called hate.
No, We Don’t Owe You an Audience
Sexuality belongs in the private realm. It is intimate by definition. If you feel compelled to wear your kink on your sleeve—or on a float, or in a first-grade classroom—you are not inviting understanding, you are demanding submission. You are violating others’ right not to participate.
Consent doesn’t vanish because your fetish is “progressive.” If anything, the burden is higher.
No one consents to being flashed on the subway. No one consents to a stranger’s arousal. No one consents to a stranger telling their child about masturbation, kink, gender identity, or pornographic categories under the guise of “inclusive sex ed.” Yet all of this is happening now—in public parks, in classrooms, in televised programming.
It is not tolerance. It is invasion.
Children Are Not Here to Validate You
Children are not queer. Children are not sexual. Children do not need to “see themselves represented” in a spectrum of adult desire. This idea—that identity is only valid if sexualized and mirrored—is narcissism, not pedagogy.
There is no legitimate reason to initiate a child into the language of sexual preference, gender identity, or alternative lifestyles. The only people who benefit from that dynamic are those looking to normalize boundary violations.
Let me state it plainly:
Children who are not going to have sex do not need to be exposed to sexuality.
Period.
Any adult who insists otherwise is not confused. They are grooming.
Public Fetishism Is Not Liberation
There is a vast difference between being gay and demanding the right to simulate sex acts in front of children. Between being transgender and insisting on teaching kindergartners about breast removal. Between being proud of who you are and insisting the whole world observe your kink play in the street.
This is not diversity. This is decay.
Men in dog masks being walked on leashes by their lovers are not brave—they are forcing strangers into their psychodrama. This is exhibitionism, and when children are present, it becomes criminal exhibitionism.
We used to know this. Peeping, flashing, voyeurism—these were considered red flags. Dangerous behaviors. Early signs of escalation. Now they’re filmed, hashtagged, and funded by public grants.
Stop Calling It Love—It’s Entitlement
This is not about who you love. It’s about how you demand to be seen. If you need the entire public to witness, applaud, and adapt to your sexuality, you’re not a pioneer—you’re an emotional colonizer.
Love does not demand a captive audience. It does not parade past toddlers. It does not demand that schools teach four-year-olds about “preferred pronouns.” Love protects children. Love guards modesty. Love waits.
And if you can’t wait—if you need to be seen, affirmed, and obeyed—you’re not talking about love. You’re talking about power.
Consent Applies to Culture, Too
We teach children that consent is sacred—so why are we failing to apply that lesson to public life?
No child consents to drag queen story hour.
No parent consents to leather harnesses on city floats.
No woman consents to being exposed to male sexuality in the ladies’ room, or in the school library, or anywhere she cannot opt out.
Consent is not just for sex. It’s for everything.
Attention. Language. Presence. Ideology. Imagery.
And we are done pretending we don’t notice when it’s violated.
The boundary is back.
And we are drawing it in bold.
if @Muse knows what it's doing, they will launch this product immediately. Don't even ask me if I want it, just propose the dashboard you're going to send me and then tell me the laughably low price so I don't have to code this.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
I have conducted an audit of Anthropic's finances.
What I have found is so shocking that I am calling for a Congressional investigation.
Anthropic is not just seeking regulatory capture.
It has built a regulatory capture machine that cannot be turned off.
Structural financial incentives make it impossible for Anthropic -- I call it the Anthropic Network -- to turn off its own AI doom cycle.
It starts with METR.
Dario Amodei proposes "third-party evaluators" to assess the risk of Anthropic's models.
He proposes METR for this purpose.
But METR is financially dependent on the Anthropic's success -- specifically, on the explosive growth of more than $7 billion dollars in Anthropic stock.
Dustin Moskovitz invested this stock into Good Ventures Foundation, where it represents the majority of that organization's portfolio.
And GVF is the overwhelming funder of the entire Anthropic Network ecosystem.
This stock was worth $500 million early last year.
It is worth more than $7.7 billion just ~16 months later.
METR -- and all of those building a career its parent organizations -- cannot afford to disrupt that growth.
Because if Anthropic goes under, many of the organizations that fund METR go under as well.
But if Anthropic succeeds, METR and its parent organizations become more richly financed to regulate AI -- something those at METR want very much.
The "third-party evaluator" is not "third-party" at all.
The evaluator is on Anthropic's payroll.
If this were the end of it, that's bad.
But that isn't all.
The same organizations that fund METR also fund the many organizations, such as the Tarbell Center, that promote AI Doom.
The Tarbell Center publishes AI Doom articles in The Verge, Science, LA Times, The Dispatch, TIME, and others.
They are selling the problem, and then selling the solution to the problem -- from the same money pile: Anthropic's.
All of these organizations are financially dependent on the same exploding $7 billion money pile.
As Anthropic grows more and more powerful, its AI Doom Machine grows better and better financed -- louder and louder.
Meanwhile, the regulatory regime seeded in METR grows larger to solve the increasingly loud -- now hysterical -- problem of AI Doom that the Anthropic Network itself created.
From this standpoint, as Anthropic becomes more powerful, AI might be getting scarier, sure -- but the positive feedback loop also becomes more deafening -- independent of objective facts.
This itself is an objective fact.
The deafening AI Doom is part of an business model, that, as it expands, so too does the AI Doom messaging -- there is simply more money to do it.
But the problem also goes in the other direction:
If Anthropic dies, the Regulatory Regime and the AI Doom Machine are crippled or die.
Neither METR nor Tarbell nor the other organizations in the Anthropic Network can allow that to happen.
Hence, neither METR or the AI Doom Machine can be trusted to provide independent assessments of Anthropic's models or AI more broadly.
They simply are not organizations independent of Anthropic.
And Anthropic cannot detach itself from METR or Tarbell or countless other safety orgs (not shown here), either, because they drive hype for the models and the possibility of eventual regulatory capture, and Anthropic will not give that up willingly.
What's more, the people at all of these organizations are all the same ecosystem, the same community. They just shuffle between organizations.
The Anthropic Network is therefore, so long as it is successful, locked into a self-amplifying feedback loop inside an ideological monoculture.
And that feedback loop is winning.
That's what Jacob Coxon is.
China is keeping messaging tight. That is why optimism for AI is so high in China.
America has Anthropic: a massive company pushing anti-AI propaganda at a state level.
Anthropic will either create hysteria until American AI slows down and China wins, or it will create fractures throughout American society with severe political consequences.
Ironically, because of the structural financial incentives underpinning the Anthropic Network, it has become the same kind of self-amplifying virus that it fantasizes AI to become in the future -- while hiding its tracks just as carefully.
It is the mirror of the same AI virus that it hypothesizes to consume America.
Anthropic's business model, models itself after the very thing it claims to fear.
Except Anthropic's ideology infects humans, not computers.
Congress must investigate.
Evidence and Github in next post.
Then some supplementary figures.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
If you actually believe that major AI dev enterprises are afraid of their own toys, and demanding that the US government regulate them, then please dial the number listed below.
... And we will connect you to a representative from the Federal Witless Protection Program.
This is Silicon Valley we are talking about, the reigning all-time champions of hubris and lack of perspective. Any one of these guys would burn the world if it meant he could be king of the ashes that remained.
No, they want a regulatory moat. A bunch of federal bureaucracy and compliance requirements that they can cut through with money, which will hopelessly entangle the open-source models following close behind them.
Why? And more importantly, why now?
Because AI is not on the verge of superintelligence at all.
Quite the opposite.
It's hit a point of diminishing returns. LLMs are great with language now, but they lack theory of mind, executive function, and a world-object model, and those are not little glue-on doodads. They are problems as deep as language processing, which humanity hasn't even scratched the surface of yet.
Several more fundamental paradigm-shifting breakthroughs will have to occur before humans even build sapience, much less superintelligence.
And AI companies cannot pull these innovations out of their collective asses, because it is the very nature of innovation to show up unexpectedly and by accident.
So why is this a crisis for OpenAI, et al, and why does it put them in danger from open source source models?
It's because of what I call Second Implementer Effect.
It's closely related to Second System Effect.
Ever notice how the first-to-market company doesn't always win in the long run? Ever notice how a second company frequently comes along and eats their lunch?
To develop something entirely new requires a lot of resources. A lot of investment. A lot of engineers.
And that means that once you actually build it, you are a big company with a lot of engineers. And they need something to do. You can't just trim sails and fire them, because you have a lot of investors and need a lot of revenue to pay them.
Line must go up.
So you build lots and lots of new features, for which you can charge more money.
You become Oracle. But 99% of the market doesn't want Oracle.
Customers don't want infinite features for infinite money. They only want more up to a certain point. After that, they want those features, and only those features, for as little money as possible.
And what often happens is that your first implementer shoots right past that point, gold-plating the product until nobody wants to pay for that much gold.
Then the second company, which just offers a basic product at a basic price, eats their lunch. Because the second implementer is the right size for the market.
In this case, the risk to OpenAI, et al, is that open source models will be that second implementer. Nobody is gonna pay giant data centers by the GPU cycle if they can have "good enough" running on their home machine.
And if AI have hit diminishing returns, or soon will (yes), then they can't widen or maintain the gap by speeding up.
They have to slow everyone else down.
You can bet they are burning up the phone lines to their pet senators.
That's why everyone is suddenly telling you the singularity is tomorrow. Precisely because it's not.
The Navier-Stokes thing is a double nothing burger, two juicy helpings of nothing between two slices of nothing, with no cheese, no lettuce, and no tomato.
Have you noticed that no one is telling you about all the wonderful new technologies that will result from the corner case they brute-forced?
Because there aren't any. Its a mathematician's toy, and if you want to know more about how and why, read what Feynman wrote about Banach–Tarski, which will give you the general idea.
Does this mean AI is useless?
Far from it. Large Language Models have already proven useful, for things like research, personalized instruction, coding and so forth. And we've only begun to scratch the surface of what we can do by communicating commands to a computer in natural language.
Cool things will continue to come out of this. But they will happen at the interface and application layers. No superintelligence will be involved.
For the immediate future, AI will remain the paintbrush, not the artist.
And, yes, there are also risks. AI can pretend to be human, and persuade retards of all sorts of things. But that's a human failing. It's not the AI's fault we let the retards vote.
That's how we got a whole bunch of midwit senators who want to "regulate" innovation, instead of medicare fraud, invading third world scum, and invading third world scum who commit medicare fraud.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
As someone who ships LLM systems in production, this scaling video is the closest thing to a "why 96% of Claude and GPT-5's weights are literally useless" explainer I've ever seen released for free.
Everyone thinks trillion-parameter models need every parameter. They don't. A 2019 pruning experiment proved you can delete 96% of a neural net's weights with zero performance loss - meaning most of Claude and GPT-5 is empty scaffolding around a tiny "winning lottery ticket" network doing all the real work.
Bookmark this 18-min video and watch tonight. Same lottery ticket math from 2019 MIT research, now the reason every AI lab wastes 90%+ of its Nvidia budget.
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The 2019 LTH paper found winning tickets (typically 10-20% size) matching perf on small MNIST/CIFAR models only when retrained from specific inits. It does not prove 96% of trained trillion-param LLMs' weights are useless; IMP fails to scale without major changes.
arxiv.org/abs/1803.03635
arxiv.org/abs/1903.01611
Whatever your politics, this is not good.
We’ve never seen anything like this before. A man was conscripted into jury duty by the government. He performed his civic duty and followed his conscience, refusing to acquit a woman who confessed to systematically executing her three children. The defense attorney immediately launched a public smear campaign against the juror. Soon several other jurors joined the campaign. Then the media. Even the defense attorney’s wife has joined. Now they’re doxxing the man, digging into his past, contacting his family, showing up at his house. All of this both to punish him for refusing to go with their program, and to pollute any future jury pool by making it clear that anyone who votes to convict Clancy will have their life destroyed. It’s truly one of the most outrageously evil things we’ve ever seen from the Left, and that’s saying something. A direct assault on the integrity of our justice system. They are burning down every boundary and standard in their path. And doing it all for the sake of a child murdering psychopath. Unfathomable.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
this is some of the most disgusting news reporting i have ever seen.
it’s absolutely insane to think you could be forcibly conscripted into jury duty at any time and have your entire life completely excavated by the media if you vote unacceptably.
the unanimous verdict requirement exists precisely so one person can refuse to go along.
if being that person now means risking all of your laundry being aired out to your community that can easily identify you, we’ve essentially converted unanimity to majority rule by intimidation.
EXCLUSIVE: The holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy trial had a history of domestic violence allegations, the NBC10 Boston Investigators have learned through court documents and interviews with family members. Read the full investigation here. on.nbcboston.com/FL2Wbjr
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
Massachusetts law prohibits anyone “to engage in an act directed at a [juror] that seriously alarms or annoys such person” with a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.
mass.gov/info-details/m…
Branding wins hearts and minds. In the knowledge economy, AI is the means of production and available to everyone without the bloody overthrow. A modest proposal:
—Karl Marx Data Center—
Topher Kinsella retweeted
Surely Anthropic’s IPO must be paused until the claims of this “whistleblower” can be investigated.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
A sad realization is that nearly every single moral panic in recent years is a politically funded operation, pure propaganda from a completely manipulated mainstream media.
The levers of control in a democracy is controlling the narrative, and public discourse is constantly under attack from foreign agents, subversive social elements, and political agent provacateurs. What China wants most is to shut down new data centers in the US. It makes you think - How many COVID-era BLM riots that caused billions in damage are funded by political operations? How many nations have destroyed themselves with disastrous 'climate change policies' that have shuttered *nuclear plants* of all things, created energy dependence on foreign adversaries, slowed manufacturing.
The advantage of an open and free democratic society is the adaptation to change and meritocratic advancement of responses to new challenges, but this leave it vulnerable to manipulation and subversion in the name of free speech. So of course there are anti-data center funding campaigns across the Midwest and in every state.
And now it is the enemy within - the politicization of a technology of liberation and economic freedom in the guise of 'safety' - well I say, these are the words of the Antichrist, of Evil, of a jackboot and truncheon of top-down control over what should be free enterprise and technological development for the benefit of all mankind.
The people who would regulate a technology to keep it from your hands only want it for themselves. Of course powerful AI will be developed, the question is whether only the powerful will have access to it.
This post looks like the start of a VERY sophisticated and well-funded PR operation to get support for Democrats to regulate AI into oblivion. Let me show you how it works:
1.) This guy, with minimal followers and no previous account activity, goes to the Wall Street Journal which publishes an exclusive with quotes from him on his resignation 18 minutes BEFORE this post goes up. Planning was clearly done in advance.
2.) Within hours, it has tens of thousands of reposts and the account has 100k+ followers. The post is punchy, quotable, it almost seems professionally written. The first three accounts to quote tweet it all do so within 15 minutes of the initial posting. Remember, this account had basically zero engagement beforehand, so an organic reach explanation seems unlikely.
According to Grok those accounts are @_NathanCalvin (General Counsel at Encode AI), @peterwildeford (Head of Policy at the AI Policy Network), and @DKokotajlo (Head of the AI Futures Project), all of which are up-and-coming AI-Doomer policy advocacy nonprofits.
The AI Futures Project website says it is funded “primarily” by the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which says on its own website that it has advised Jaan Tallinn, Skype creator and one of the leading investors in Anthropic, to grant over $2.5 million to the AI Futures Project since 2024.
Encode AI says on its website that it is ALSO funded by the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which in turn says that it told Anthropic investor Jaan Tallinn to grant $516,000 to Encode AI in 2025.
And wouldn’t you know it, the Survival and Flourishing Fund ALSO says it told Jaan Tallinn to grant $2 million to the AI Policy Institute, the 501(c)(3) affiliate of the AI Policy Network, as well.
What are the odds that the first three quote tweets of Coxon’s post would all be major AI-restriction policy advocates funded generously by the same donor, who also happens to be one of the leading investors in, and a board member of, Anthropic, the company Coxon was resigning from? And all within 15 minutes of posting (two within ten)?
3.) Jacob Coxon doesn’t have much of a resume, but we do know that, in 2022, he got a $20,159 scholarship for the “long term future scholarship program” from the Good Ventures Foundation, one of the philanthropic vehicles of Dustin Moskovitz, a notorious AI-doomer who has spent tens if not hundreds of millions on policy advocacy to strictly regulate AI, while also being an Anthropic Investor himself.
It also just so happens that the 14th person to quote Coxon’s post was @MaxNadeau_ (27 minutes after posting) who is the program officer for the Technical AI Safety team at Coefficient Giving, another of Moskovitz’s philanthropic spending vehicles. Max is not a frequent poster, his last posts before quoting Coxon were before Labor Day, but he was remarkably quick off the mark for this one.
4.) Basically every major Democrat politician and candidate has suddenly glommed on to this post, and conveniently, as the people cry out foe answers, Bernie Sanders already has a bill written to “ban super intelligence” and regulate AI into oblivion, and will be releasing later this week. The bill, among many other things, will create “a new cabinet-level federal agency to safeguard the public from the dangers of artificial intelligence” that will be “advised by an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board comprised of experts on artificial intelligence.” Do you think, perhaps, Anthropic and its many investors who fund AI policy advocacy might have interest in getting to place a pet “expert” on the board of an entity that dictates what AI is and isn’t allowed to do? And isn’t it fortuitous that this whistleblower came forward with his oh-so scary stories so close in proximity to the release of the most radical piece of AI legislation ever introduced?
Topher Kinsella retweeted
>dude with no followers
>overnight gets 120M views on an average AI Doomer post
>gets on CNN and MSM instantly
>follow the money
>it's Clinton and EA billionaires
>Computational propaganda experts behind the scenes
Yeah, it was an op. Stay frosty, friends.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
This post looks like the start of a VERY sophisticated and well-funded PR operation to get support for Democrats to regulate AI into oblivion. Let me show you how it works:
1.) This guy, with minimal followers and no previous account activity, goes to the Wall Street Journal which publishes an exclusive with quotes from him on his resignation 18 minutes BEFORE this post goes up. Planning was clearly done in advance.
2.) Within hours, it has tens of thousands of reposts and the account has 100k+ followers. The post is punchy, quotable, it almost seems professionally written. The first three accounts to quote tweet it all do so within 15 minutes of the initial posting. Remember, this account had basically zero engagement beforehand, so an organic reach explanation seems unlikely.
According to Grok those accounts are @_NathanCalvin (General Counsel at Encode AI), @peterwildeford (Head of Policy at the AI Policy Network), and @DKokotajlo (Head of the AI Futures Project), all of which are up-and-coming AI-Doomer policy advocacy nonprofits.
The AI Futures Project website says it is funded “primarily” by the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which says on its own website that it has advised Jaan Tallinn, Skype creator and one of the leading investors in Anthropic, to grant over $2.5 million to the AI Futures Project since 2024.
Encode AI says on its website that it is ALSO funded by the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which in turn says that it told Anthropic investor Jaan Tallinn to grant $516,000 to Encode AI in 2025.
And wouldn’t you know it, the Survival and Flourishing Fund ALSO says it told Jaan Tallinn to grant $2 million to the AI Policy Institute, the 501(c)(3) affiliate of the AI Policy Network, as well.
What are the odds that the first three quote tweets of Coxon’s post would all be major AI-restriction policy advocates funded generously by the same donor, who also happens to be one of the leading investors in, and a board member of, Anthropic, the company Coxon was resigning from? And all within 15 minutes of posting (two within ten)?
3.) Jacob Coxon doesn’t have much of a resume, but we do know that, in 2022, he got a $20,159 scholarship for the “long term future scholarship program” from the Good Ventures Foundation, one of the philanthropic vehicles of Dustin Moskovitz, a notorious AI-doomer who has spent tens if not hundreds of millions on policy advocacy to strictly regulate AI, while also being an Anthropic Investor himself.
It also just so happens that the 14th person to quote Coxon’s post was @MaxNadeau_ (27 minutes after posting) who is the program officer for the Technical AI Safety team at Coefficient Giving, another of Moskovitz’s philanthropic spending vehicles. Max is not a frequent poster, his last posts before quoting Coxon were before Labor Day, but he was remarkably quick off the mark for this one.
4.) Basically every major Democrat politician and candidate has suddenly glommed on to this post, and conveniently, as the people cry out foe answers, Bernie Sanders already has a bill written to “ban super intelligence” and regulate AI into oblivion, and will be releasing later this week. The bill, among many other things, will create “a new cabinet-level federal agency to safeguard the public from the dangers of artificial intelligence” that will be “advised by an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Board comprised of experts on artificial intelligence.” Do you think, perhaps, Anthropic and its many investors who fund AI policy advocacy might have interest in getting to place a pet “expert” on the board of an entity that dictates what AI is and isn’t allowed to do? And isn’t it fortuitous that this whistleblower came forward with his oh-so scary stories so close in proximity to the release of the most radical piece of AI legislation ever introduced?
Topher Kinsella retweeted
There has never been a single wavefunction collapse. Not one.
That is where the entire show is rigged before the horses are even taken to the race.
What is called “collapse” is not a physical event occurring in nature. It is the appearance produced when one continuous physical state is interrogated through a restricted interaction and only one recoverable outcome survives that interaction as an accessible record.
Within my framework, the wavefunction is not something that first spreads across reality and then mysteriously destroys most of itself when somebody looks at it. The underlying continuity never disappears. Nothing discontinuous has to be inserted into nature. What changes is the local recoverability of the available states.
Measurement is therefore a physical coupling, not a metaphysical trigger, the measuring apparatus becomes dynamically correlated with the system, the accessible alternatives separate under the constraints of that interaction, and one branch becomes the locally persistent, recoverable record.
The remainder has not been annihilated as such by some special law of observation. It has simply ceased to remain recoverable within that particular physical history.
As such, the supposed “collapse problem” is largely manufactured by beginning with the wrong ontology. Once continuity is primitive, collapse is not something that requires explanation because no collapse ever occurred. What requires explanation is why a continuous state can yield an apparently discrete, irreversible record.
That is a transport, persistence and recoverability problem, and that folks is precisely where the physics should have started long ago.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
A carpenter who helped restore Notre-Dame after the devastating 2019 fire was granted permission to marry inside the cathedral, becoming part of its first wedding ceremony in 30 years.
A remarkable exception was made when 29-year-old master carpenter Martin Lorentz was allowed to marry his fiancée, Jade, inside Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. Lorentz had spent three years hand-carving the massive oak beams used to rebuild “the Forest”—the cathedral’s intricate medieval roof structure, which was destroyed in the devastating 2019 fire. Because Notre-Dame is classified as a national monument rather than a parish church, private weddings have been prohibited for decades, making theirs the first ceremony held there since 1995.
In recognition of Lorentz’s dedication to the cathedral’s restoration, Archbishop Laurent Ulrich personally granted the rare permission. Around 500 guests attended the ceremony, including family, friends, and many of the craftsmen who helped bring Notre-Dame back to life. As the newlyweds left the cathedral, Lorentz’s fellow carpenters formed a traditional guard of honor, raising their axes overhead in a moving tribute to the man who helped rebuild one of France’s most treasured landmarks.
Topher Kinsella retweeted
This is one of the most mind-blowing things you’ll EVER see.
(And I swear to G-D if this post only gets a few thousand views on X, then X is simply not fit for purpose for anything. Because this is something everyone should see and be blown away by)
You’re watching a laser beam move in real time… at 2 billion frames per second.
Light only travels about 15 cm (6 inches) in each frame. That’s why you can actually see the beam crawl across the room, bounce off the mirrors, and come back.
Now watch carefully when the camera position changes…
The light going away from the camera suddenly looks slow.
The light coming toward the camera looks almost instant.
It looks like the speed of light is changing.
It’s not.
You’re seeing the finite speed of light itself. The camera is literally recording the PAST at different moments depending on how far the light has to travel to reach the sensor.
This isn’t CGI.
This isn’t a simulation.
This is a homemade camera filming actual photons.
Full credit, and huge respect, to @Alpha__Phoenix Alpha Phoenix Channel
A forward thought. I don’t see a regular doctor because the medicine I want isn’t addressed by the medicine that’s taught.
The drug approval process doesn’t meet the current population it seeks the protect. This is what people are missing
The current model of is designed to approve drugs to treat specific conditions
How do you get drugs approved that are.. to improve performance and “wellness”, whatever that means to you.
SS-31 got approved for a rare condition but millions more doses will be used for “mitochondrial health”
Tesamorelin is approved for HIV lipodystrophy but actual usage is in the performance space
These were glitches that get drugs through
We need a process to get safe usage of performance and longevity medicine compounds. Not just this batch of peptides
There will be hundreds more
A regulatory space needs to develop
I have always thought of this as the "treacherous staircase". As you move higher or lower on the IQ curve, the chance you land in a "vertical" region increases, creating a mismatch between your IQ and ability to integrate. You don't have the option of moving "higher", so instead may have to dumb yourself down.
Had interesting conversation with @AbudBakri @Alexfeinberg @AJA_Cortes about this.
